But should never supersede secular law......
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Paris Attacks
- Thread starter thetrailboss
- Start date
Funky_Catskills
Well-known member
dlague
Active member
No worries! They will be the minority and since we do not want to offend the minority ever in this country with a majority view, we will change ours laws to suit minority interests. Oh and don't forget the speaking point - terrorism in on the increase over the past decade due to global warming.
Bostonian
Well-known member
What I find interesting about this whole religious debate / discussion is this:
While religious laws, interpreted at face value can be viewed as draconian, violent, and etc - it is up to the leaders (clerics and etc), to help explain these laws. I cannot speak for other religions; however, as a Jew - I can empirically state that while the Torah may state - XYZ, the commentaries by the rabbis over the millennia have reflected on those words, and drawn up inferences to give them more of a moral story, rather than "An eye for an eye". That saying is interpreted by the rabbis as more of a tort case - (the loss of an eye, should result in consisting of payment for "Damages, Pain, Medical Expenses, Incapacitation, and Mental Anguish" rather than having two blind people).
Islam it seems, as viewing it as an outsider especially in the countries such as Iran, Iraq, the Palestinian Authority, Syria and so on promote the strictest sense of Islamic law. that is just my perception though, I could certainly be wrong.
While religious laws, interpreted at face value can be viewed as draconian, violent, and etc - it is up to the leaders (clerics and etc), to help explain these laws. I cannot speak for other religions; however, as a Jew - I can empirically state that while the Torah may state - XYZ, the commentaries by the rabbis over the millennia have reflected on those words, and drawn up inferences to give them more of a moral story, rather than "An eye for an eye". That saying is interpreted by the rabbis as more of a tort case - (the loss of an eye, should result in consisting of payment for "Damages, Pain, Medical Expenses, Incapacitation, and Mental Anguish" rather than having two blind people).
Islam it seems, as viewing it as an outsider especially in the countries such as Iran, Iraq, the Palestinian Authority, Syria and so on promote the strictest sense of Islamic law. that is just my perception though, I could certainly be wrong.
Funky_Catskills
Well-known member
Just as strictness of religious law interpretation depends on the sect of Judaism.
The same can be said for Christianity and Islam.
And within those sects there are sub sects that subscribe to different interpretation
The same can be said for Christianity and Islam.
And within those sects there are sub sects that subscribe to different interpretation
Puck it
Well-known member
There are zealots in all religions but it is the shear number of them in Islam that makes it a problem. It is the most popular.
Buddhist Extremist just does not go together.
Buddhist Extremist just does not go together.
Funky_Catskills
Well-known member
Every religion goes through reformation..
Judaism... Christianity... Were all killing people back in the day..
Islam will too..
Myanmar actually has an extreme Buddhist sect that wants all Muslims dead after attacks on Buddhists..
They call him the Burmese Bin Laden... It's true
ctenidae
Active member
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Excellent article from The Atlantic back in February about ISIS' goals and plans. Not sure how to negotiate with a group who has stated their goal is to bring about the final battle that leads to The Day of Judgment.
In the end, I think a cancer-related analogy is best. ISIS (and other large scale violent ideological movements) is a mass of cancerous cells. You can either attack it on the periphery, taking out a lymph node here, a chunk of lung there, and eventually be consumed by it, or you can go in, cut the whole lump out, hit some heavy chemo, and hope you kill the cancer before you kill the body. Some healthy cells will die, as well, but the good of the many outweigh the good of the few.
There is no negotiating with cancer. There is no negotiating with ISIS. They don't want anything that can be granted by negotiation. They won't respond to appeasement. They are committed to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bringing about the apocalypse. Period. They believe that the armies of Rome will meet the armies of Islam at Dabiq, in the desert of northern Syria, where Rome will be defeated and the hour of judgment will commence.
Is it possible to nuke all the lands claimed as part of the caliphate, and say "Sorry" to Turkey, Iran, Israel, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, not to mention all the non-ISIS supporters in the area, and anyone downwind? Not sure- that's a tall order. But maybe it's worth considering.
Excellent article from The Atlantic back in February about ISIS' goals and plans. Not sure how to negotiate with a group who has stated their goal is to bring about the final battle that leads to The Day of Judgment.
In the end, I think a cancer-related analogy is best. ISIS (and other large scale violent ideological movements) is a mass of cancerous cells. You can either attack it on the periphery, taking out a lymph node here, a chunk of lung there, and eventually be consumed by it, or you can go in, cut the whole lump out, hit some heavy chemo, and hope you kill the cancer before you kill the body. Some healthy cells will die, as well, but the good of the many outweigh the good of the few.
There is no negotiating with cancer. There is no negotiating with ISIS. They don't want anything that can be granted by negotiation. They won't respond to appeasement. They are committed to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bringing about the apocalypse. Period. They believe that the armies of Rome will meet the armies of Islam at Dabiq, in the desert of northern Syria, where Rome will be defeated and the hour of judgment will commence.
Is it possible to nuke all the lands claimed as part of the caliphate, and say "Sorry" to Turkey, Iran, Israel, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, not to mention all the non-ISIS supporters in the area, and anyone downwind? Not sure- that's a tall order. But maybe it's worth considering.
Nuclear cannot be an option ever again. It's not a WW2 scenario where we are the only ones with the bombs. We may still have the most, but there are others.
Would it be "cleanest" for coalition interests as in fastest and obviously far less casualties than a ground campaign? Sure, but it would still be a form of genocide.
I think there needs to be tremendous pressure for reform on the stable nations in additionally to military theater with ISIS. The "good" guys like the Saudis, our "friends" still decapitate people with shocking regularity for small crimes. There needs to be wholesale cultural changes that brings people away from such savagery.
Would it be "cleanest" for coalition interests as in fastest and obviously far less casualties than a ground campaign? Sure, but it would still be a form of genocide.
I think there needs to be tremendous pressure for reform on the stable nations in additionally to military theater with ISIS. The "good" guys like the Saudis, our "friends" still decapitate people with shocking regularity for small crimes. There needs to be wholesale cultural changes that brings people away from such savagery.
ctenidae
Active member
Agree- that would be best, but how can it be accomplished? Of course, nuclear isn't really an option, but in the end, that's the impact any strategy would need to have.
It's hard to defeat an ideology, particularly when the adherents have very well reasoned and thought out beliefs that what they are doing is not savagery, but is, instead, good, holy, and right. Slavery is OK. Killing Jews because they're Jewish is OK. Enslaving Christians who agree to be taxed and not killed, as long as they're not Jewish, is OK. Burning people alive in cages is OK, as long as they're A) Jewish or B) a different, but similar, religion.
How do you change that? Isolation won't work, because the final battle is the destiny. Negotiation won't work, because they'll kill you anyway.
Maybe the better analogy is to a rat with fleas. Until you kill the rat, the flees will keep coming, spreading plagues and sucking blood. Kill all the fleas you want, it won't matter. Figure out what the rat is, and exterminate it. But then, the question is how? Nuclear would be killing the rat by burning down the neighborhood, but it's a big rat.
Not Sure
Well-known member
Killing everyone is antithetical to Western civilized world but the Cancer anology is spot on ! Just as 9/11 brought everyone together I hope people wake up and stop thinking in terms of PC. It's a threat to our world to allow this Cancer to spread!
The Muslim birth rate disparity is a huge problem . The West has chosen to live a high lifestyle than have tons of kids . Infidels will be a minority eventually.
World leaders need to have a Master plan or Prohibition on teaching the aforementioned parts of Islam. This will no doubt inflame many Muslims , but will expose the trouble makers and bring them out of the shadows so they can be dealt with.
No way to Vet refugees ,no matter what our government says. Send them to other parts of the middle east . They can be fed and cared for in Saudi Arabia. Opp"s that's right they support Isis . Long columns of brand new Toyota picks with Isis flags.
The Muslim birth rate disparity is a huge problem . The West has chosen to live a high lifestyle than have tons of kids . Infidels will be a minority eventually.
World leaders need to have a Master plan or Prohibition on teaching the aforementioned parts of Islam. This will no doubt inflame many Muslims , but will expose the trouble makers and bring them out of the shadows so they can be dealt with.
No way to Vet refugees ,no matter what our government says. Send them to other parts of the middle east . They can be fed and cared for in Saudi Arabia. Opp"s that's right they support Isis . Long columns of brand new Toyota picks with Isis flags.
Puck it
Well-known member
Wow. A non peaceful Buddhist. Who would have thunk it?
MadMadWorld
Active member
Reform went out the window long ago. The majority of the population is against western culture and beliefs. I guess we could go the Dubai route and show them how cool it is to own a G6 and drive around in a Porcsche. Capitalism at its best
You're probably right. I just don't see military force ever being truly enough to change things. It needs to be a big part, but there needs to be social change.
I guess what I'm thinking in general is that they need a very powerful and motivating Muslim leader that believes in basic human rights. A "Pope Francis" of the Muslim world so to speak.
Maybe that's too much to ask
I guess what I'm thinking in general is that they need a very powerful and motivating Muslim leader that believes in basic human rights. A "Pope Francis" of the Muslim world so to speak.
Maybe that's too much to ask
Puck it
Well-known member
Smokin' a little of the wacky tabacky.
Ha! I wish. Gave it up when I started working in medical.
Actually maybe that's the solution. Air drop thousands of ponds of ganja throughout the whole region. People typically aren't violent when stoned.
Actually maybe that's the solution. Air drop thousands of ponds of ganja throughout the whole region. People typically aren't violent when stoned.
steamboat1
New member
freeski
New member
So far SB1 is right. No talk of destroying ISIS. French dropped 20 bombs? I guess we just need jets so we can get to the target fast. ISIS has no airforce nor air defences. We could bomb them with Cessnas (maybe a payload issue). Also, the U.S. bombed a lot of trucks that carry oil for ISIS. First, the U.S. dropped letters telling the drivers what we were going to do so they wouldn't get hurt. Wouldn't it have been better to kill the sympathizers driving the trucks? Would we have won the World Wars fighting like this? Are we the greatest generation or the weakest?
MadMadWorld
Active member
What would Vladimir Putin have done? Gas em' all dammit!
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/hostage-crisis-in-moscow-theater
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/hostage-crisis-in-moscow-theater
Similar threads
