• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ISIS brutaly murders Jordanian pilot. [W:119]

tres borrachos said:
I agree with this. 99.99% of the world's Muslims are good peaceful people and these savage monsters are tied to them simply because of the commonality of being Muslim. It's not right. I would like to see the Muslims and heavily Muslim populated countries band together to put a stop to these disgusting savages.
Click to expand...

If ISIS are not really muslim, but actually savage monsters (something I agree with) then why should it fall to actual muslims to put a stop to them?

The muslim population in general is under no more obligation to stop these guys than we are. That's not to say that they shouldn't try to stop ISIS, but squaring the responsibility on their shoulders when, as you say, it's not right to tie them together, is disingenuous. Particularly when you account for the fact that muslims already are the largest victim of ISIS, and already are the ones fighting them the most.

I don't think that the muslim population in general should feel collectively guilty for the actions of ISIS any more so than me or you.
 
Last edited:
The German said:
No.

I simply think that I will forever regret watching the video through a link a friend sent me.

I have now seen more medieval barbarity than I ever wanted to.

Please dont watch it. This is not a political point I am trying to push, it`s a personal suggestion.

They play this islamic prayr music in the background, but you can still hear those screams.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately we don't have videos of the same sufferings of civilians in Dresden and Tokyo burned alive by napalm fire bombs dropped by the US. Or of all those burned alive by US flame throwers. Or those civilians burned alive by napalm bombs in Vietnam, though I think some stills may exist of the latter.
 
Nilly said:
If ISIS are not really muslim, but actually savage monsters (something I agree with) then why should it fall to actual muslims to put a stop to them?

The muslim population in general is under no more obligation to stop these guys than we are. That's not to say that they shouldn't try to stop ISIS, but squaring the responsibility on their shoulders when, as you say, it's not right to tie them together, is disingenuous. Particularly when you account for the fact that muslims are the largest victim of ISIS, and are the ones fighting them the most.
Click to expand...

I don't recall saying that the Muslims are under obligation to stop them. Nor do I recall saying they have any responsibility for ISIS whatsoever. Can you show me in my post where I said either of those statements, or even implied either one?

ETA I see you added something about them "feeling guilty". Can you also show me where I said they should feel guilty about anything?
 
tres borrachos said:
I don't recall saying that the Muslims are under obligation to stop them. Nor do I recall saying they have any responsibility for ISIS whatsoever. Can you show me in my post where I said either of those statements, or even implied either one?

ETA I see you added something about them "feeling guilty". Can you also show me where I said they should feel guilty about anything?
Click to expand...

I felt it was implied when you said "Muslims and heavily Muslim populated countries should band together". Sorry if I came to the wrong conclusion, but the use of the word 'should' suggests that they are under some kind of obligation to do something about ISIS that the rest of us are not under. It falls to everyone to stop ISIS, and Muslim countries are undoubtedly pitching in right now.
 
Nilly said:
I felt it was implied when you said "Muslims and heavily Muslim populated countries should band together". Sorry if I came to the wrong conclusion, but the use of the word 'should' suggests that they are under some kind of obligation to do something about ISIS that the rest of us are not under. It falls to everyone to stop ISIS, and Muslim countries are undoubtedly pitching in right now.
Click to expand...

I should get my nails done tomorrow.
Hillary Clinton should wear blue pants suits more often.
DreamWorks should release another Shrek movie.
I should think about getting an SUV next year.
Democrats should listen to what fiscal conservatives say.

None of those imply obligation. Nor do they imply guilt or responsibility either. When I said they "should" band together, it followed right after my statement that it isn't right that the Muslims are being associated with ISIS. I didn't think that anyone would read my post for anything other than what I said. I already know the Muslim countries are working towards getting rid of ISIS.
 
tres borrachos said:
I should get my nails done tomorrow.
Hillary Clinton should wear blue pants suits more often.
DreamWorks should release another Shrek movie.
I should think about getting an SUV next year.
Democrats should listen to what fiscal conservatives say.

None of those imply obligation. Nor do they imply guilt or responsibility either. When I said they "should" band together, it followed right after my statement that it isn't right that the Muslims are being associated with ISIS. I didn't think that anyone would read my post for anything other than what I said. I already know the Muslim countries are working towards getting rid of ISIS.
Click to expand...

And obligation doesn't imply they have to do it. Both 'should' and 'obligated to' imply that the actor ought to do something.

Anyway, this argument is descending into semantics. My point (and maybe obligation was the wrong word), is that Muslims and heavily populated Muslim countries should not be singled out in having to band together in order to fight ISIS.
 
bicycleman said:
Yet, you hear very little from the rest of the Muslim leadership condemning this act. I did like Jordan's response, though. Jordan should have publicly burned the terrorists as well.
Click to expand...

If it's ok for the Jordanian government to publicly burn two men alive, then why wasn't it ok for The Islamic State to do it? I think breaking the bottle that let these guys out was the greater crime.
 
Nilly said:
And obligation doesn't imply they have to do it. Both 'should' and 'obligated to' imply that the actor ought to do something.

Anyway, this argument is descending into semantics. My point (and maybe obligation was the wrong word), is that Muslims and heavily populated Muslim countries should not be singled out in having to band together in order to fight ISIS.
Click to expand...

Interesting point, but you're making it to the wrong person. You may want to find someone who thinks it's the responsibility of Muslims and people in Muslim countries to fight ISIS, and who singles them out as having this responsibility. That isn't me.
 
bicycleman said:
Yet, you hear very little from the rest of the Muslim leadership condemning this act.
Click to expand...

Err then you should stop only looking at Fox News. Just now on France 24 they reported numerous high ranking Muslim scholars and key religious centres from Egypt to Tehran and beyond condemning the action.

I did like Jordan's response, though. Jordan should have publicly burned the terrorists as well.
Click to expand...

And make them no better than the demon bastards? I think not.
 
tres borrachos said:
Interesting point, but you're making it to the wrong person. You may want to find someone who thinks it's the responsibility of Muslims and people in Muslim countries to fight ISIS, and who singles them out as having this responsibility. That isn't me.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that's pretty much what I thought you meant in your original post. I guess I thought wrong.

Although I'd defend myself by saying that many people do hold the belief that muslims primarily hold the responsibility to fight ISIS. Obviously you're not one of those people.
 
L0neW0lf said:
Yes you are correct in that Muslims believe its forbidden to use fire in execution but its not from the Quran, its from the Hadith. Whereas it is believed that the Quran is the unaltered word of God and therefor is infallible, Hadith even ones with good Isnad are not.

Some Muslims, a small minority, don't accept the veracity of any Hadiths.
Click to expand...

And so what? There is a small minority of Christians that believe it is okay to have sex with a 10 year old.. does not make it acceptable mainstream in Christianity does it now?

Fact is, that pretty much all major religious scholars and organisations in the Islamic world have come out against this action and condemned it. Now you wont hear that on Fox News or even most US media, because it goes against the narrative of Islam being bad, but that does not mean that the condemnation has not happened.

Muslim Clerics: 'Kill and Crucify' ISIS Terrorists - Middle East - News - Arutz Sheva

Normally I would not use the Daily Mail as a source but considering the history and attitudes of the paper, I find their covering of this story kinda ironic.

Even Al-Qaeda condemn murder of Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh | Daily Mail Online

The head of Sunni Islam's top university has called for the crucifixion of Islamic State militants over the burning of a Jordanian fighter pilot - an act even Al-Qaeda condemned as 'deviant'.

Responding to the murder of Moaz al-Kasasbeh, the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar university in Cairo, Ahmed al-Tayib, said those responsible must face 'killing, crucifixion and chopping of the limbs.'

His judgement came as a Twitter account linked to Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the Yemeni branch of the terror group, denounced the killing as 'conclusive proof of Isis' deviance'.
Click to expand...

The actions of ISIS are unacceptable to mainstream Islam and even radical terrorists like Al Q... ironic no?
 
Nilly said:
Sorry, that's pretty much what I thought you meant in your original post. I guess I thought wrong.

Although I'd defend myself by saying that many people do hold the belief that muslims primarily hold the responsibility to fight ISIS. Obviously you're not one of those people.
Click to expand...

I'm definitely not one of them.
 
j-mac said:
Maybe now this type of thing will wake up more leaders within the religion to start rallying those withing the Islamic faith to rise up against this scourge, that so far they have been relatively silent on....
Click to expand...

Actually, it's the US media that has been relatively silent on REPORTING the outcry by Muslim leaders around the world. It would have been better had the US not pursued policies in the ME that gave rise to such militants, unfortunately, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.
 
Montecresto said:
Unfortunately we don't have videos of the same sufferings of civilians in Dresden and Tokyo burned alive by napalm fire bombs dropped by the US. Or of all those burned alive by US flame throwers. Or those civilians burned alive by napalm bombs in Vietnam, though I think some stills may exist of the latter.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's terrible, but Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and awakened a sleeping Tiger. Too bad, war is hell, and they got what they asked for.
 
Montecresto said:
If it's ok for the Jordanian government to publicly burn two men alive, then why wasn't it ok for The Islamic State to do it? I think breaking the bottle that let these guys out was the greater crime.
Click to expand...

They started by burning a man alive, so I'm all for sending these bastards to meet their 72 virgins, but on their way, I want them to suffer getting there.
 
PeteEU said:
Err then you should stop only looking at Fox News. Just now on France 24 they reported numerous high ranking Muslim scholars and key religious centres from Egypt to Tehran and beyond condemning the action.



And make them no better than the demon bastards? I think not.
Click to expand...

Talk is cheap. Will they physically do something about it?
 
bicycleman said:
Yeah, that's terrible, but Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and awakened a sleeping Tiger. Too bad, war is hell, and they got what they asked for.
Click to expand...

I know, just awful all those babies and grandpas and students and nurses at work, the police officers and the garbage collectors, hell even all the cats and dogs and the trees and grass that were snuffed out when we dropped two nuclear bombs on two civilian targets, all guilty participants of the attack at Pearl Harbor that had been a long FDR provocation.
 
bicycleman said:
They started by burning a man alive, so I'm all for sending these bastards to meet their 72 virgins, but on their way, I want them to suffer getting there.
Click to expand...

Yes a man. How manny men, and children and woman, not in uniform, not engaging the US were burned alive by the napalm bombs the US dropped on Dresden and Tokyo? How many woman and children and old men were burned alive by the napalm bombs dropped in Vietnam. There is no moral authority coming from the US.
 
Montecresto said:
Unfortunately we don't have videos of the same sufferings of civilians in Dresden and Tokyo burned alive by napalm fire bombs dropped by the US. Or of all those burned alive by US flame throwers. Or those civilians burned alive by napalm bombs in Vietnam, though I think some stills may exist of the latter.
Click to expand...

The U.S. did not use napalm in the bombings of either of those cities. The district bombed in Tokyo in Spring, 1945 was heavily residential--but attached to many of those residences were workshops with lathes, presses, etc. These dual-purpose structures not only saved the time lost in commuting to and from a factory, but they also were easier to hide. They constituted a cottage industry that was making a significant volume of machine parts for Japan's military. That made them legitimate targets under the laws of war, as the people who set them up knew very well.

I see you are anxious, once again, to run down the United States. It's interesting that whether it is Japan and Germany in WWII or Islamic jihadists today, you seem less concerned with the welfare of this country than with that of its enemies.
 
PeteEU said:
Dude, the religious scholars of Islam have been against ISIS from the start. Hell even the radical Muslim scholars by western standards are against them.

ISIS has absolutely nothing to do with Islam and this action clearly confirms it... as it goes against any and all teachings in the Koran. There is absolutely zero justification what so ever in any twisted interpretation of the Koran to burn a man alive.. quite the opposite. They have basically said to the Islamic world, we are God... and that to any religion is a massive insult to say the least.
Click to expand...

I know that is the talking point, and that this group when affiliated with AQ as AQ in Iraq was the most unruly of the affiliated groups making up AQ, but none the less, they are if only considered by themselves Islamic. To try so hard to disassociate them from Islam, and the radical factions now proclaiming war on non Islamic people of the world, only serves to bolster their propaganda. If you are truly disgusted by their actions you wouldn't be doing what you are doing now.
 
Montecresto said:
Yes a man. How manny men, and children and woman, not in uniform, not engaging the US were burned alive by the napalm bombs the US dropped on Dresden and Tokyo? How many woman and children and old men were burned alive by the napalm bombs dropped in Vietnam. There is no moral authority coming from the US.
Click to expand...

Just what exactly is your major malfunction dude?!!! Are you serious with this crap, trying to mead out judgement as though you know the first damned thing about the world, or war? Your ignorance is all over this thread, and I suspect that you are just posting to troll peoples emotions...You ought to knock it off.
 
matchlight said:
The U.S. did not use napalm in the bombings of either of those cities. The district bombed in Tokyo in Spring, 1945 was heavily residential--but attached to many of those residences were workshops with lathes, presses, etc. These dual-purpose structures not only saved the time lost in commuting to and from a factory, but they also were easier to hide. They constituted a cottage industry that was making a significant volume of machine parts for Japan's military. That made them legitimate targets under the laws of war, as the people who set them up knew very well.

I see you are anxious, once again, to run down the United States. It's interesting that whether it is Japan and Germany in WWII or Islamic jihadists today, you seem less concerned with the welfare of this country than with that of its enemies.
Click to expand...

Match! Pat yourself on the back all you wish for justifying the killing of innocent civilians, you have ample company in that enterprise.
 
matchlight said:
The U.S. did not use napalm in the bombings of either of those cities. The district bombed in Tokyo in Spring, 1945 was heavily residential--but attached to many of those residences were workshops with lathes, presses, etc. These dual-purpose structures not only saved the time lost in commuting to and from a factory, but they also were easier to hide. They constituted a cottage industry that was making a significant volume of machine parts for Japan's military. That made them legitimate targets under the laws of war, as the people who set them up knew very well.

I see you are anxious, once again, to run down the United States. It's interesting that whether it is Japan and Germany in WWII or Islamic jihadists today, you seem less concerned with the welfare of this country than with that of its enemies.
Click to expand...

Match, you have no knowledge of the use of napalm bombs on civilian targets during WW11.

A napalm bombing campaign against Tokyo on March 9, 1945, killed an estimated 100,000 people and burned 15 square miles (39 square kilometers) of the city [source: Laney].

Napalm in World War II and Korea - HowStuffWorks

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm
 
j-mac said:
Just what exactly is your major malfunction dude?!!! Are you serious with this crap, trying to mead out judgement as though you know the first damned thing about the world, or war? Your ignorance is all over this thread, and I suspect that you are just posting to troll peoples emotions...You ought to knock it off.
Click to expand...

Must have touched a nerve with that. Don't like it when the spotlight falls on US aggression and barbarity do ya?????????
 
Montecresto said:
Must have touched a nerve with that. Don't like it when the spotlight falls on US aggression and barbarity do ya?????????
Click to expand...


touched a nerve? That's your whole game is it not? The depravity of some of your postings makes me thankful that America is large enough that I don't have to personally interact with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom