I never understand why people think that when someone finds fault in someone else's mindset/religion/politics it's assumed they are "writing the other person off".
I find fault in nearly every person in some way or other, including myself, no person is perfect. That doesn't mean I automatically write any of them off. I actually find the accusation somewhat insulting. Just because that's how many people operate is no excuse for assuming everyone does. That mindset is antithetical to learning and understanding and only reinforces fanatical 'us VS them' thinking while denying the possibility of 'we'.

Tsu said “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
If you write off your 'enemy' as underserving of being understood, you hurt yourself more than you hurt them.

*ban
Fanatics Media
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gSy7W15K6o

radical islamic terrorism is the usage of a rigid fundamentalist interpretation as a justification predicated on abysmal politics.

ill-thought and short sighted politics is the tinder.
hyper-extremist fundamentalism is the match.

ISIS would never even have existed without al qeada,who themselves would not have existed without US interventionism into:iran,egypt and saudi arabia.

and this is going back almost 70 years.

so lets cut the shit with apologetics towards americas horrific blunders in regards to foreign policy.actions have consequences,there is a cause and effect,and when even in the 50's the CIA KNEW,and have stated as much,that there would be "blowback" from americas persistent interventionism in those regions.which stated goals (in more honest times) was to destabilize,dethrone (remove leaders not friendly to american business) and install leaders more pliant and easily manipulated (often times deposing democratically elected leaders to install despots.the shah and sadam come to mind).

see:chalmers johnson-blowback
see: Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard.

or read this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

so to act like islamic radicals just fell from the fucking sky,and popped out from thin air,due to something that has been boiling for almost 70 years is fucking ludicrous.

radicalization of certain groups in populations have long been understood,and well documented.

and religion,though the most popular,and easiest tool to motivate and justify heinous acts of violence for a political goal,is not the SOLE tool.

nationalism is another tool used to radicalize a population.
see:the nazi party.

but it always comes down to:tribalism of one kind or another.

@transmorpher

so when you use this "ISIS themselves, in their own magazine (Dabiq) go out of their way to explain that they are not motivated by the xenophobia or the US fighting wars in their countries. They make specifically state that their motivation is simply because you aren't muslim. You can go an read it for yourself. They are self confessed fanatics that need to kill you to go to heaven. "

to solidify your argument,all i see is someone ignoring the history and pertinent reasons why that group even exists.

you may recall that ISIS was once Al qeada,and they were SO radical,SO fanatical and SO violent in their execution of religious zeal..that even al qeada had to distance themselves.

because,again...
religion is used as the justification to enact terrorism due to bad politics.
but the GOAL is always political.

you may remember that in the early 90's the twin towers were attacked and it was the first time americans heard of al qeada,and osama bil laden.

who made a statement back in 1993 and then reiterated in 2001 after 9/11 that the stated goal (one of them at least) was for the removal of ALL american military presence in saudi arabia (there was more,but it mostly dealt with american military presence in the middle east).

but where did this osama dude come from?
why was he so pissed at america?
just what was this dudes deal?

turns out he was already on the road to radicalization during the 80's.coming from an extremely wealthy saudi arabian family but had become extremely religious,and he saw western interventionism as a plague,and western culture as a disease.

he left the comforts of his extremely wealthy family to fight against this western incursion into his religious homeland.he traveled to afghanistan to join the mujahideen to combat the russians,who were actually fighting the americans in a proxy war.and WE trained osama.WE armed him and trained him in the tactics of warfare to,behind the scenes,slowly drain russia of resources in our 50 year long cold war.

how's that for irony.

osama was not,as american media like to paint the picture "anti-democratic or anti-freedom".he saw the culture of consumerism,greed and sexual liberation as an affront to his religious understandings.

this attitude can be directly linked to sayyid qtib from egypt.who visited the united states as an exchange student in 1954.now he wasnt radicalized yet,but when he returned to egypt he didnt recognize his own country.

he saw coco cola signs everywhere,and women wearing shorts skirts,and jukeboxs playing that devils music "rock and roll".

he feared for his country,his neighbors,his community.
just like a southern baptist fears for your soul,sayyid feared for the soul of his country and that this new "westernization" was a direct threat to the tenants laid down by islam.

so he began to speak out.
he began to hold rallies challenging the leadership to turn away from this evil,and people started to take notice,and some people agreed.

change does not come easy for some people,and this is especially true for those who hold strong religious ideologies.
(insert religion here) tends to be extremely traditional.

so sayyid started to gain popularity for his challenge if this new "westernization",and this did not go un-noticed by the egyptian leadership,who at that time WANTED western companies to invest in egypt.(that whole political landscape is totally different now,but back then egypt was fairly liberal,and moderately secular).

so instead of allowing sayyid to speak his mind.
they threw him in prison.
for 4 years.
in solitary.

well,he wasn't radicalized when he went IN to prison,but when he came OUT he sure was.

and to shorten this story,sayyid was the first founder of the muslim brotherhood,whose later incarnation broke off to form?

can you guess?
i bet you can!
al qeade

@Fairbs ,@newtboy and @Asmo have all laid out points why radicalization happens,and the conditions that can enflame and amplify that radicalization.

so i wont repeat what they have already said.

but let us take dearborn michigan as an example.
the largest muslim community in america.
how many terrorists come from dearborn?
how many radicals reside there?
how many mosque preach intolerance and "death to america"?
how many imams quietly sanction fatwas from the local IHOP against american imperialistic pigs?

none.

becuase if you live in stable community,with a functioning government,and you are able to find work and support your family,and your kids can get an education.

the chances of you become radicalized is pretty much:zippo.

the specific religion has NOTHING to do with terrorism.
religion is simply the means in which the justifications to enact violent atrocities is born.

it's the politics stupid.

you could do a thought experiment and flip the religions around,but keep the same political parameters and do you know WHAT we find?

that the terrorists would be CHRISTIAN terrorists.

or do i really need to go all the way back to the fucking dark ages to make my point?

it's
the
politics
stupid.

Terrorists are usually not from countries that America or even previously the Soviets have been bombing the shit out of.

ISIS themselves, in their own magazine (Dabiq) go out of their way to explain that they are not motivated by the xenophobia or the US fighting wars in their countries. They make specifically state that their motivation is simply because you aren't muslim. You can go an read it for yourself. They are self confessed fanatics that need to kill you to go to heaven.

The countries with one of the most intolerant cultures, are some of the best educated and wealthiest people on the planet. Countries such as UAE and Saudi Arabia. These countries are best buds with the west, and yet they still jail women when they are raped (not the rapist), and they stone and crucify protesters asking for human rights. These are the actual laws, not a few extremists, or terrorists, it's the law of the country. They are intolerant and oppressive by law, thanks to their theocratic ruling system.

To sum up the above, it's not an educational issue, it's not a poverty issues, it's not a revenge issue. It's culture, attitudes, and religion.

Was not Aleppo held by "moderate" rebels, not Daesh or other religious fanatics? I suppose that would mean they ARE mostly wiped out now, but only recently.

Foreign fighters on your side doesn't make your fight illegitimate for either side. Having ONLY foreign fighters on either side would mean it's no longer a civil war but is now an invasion. Thanks to targeting the local citizens first (fighters or not), that may be where we are now.

@Stormsinger

i can agree with the intent of your comment but i think it ignores a far greater,and possibly more dangerous facet of this current election cycle.

look,
when the DNC began it's political play to nudge sanders out,and was changing the rules of application to keep laurence lessig off the ballot.it became obvious (to me anyways) that clinton was tagged for the run,and the DNC was attempting to steal sanders thunder,which was shockingly impressive,and redirect it to boost clinton.

but the DNC had failed to successfully execute this plan because they didn't understand the true nature of those sanders supporters.so their plan backfired.

the RNC did almost the EXACT same thing with trump.they hated the man,wanted nothing to do with him,but they saw how powerful his campaign was picking up steam and they attempted to play the long con.for a year they allowed trump to do and say whatever he wanted,with little rebuttal or regard.they watched as trump got bigger,and bolder,and more brash.they watched his numbers climb consistently..and they waited.and after a year,they attempted to step in and steal trumps thunder by offering a more "reasonable" candidate.

ok ok...enough with the trump.
you want cruz?...nope.
how about ben carson? he is a sweet guy and BLACK....nope.
marco rubio?he is spanish with immigrant parents...nope
john kasich?...nope

because the RNC didn't get it either.they too,attempted to steal trumps thunder and their plan backfired.

liberals didnt get it.
conservatives didnt get it.
corporate media didnt get it.
political pundits,who get PAID to get it,didnt get it.
pollsters didnt get it.
suzy mcprettyface who reads the teleprompter didnt get it.

but the americans who lived in those dead midwestern towns got it.they may not understand neoliberalism,but they could see the effects by the boarded up stores,closed banks and the only jobs to have were the night shift at the one fast food joint left in the entire town.

these are the very same people who may not fully comprehend what the bank bailouts meant,or how austerity affected them,but they understood that the biggest industry in their town was no longer coal,or steel,or fishing but production of meth.they saw small shops close and crumble under the weight of a walmart superstore,and chains of pill mills.

they watched as construction jobs dried up,and private prisons expanded.there are some towns in texas and florida that literally survive on the incarceration of other americans.so they may not have fully understood that the "war on drugs" is actually a war on people,but they certainly could see the after-effects.

and these people were being told..everyday..that the economy was doing great.
that unemployment was at an all time low.
that the american dream was still attainable.
and at the very same time they were also being told that if you were on food stamps you were a loser,and a leech.
that if you lost your home it was YOUR fault.
that if you couldnt find a job you were lazy.
and if you DID happen to find a job,but it paid minimum,well then you should have gone to college or made better choices.

and since when did it become a virtue to exploit the hopeless and the desperate? to take advantage of someones misfortune and pay them pennies to do a job,but god forbid someone actually demands what they feel they are worth,because then you are accused of being a rip off artist!

when did THIS tactic become and american ideology?

and that really is the core nugget of this tale.
the ideology of america.
the amercian dream.
it was dead,and those people finally got it.
and there is NOTHING more fanatical or zealous than a defeated idealist.

so you can judge them for voting trump,but i think we should also understand WHY they voted for trump.

chris hedges wrote a truthdig piece that is far more eloquent and illuminating than anything i could ever put to paper.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/we_are_all_deplorables_20161120

Congratulations! Your comment on Religious Fanatic Vs. Pizza God at UCF has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

CRISPR-Cas9
Bring me a gene
Encoding for a specific protein
Make a few snips at this coded locus
You work so well inside a streptococcus
Cas9
I'm so alone
Without your scissors in my chromosome
Cut me up and do it clean
CRISPR-Cas9 bring me a gene

CRISPR-Cas9
Keep me a gene
A viral sequence you've already seen
Chopped into bits and stored as genomic
With clustered repeats
That are palindromic
Cas9
Bind with this code
Use it to target infections of old
Immunized like a vaccine
CRISPR-Cas9 keep me a gene

CRISPR-Cas9
Cut me a gene
With a precision that I've never seen
Unzip a strand and interrogate it
Seek out your sequence until you locate it
Cas9
Lock into place
And do your job as endonuclease
Chop just like a guillotine
CRISPR-Cas9 cut me a gene

Snip snap!
CRISPR-Cas9
CRISPR-Cas9

CRISPR-Cas9
Bring me a gene
By commandeering my repair routine
A strand to match your severed location
For some homologous recombination
Cas9
Cheap and precise
Rewriting genomes from microbes to mice
And soon the humble human being
CRISPR-Cas9 bring me a gene

CRISPR-Cas9
Give us a gene
Give us a miracle like that one Nazarene
‘Cause giving the lame their legs and the blind their sight is
In view for dystrophy and retinitis
But CRISPR-Cas9
What if you fall
Outside our power and inside us all
That really could incite a scene

When this terrible wonderful power unsettling
Opens the door to unethically meddle
Is ev’ry congenital malady bettered
Sufficient to warrant genetics unfettered
To modify man in the manner of Gattaca
Raise up a mammoth or make a rattata
Dramatical medical means to eradicate aging
Or cancer or make a fanatic
A mass epidemic a weapon nefarious
Single mosquito to wipe out malaria
Send in a viral infection to ferry a
Cure to the cells of an HIV carrier
Freed of disease as we're free to uncover
What nature and accident failed to discover
And free to be other than
All that we ever have been

CRISPR-Cas9
CRISPR-Cas9

Oh CRISPR-Cas9
Bring us a gene
You wondrous ribonucleoprotein
You have the power to vanquish or save us
Who would have thought that the microbe that gave us
Cas9
S. pyogenes
The source of strep and flesh-eating disease
Housed this marvellous machine
Full of uses great and obscene
CRISPR-Cas9 bring us
Please don't sting us
Cas9 bring us a gene

With adenine
And thiamine
Incite a scene
Cas9 bring us a gene!

I used to think the same thing, because that seems logical, because you're a logical person, but for a fundamentalist's mind, it's not the case at all.

ISIS themselves have stated in their magazine "Dabiq" that the war and bombing is the smallest concern for their motivation. Sam Harris reads this magazine, and about 29 minutes in to this podcast, the magazine goes out of it's way to mention that US/Allied invasion is not the motivator.
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-do-jihadists-really-want/
The truth is much scarier than my rational imagination could have ever come up with.

Most extremists also aren't people who have been affected by war and just want revenge or have mental war scars. The people flying the planes in 9/11 for example were western university educated, engineers, doctors. And other extremists often have grown up in western countries.

These people are fanatics

But they say they are and they are counted as being Christians. imo anyone who says they accept christ is a christian. I've known many Christians in my youth. None of them had the fanatical thinking of what you are talking about. I guess it comes to how you define them. I would say in general very few Christians(and im guessing Muslims also) are fanatical people who live/believe strictly by the book. Not that any of it matters really.

Anyway disusing religion...blah,blah,blah.

Then I claim that they aren't actually Christians. The bible is clear on most of that, like stoning to death infidels. If they don't believe in that, what they believe is the word of god, then they are just selective fans of Christianity and not actual Christians.

That is exactly the argument given to paint all Muslims as death dealing fanatics, that their holy book demands it so they must be...turn about is fair play.

No.

There is an unofficial sequel written on the premise that Mordor was Middle-earth's first progressive, technological civilisation; which was thrown down by effectively a crusade of religious fanatics. I didn't get very far into it (because I was reading it as a pdf on a computer monitor), but Saruman's motivation at least makes substantially more sense in that interpretation.

This video gets somewhat hard to follow when half the time I can't tell if they're saying 'Soren' or mispronouncing 'Sauron'.

@Jinx
this is why i specifically titled this "third wave",which i am fairly new in understanding,but it does not resemble the feminism that i have been exposed to.

i have many feminist friends who resemble nothing like this "third wave" of feminism.the deeper i delve the more fanatical and zealous i find their positions.

the feminists i know do not hate men.
do not seek to subvert them or marginalize them.
they seek for equality,for human dignity,for a right to be/choose who they wish to be,and they extend that to men as well.

which is very much a humanist approach.

but THIS flavor of feminism is a whole new animal.

if you own a penis,
you are evil.

@newtboy

I don't think I'm much in danger of contradiction in suggesting that you yourself have yet to crack a book of feminist theory or engage with a feminist activist making no more extravagant sex/gender claims that the one you quote from that unimpeachable source, dictionary.com (and when did dictionaries move from being an aid to understanding obscure words to the ultimate arbiters of political thought?).

There is no separating the movement from the ideology; this is an ancient truism. Without the movement, the idea dies. Without the idea, the movement doesn't exist. My unfollowable second paragraph comprises only examples of actual, nasty feminist doctrine which I have encountered in the real world, and could probably even document with a few google searches. I can hardly be blamed that this group is so dissolute, so indiscriminately inclusive of maniacs and criminal fanatics that no single representative feminist can be found, no central text can answer for the whole.

But for the sake of increasingly and inexplicably divisive argument, let's attempt to isolate just that 'small-f' feminism in the definition you give: "feminism: noun: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men", which I will unconditionally repudiate and abjure, for the following reasons.

i) Let's be boring and start with the name. A name that has rightly attracted much criticism, and which Virginia Woolf - not a feminist, merely a devastatingly intelligent and talented woman - called "a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete".* Anyone can see the defect here, an implicitly sexist term that apparently calls for the advancement of one sex at the expense of - whom? Well, whom do you think? A special politics for women only and exclusionary of those other incidental members of the human species, once allies and comrades and now relegated to the other side of what has become a literally unending antagonism.

You may say, "it's only a name", but how little else your dictionary leaves me to examine. No, were there no other social or intellectual harm in feminism, I would reject it on the ground of its name alone.

ii, sailor) Would that there were a known equivalent for the term 'racialism' that could relate to the cultural fiction of gender. The demand for women's rights necessarily requires that such a category 'women' exists, and is in need of special protection. Well what virtue is there in any woman that exists in no man? What mannish fault that finds no womanly echo? Then how is this distinction maintained except through supernatural thinking?

There are no women; and if there are no women, then there is nothing for feminism to accomplish. You may sign me up at any time for the doctrine of 'anti-sexism' or of 'individualism', but I will spit on anyone who advocates for 'women's rights'.

iii) This has been touched on before, and praise satan for that time saving mercy, but I reject the implicit assumption that there is a natural societal opposition to the principle of sex equality and that those who fail to declare for this, again, historically very recent dogma fall by default into that opposing force.



*The quote is worth taking in its fuller context, written in a time when the word 'feminist' was a slur on those heroes whose suffering and idealism has been so ghoulishly plundered for the tawdry use of @bareboards2 and her cohort:

"What more fitting than to destroy an old word, a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete? The word ‘feminist’ is the word indicated. That word, according to the dictionary, means ‘one who champions the rights of women’. Since the only right, the right to earn a living, has been won, the word no longer has a meaning. And a word without a meaning is a dead word, a corrupt word. Let us therefore celebrate this occasion by cremating the corpse. Let us write that word in large black letters on a sheet of foolscap; then solemnly apply a match to the paper. Look, how it burns! What a light dances over the world! Now let us bray the ashes in a mortar with a goose-feather pen, and declare in unison singing together that anyone who uses that word in future is a ring-the-bell-and-run-away-man, a mischief maker, a groper among old bones, the proof of whose defilement is written in a smudge of dirty water upon his face. The smoke has died down; the word is destroyed. Observe, Sir, what has happened as the result of our celebration. The word ‘feminist’ is destroyed; the air is cleared; and in that clearer air what do we see? Men and women working together for the same cause. The cloud has lifted from the past too. What were they working for in the nineteenth century — those queer dead women in their poke bonnets and shawls? The very same cause for which we are working now. ‘Our claim was no claim of women’s rights only;’— it is Josephine Butler who speaks —‘it was larger and deeper; it was a claim for the rights of all — all men and women — to the respect in their persons of the great principles of Justice and Equality and Liberty.’"

It's really not correct to say we're all human and we have a responsibility to care for one another and so forth when so many of the refugees are dangerous, mediaeval fanatics.

It's not that they're predominantly brownish-skinned; it's not that they're poor or uneducated; it's not that they come from some other country, as if geography means anything; it's that they're devout and practising members of a cult of murderous, totalitarian evil. Europe has enough fascists already, we don't want any more.

The compassionate, humanitarian thing to do would be machine gun all the muslims at the border, and welcome the rest of the refugees with open arms. Migration is a human right; some people just aren't human.