War?

Any political discussion should go here. This subforum will be moderated differently than other forums.
Forum rules
1.) No personal threats.
2.) No doxxing/revealing personal information.
3.) No spam.
4.) No circumventing press restrictions.
5.) No racism, sexism, homophobia, or derogatory posts.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
orathaic
Bronze Donator
Bronze Donator
Posts: 1537
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:20 pm
Karma: 394
Contact:

War?

#1 Post by orathaic » Tue Feb 26, 2019 8:21 am

Indian airstrikes in Pakistan?

Dejan0707
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:15 pm
Location: Dante's Inferno
Karma: 105
Contact:

Re: War?

#2 Post by Dejan0707 » Tue Feb 26, 2019 9:55 am

Make love not war.
1

leon1122
Posts: 437
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:43 pm
Karma: 256
Contact:

Re: War?

#3 Post by leon1122 » Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:23 am

They're just attacking "terrorists". Seems like India has learned quite a lot from it big brother, the USA, who also likes to airstrike "terrorists".

Randomizer
Posts: 750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:04 am
Karma: 225
Contact:

Re: War?

#4 Post by Randomizer » Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:38 pm

It's a "religious" war, nothing to see there.

User avatar
orathaic
Bronze Donator
Bronze Donator
Posts: 1537
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:20 pm
Karma: 394
Contact:

Re: War?

#5 Post by orathaic » Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:22 pm

Religion being used as an excuse for war does not make it the fault of religion...

This is a border conflict over the unsettled Kasmir region.

Octavious
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 2605
Contact:

Re: War?

#6 Post by Octavious » Wed Feb 27, 2019 10:56 am

It's a genuine security issue, wearing a thick layer of national pride make up and the heady aroma of Eau de Bigoterie . India can't tolerate a neighbour harbouring militia groups carrying out atrocities on its soil. It can't afford a major war, but also can't afford not to be seen taking action. Expect a lot of hot air and face saving bluster, and because both nations aren't very good at it expect a few people shot for good measure. Then it will go quiet and they can go back to hating each other in peace again.
2

Octavious
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 2605
Contact:

Re: War?

#7 Post by Octavious » Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:13 pm

The big question, of course, is will this have any implications for the cricket world cup?

https://twitter.com/sachin_rt/status/10 ... 30912?s=19

Potentially dark times...

Senlac
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:23 pm
Karma: 166
Contact:

Re: War?

#8 Post by Senlac » Wed Feb 27, 2019 3:09 pm

orathaic wrote:
Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:22 pm
Religion being used as an excuse for war does not make it the fault of religion...
I hope you make an exception to this theory in the case of Jihad, where war is actually written into the religion as a justified recourse :-D
1

Dejan0707
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:15 pm
Location: Dante's Inferno
Karma: 105
Contact:

Re: War?

#9 Post by Dejan0707 » Wed Feb 27, 2019 4:39 pm

Senlac wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 3:09 pm
orathaic wrote:
Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:22 pm
Religion being used as an excuse for war does not make it the fault of religion...
I hope you make an exception to this theory in the case of Jihad, where war is actually written into the religion as a justified recourse :-D
That actually is not true. Most religions know some kind of holy war, and world greates holy wars were made in the name of christianity. Crusades were largest known holy wars that targeted liberation of holy land and where up to 50 milion people died in the process. Then there is thirty year war between protestant and catholic nations which ravaged Germany and cost her up to one third of the total population.

Holy wars are not built in inside the religion, they are the product of it. Today Islam carry the stigma of the most fundamental religion but if past is taken into consideration it is not even close to how christianity fared. It took Europe 1000 years to recover from it fundamentalistic tendencies, so lets hope Islam would be smarter than that.

Senlac
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:23 pm
Karma: 166
Contact:

Re: War?

#10 Post by Senlac » Wed Feb 27, 2019 6:07 pm

Dejan0707 wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 4:39 pm
Senlac wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 3:09 pm
orathaic wrote:
Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:22 pm
Religion being used as an excuse for war does not make it the fault of religion...
I hope you make an exception to this theory in the case of Jihad, where war is actually written into the religion as a justified recourse :-D
That actually is not true. Most religions know some kind of holy war, and world greates holy wars were made in the name of christianity. Crusades were largest known holy wars that targeted liberation of holy land and where up to 50 milion people died in the process. Then there is thirty year war between protestant and catholic nations which ravaged Germany and cost her up to one third of the total population.

Holy wars are not built in inside the religion, they are the product of it. Today Islam carry the stigma of the most fundamental religion but if past is taken into consideration it is not even close to how christianity fared. It took Europe 1000 years to recover from it fundamentalistic tendencies, so lets hope Islam would be smarter than that.
Oh absolutely agreed in this history lesson. If there’s one subject I love is history & the fact that, “The only thing we learn from history is that we don’t learn from history” :-D

I would comment thus however;
Past “Holy” wars were very often disguised “Political” wars & not really of a religious nature, as may be the case with the current border dispute between India & Pakistan, that initiated this discussion.
However a Jihad is specifically a war fought by believers against non-believers. It didn’t matter much one’s nationality or political beliefs recently in the conflict fought in Syria/Iraq. The Jihadists killed you for being a non-believer of any nationality/creed.

I’d say if a war that is specifically fought on religious grounds against other people, who differ on religious beliefs alone, then religion can definitely be held responsible.
Responsibility for the appalling loss of life amongst Yazidi & Kurdish people caused recently purely for being non-believers, can absolutely be laid at the door of the responsible religion & nowhere else.
1

TrPrado
Site Moderator
Site Moderator
Posts: 1904
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:22 pm
Location: OOOOOOKLAHOMA WHERE THE WIND COMES SWEEPING DOWN THE PLAIN
Karma: 527
Contact:

Re: War?

#11 Post by TrPrado » Wed Feb 27, 2019 6:23 pm

Octavious wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:13 pm
The big question, of course, is will this have any implications for the cricket world cup?

https://twitter.com/sachin_rt/status/10 ... 30912?s=19

Potentially dark times...
That’s where the conflict will ultimately be settled, obviously. The Prime Minister of Pakistan will challenge the Prime Minister of India and they will each be on their national cricket teams. I’d say that gives the edge to Pakistan, honestly. That’s where Imran Khan got famous in the first place, after all.

User avatar
orathaic
Bronze Donator
Bronze Donator
Posts: 1537
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:20 pm
Karma: 394
Contact:

Re: War?

#12 Post by orathaic » Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:04 pm

Senlac wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 6:07 pm
Dejan0707 wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 4:39 pm
Senlac wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 3:09 pm


I hope you make an exception to this theory in the case of Jihad, where war is actually written into the religion as a justified recourse :-D
That actually is not true. Most religions know some kind of holy war, and world greates holy wars were made in the name of christianity. Crusades were largest known holy wars that targeted liberation of holy land and where up to 50 milion people died in the process. Then there is thirty year war between protestant and catholic nations which ravaged Germany and cost her up to one third of the total population.

Holy wars are not built in inside the religion, they are the product of it. Today Islam carry the stigma of the most fundamental religion but if past is taken into consideration it is not even close to how christianity fared. It took Europe 1000 years to recover from it fundamentalistic tendencies, so lets hope Islam would be smarter than that.
Oh absolutely agreed in this history lesson. If there’s one subject I love is history & the fact that, “The only thing we learn from history is that we don’t learn from history” :-D

I would comment thus however;
Past “Holy” wars were very often disguised “Political” wars & not really of a religious nature, as may be the case with the current border dispute between India & Pakistan, that initiated this discussion.
However a Jihad is specifically a war fought by believers against non-believers. It didn’t matter much one’s nationality or political beliefs recently in the conflict fought in Syria/Iraq. The Jihadists killed you for being a non-believer of any nationality/creed.

I’d say if a war that is specifically fought on religious grounds against other people, who differ on religious beliefs alone, then religion can definitely be held responsible.
Responsibility for the appalling loss of life amongst Yazidi & Kurdish people caused recently purely for being non-believers, can absolutely be laid at the door of the responsible religion & nowhere else.
So much to unpack here.

First Jihad translates literally as struggle. It is a spiritual struggle to live a godly life. All Muslims are expected to engage in it.

Some teachings also refer to the lesser jihad, struggle against the faithless who stop people from living a godly life.

Second, in a Liberal and 'tolerant' western world, where politics and religion have become two separate domains, it is rare that religion actually has the influence to cause wars. But it is still evoked to justify them. However war is always about economics and politics. You can't have war without them.

The crusades may have been about sending off younger sons to get them out of the way, possibly to settle land away from their elder siblings, earn money, and sure, enhance the power of the political roman Catholic pope. Popes and Kings in Europe spent centuries vying for political power in Europe. And the crusades had little to do with teachings of the Bible and a lot to do with the the politics and economics.

Similarly the self-anointed Islamic State was a political organisation. They killed many, but wouldn't have killed anyone if there had never been a power vacuum in Iraq and later Syria, they took land because it was there. They defeated the Iraqi Army because of the weakness of that fabricated institution. Entirely political. As is the Islamiphobia which was used to justify much of the Nato&US military actions which the Islamic State uses to recruit.

When you have political forces in the west using religion to (partly) justify a war, which then creates the power vacumn and conditions necessary for recruitment of a religious and political power group. The Islamic State did not have separation of powers, so yeah, it was created to further the political aims of a small branch of Islam. They did what countries have always done, killed anyone who didn't conform. It is not a special example of religious war. It is not special for having religious and politics deeply intertwined, separation of church and state is a relatively new concept amhistoricslly, and has never been universal.

Arguably even within the US politics and religion are deeply entwined. So there is something of a spectrum there. But for those who derive their power from their religious status, then arguably, they must act 'in the interest' of their religion to maintain their power. It is not about being godly, it is about what mechanisms are effective at maintaining power. Violence is an effective mechanism, marking others and different, dangerous, unknown (whether by skincolour, religion, ethnicity, or language spoken or whatever) is effective.

In that way, US military othering the Iraqi people, and IS othering the Kurds and yazdi was the same. And when US troops are found to have raped and murdered teenage girls in Baghdad, you can see why I would equate the two. Media reporting... Not so equal. Because, for political reasons, one was an evil threat which must be destroyed, while the other was a necessary evil for maintaining Our Power.
1

Senlac
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:23 pm
Karma: 166
Contact:

Re: War?

#13 Post by Senlac » Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:46 pm

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... Quran.html

“In that way, US military othering the Iraqi people, and IS othering the Kurds and yazdi was the same. And when US troops are found to have raped and murdered teenage girls in Baghdad, you can see why I would equate the two.”

You go ahead & equate whatever you like. I post this so that folks with minds can think otherwise. Female prisoners of war are not fair game for rape & murder, because they became “property” in the name of an Islamic war.

Senlac
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:23 pm
Karma: 166
Contact:

Re: War?

#14 Post by Senlac » Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:03 pm

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -wear.html

At least this one had a happy ending. Yes it was “an evil threat” & complete destruction for all time is hopefully it’s fate.

User avatar
orathaic
Bronze Donator
Bronze Donator
Posts: 1537
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:20 pm
Karma: 394
Contact:

Re: War?

#15 Post by orathaic » Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:38 pm

But at what cost?

You can validly claim that IS treated people as property, but when you look at prisoners in Abu Ghraib we're treated any less like property.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004 ... abu-ghraib

Does it matter to you that these 'good' guys were every bit as evil as IS?

Nevermind the fact that the US invasion of Iraq created the circumstances for IS to become a thing. Nevermind the fact that the CIA has been funding extremist groups to overthrow the Syrian regime, and IS took full advantage of that (whether they were themselves CIA funded, I'm not aware). And Nevermind the fact that the US's favourite ally in the region (Apart from Israel), Saudi Arabia (who also funded IS) murdered an journalist in cold blood in their embassy in Turkey.

The US literally went in and demonstrated that murder and violence was one way to get what you want, and IS learned well from that; they are some of the most despicable human beings on the planet. But that it isn't a competition, you can both be despicable.

Senlac
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:23 pm
Karma: 166
Contact:

Re: War?

#16 Post by Senlac » Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:01 pm

A lot of what you say is valid. I remember arguing the attack on Saddam Hussain’s Iraq was unjustified & foolish (before they discovered the illusory WMD’s didn’t exist) & living in California at the time (soon after 9/11) when such views were unpopular. Absolutely it has caused subsequent difficulties.
However that incident was not the beginning of enormous conflicts in the region. If you want to go back that far, why not the Iran/Iraq war which had far more casualties?

Equally it’s true that the USA & their allies are happy funding Islamic terrorists when the opponent is Russia in Afghanistan, or rivals in Syria. The terrorists always get their funding from somewhere. To claim one side is virtuous & the other not, is clearly ridiculous.

Going back to my original point however, is that the USA’s actions as reprehensible as they may be are never excused away on the basis of a religion.
My point that got me into this debate is that some wars are absolutely the fault of the participant’s religious beliefs & in my opinion those harmed in the war can lay blame at the door of that religion. I stand by that following the events regarding ISIS over the last 5 years.

I’m delighted ISIS is close to being wiped off the face of this earth & hope the work continues until it is. As Joe Biden said after one of their beheadings, “they can burn in Hell”.
1

User avatar
orathaic
Bronze Donator
Bronze Donator
Posts: 1537
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:20 pm
Karma: 394
Contact:

Re: War?

#17 Post by orathaic » Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:45 pm

Why not the Iran/Iraq war, supported by the US because Iran had had the audacity to have a revolution, kick out an unpopular monarch (who was backed by the US) and refuse to continue acting as an American puppet...

The US's actions, whether you call it a religion or not, are justified by a belief system. This system is Pax Americans, that America has some god given right to act like every imperial power in history, and the rational is always 'in the national interest', or 'national security' - which can mean securing national economic goals, which can mean wealthy capitalists get even wealthier...

I mean, personally I believe it is about the accumulation of wealth, but I also believe the individual generals and soldiers truly have faith in American exceptionalism. That God is somehow 'on their side' is something I am sure many would agree with.

It may not be a formal organised religion, and you may even see some churches in the US raising money to help Syrian refugees, but you also see some churches praising the men being sent to fight and kill/die for their glorious nation.

Yes, IS was an evil, born of a power vacuum created the the US military intervention in Iraq. And yes, I too am glad these violent, repressive, ideologues are gone. But overall, Russia and the US are still fighting some quasi cold War using Iranian/Saudi supporters to vie for geopolitical control - using the Shia vs Sunni split to divide people in the middle east. Millions of children in Yemen are still at risk of starvation, because of this 'game' being played by the US (as the only superpower). The UN fails to function because those powerful enough to actually make it work are too busy with their own agendas. We have millions growing up learning to hate, because wealth and powerful nations would rather repeat the shitty behaviours of the past which lead to world wars...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Esquire Bertissimmo and 87 guests