4 ms·

It's very hard to do if the other side won't agree to sing campfire songs with us too. Especially if they'd rather violently impose Sharia through a worldwide c

It's very hard to do if the other side won't agree to sing campfire songs with us too. Especially if they'd rather violently impose Sharia through a worldwide caliphate, to use one contemporary example. Gotta pay the Dhimmi before we can forgive and flourish. Yes, there are a lot of reasonable people on the other side of the line. But the leadership of those reasonable people can, depending on who you're talking about, be very, very unreasonable.

fit2rule 12y ago
>> rather violently impose Sharia As opposed to "rather violently impose capitalism" using killing machines in the sky? I think both 'sides' are as equally guilty of hatred as each other. I don't see the US Military-Industrial complex going out of its way to create peace, either - and no "but they are doing the bad thing" is not an appropriate justification. It takes as much effort to make peace as it does to make war. The difference is: the decision to do so.
vacri 12y ago
Especially if they'd rather violently impose Sharia through a worldwide caliphate, to use one contemporary example. What a weird example. ISIS wouldn't exist today if it weren't for the US destroying Iraq as a regional power.
- gambiting 12y ago
  But maybe something else would. You don't know that. And there were and are people who want to impose Sharia violently even without ISIS.
  - gonvaled 12y ago
    If I shoot you and you die, I have killed you. If I hadn't shot you, you would have not died (by my shot). You would have (maybe) still died by somebody else's shot. You don't know that.
  - vacri 12y ago
    Since we're playing the "you don't know that" game, you don't know that it wouldn't have gone the other way. Maybe the Arab Spring might have taken hold in Iraq. Maybe the UN might have found a better diplomatic solution if the US hadn't pre-empted them by invading. One of the criticisms against the US invading was that the US had no plan for what to do after the military victory, and that Hussein was a stabilising power in the region; remove him and chaos would ensue if things weren't handled carefully. And there were and are people who want to impose Sharia violently And instead they got people who wanted to impose Freedom(tm) violently... quite violently. I wonder if it matters to the average Kurd if their loved ones get beheaded, gassed, or "collateral damage"'d.
  - saiya-jin 12y ago
    I wanted to write something about the country, that in many ways forgot the true meaning of word freedom... but then I realized you're probably just trolling, aren't you :)
- Scramblejams 12y ago
  The desire to set up a worldwide caliphate by violence is an idea that goes clear back to the Koran. Its implementors come and go. ISIS is the latest. There will be others. Anyway, it's just one example. Could have said the same thing about the Jonestowners -- lots of people wanted to leave but the leadership was fanatical and could not be reasoned with. Like Boko Haram. Or Al Shabaab. Don't have to reach very far in history to find such a thing.

fit2rule 12y ago

>> rather violently impose Sharia As opposed to "rather violently impose capitalism" using killing machines in the sky? I think both 'sides' are as equally guilty of hatred as each other. I don't see the US Military-Industrial complex going out of its way to create peace, either - and no "but they are doing the bad thing" is not an appropriate justification. It takes as much effort to make peace as it does to make war. The difference is: the decision to do so.

vacri 12y ago

Especially if they'd rather violently impose Sharia through a worldwide caliphate, to use one contemporary example. What a weird example. ISIS wouldn't exist today if it weren't for the US destroying Iraq as a regional power.

gambiting 12y ago
But maybe something else would. You don't know that. And there were and are people who want to impose Sharia violently even without ISIS.
- gonvaled 12y ago
  If I shoot you and you die, I have killed you. If I hadn't shot you, you would have not died (by my shot). You would have (maybe) still died by somebody else's shot. You don't know that.
- vacri 12y ago
  Since we're playing the "you don't know that" game, you don't know that it wouldn't have gone the other way. Maybe the Arab Spring might have taken hold in Iraq. Maybe the UN might have found a better diplomatic solution if the US hadn't pre-empted them by invading. One of the criticisms against the US invading was that the US had no plan for what to do after the military victory, and that Hussein was a stabilising power in the region; remove him and chaos would ensue if things weren't handled carefully. And there were and are people who want to impose Sharia violently And instead they got people who wanted to impose Freedom(tm) violently... quite violently. I wonder if it matters to the average Kurd if their loved ones get beheaded, gassed, or "collateral damage"'d.
- saiya-jin 12y ago
  I wanted to write something about the country, that in many ways forgot the true meaning of word freedom... but then I realized you're probably just trolling, aren't you :)
Scramblejams 12y ago
The desire to set up a worldwide caliphate by violence is an idea that goes clear back to the Koran. Its implementors come and go. ISIS is the latest. There will be others. Anyway, it's just one example. Could have said the same thing about the Jonestowners -- lots of people wanted to leave but the leadership was fanatical and could not be reasoned with. Like Boko Haram. Or Al Shabaab. Don't have to reach very far in history to find such a thing.