Total Posts:123|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Al-Sistani, Iraq, Religion & Culture

neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 6:06:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
As an Iraq War vet, I have been following the activity in Iraq with alarm, if not surprise. To those who have not served, you will not understand the level of mistrust between Suna and Shia, tribe vs tribe, and the often zero sum game that is at play. The level of distrust between the two is palpable and not without cause in either direction. Under current regime, any empowerment of the Suna was seen as likely to breed a direct challenge to the Shia and the former enacted policies that brought Suna concerns into the fold. Te Shia were not, as we see on the ground now, not groundless with their fears. What the US bought was objectivity to the situation. We were the neutral arbiters that often settled the disputes and, very often less with military force than with simple reason, some tea and a willingness to listen and ensure that power and economic mobility effected all Iraqis equally.

Our loss in that aspect certainly hurt, particularly as Al-Maliki has proven unable to manage the political dynamic in a similarly inclusive manner. His policies have, however based in legitimate concern of Suna threat, alienated the Suna and separated them from the political process. The current fight comes as no shock.

It would however be very wrong to assume that the US was the only force capable of striving to cross that divide with objectivity. Inside Iraq there is one man who is clearly in touch with the needs of Iraq and its people, and regularly strives to maintain balance and, uniquely, does so from a selfless position. That person would be Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani. While serving in Iraq, I became very familiar not just with his policies, which often left our Generals grinding their teeth in frustration, but he acted as a necessary check on even our political ambitions in the country. Whether we wished it to be or not, religious concerns, and by extension that of religious followers, were part of the process. IMHO, we were incredibly fortunate to have a rational humanist like Sistani as a agent rather than mafia style gangster like Muqtada as Sadr that so often arises instead.

It is through that lens that I saw one particular thing emerge from the situation that not only saddens me, but that I find more alarming that the fall of territory. (Mosul traded hands many times during War, its lose is not as dire as it seems as its long been a hot bed for Suna insurgent forces.)

http://www.nytimes.com...

It is really difficult to convey just how influential this man is in Iraq, and what a public announcement and call to arms (all Iraqis, not Shia or Suna) means here. There is a Rubicon that has been crossed with this issue. A man comfortable with moving in the shadows, a man who has stepped from Sadr to Abu Risha with ease has stopped ... and is ready to fight instead. That more than anything demonstrates just how serious the situation is in Iraq, and, even worse, that it may no longer be possible to put the proverbial genie back in the bottle. I have little doubt that the extremists in Iraq murdering people in the streets don't know what it means, and it is ... bad. Very, very bad.

For the larger audience there are a couple of points to make:

#1 - Whether you like it or not, religion is part of the world (including those different than your own). We have to understand how it is shaping things and, more importantly, how it CAN shape things.

#2 - We need to be able to recognize positive leaders in religion, Al Sistani, vice negative ones, Al Sadr.

#3 - The temptation is to simplify and blame religion. The reality is FAR more complex, and the nuanced views of someone like Al Sistani are necessary to understand. For example, as a Shia Cleric, it would be easy to see this as Shia/Suna divide and miss the call to all able bodied men to defend Iraq.

That it has reached that level, that Al-Sistani is issuing the call is measure of just how desperate the situation has become in Iraq. If we wish to avoid a wider Sectarian war started by extremists than it is incumbent upon us to support Al-Sistani's call by all means necessary.

The question is a religious one, and the question now is about how to use religion to calm a dreadfully violent situation from becoming a far worse problem. At this point, after a decade of more in these conflicts, our policy makers and think tanks understand this if our public does not. Its bad, and we must empower those who are able minded and capable. We must empower and continue to empower those whose moderation and humanity matter. We must ensure that others understand the forces of extremism and moderation and the role of policy in understanding and supporting.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 6:10:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 6:06:54 AM, neutral wrote:
As an Iraq War vet, I have been following the activity in Iraq with alarm, if not surprise. To those who have not served, you will not understand the level of mistrust between Suna and Shia, tribe vs tribe, and the often zero sum game that is at play. The level of distrust between the two is palpable and not without cause in either direction. Under current regime, any empowerment of the Suna was seen as likely to breed a direct challenge to the Shia and the former enacted policies that brought Suna concerns into the fold. Te Shia were not, as we see on the ground now, not groundless with their fears. What the US bought was objectivity to the situation. We were the neutral arbiters that often settled the disputes and, very often less with military force than with simple reason, some tea and a willingness to listen and ensure that power and economic mobility effected all Iraqis equally.

Our loss in that aspect certainly hurt, particularly as Al-Maliki has proven unable to manage the political dynamic in a similarly inclusive manner. His policies have, however based in legitimate concern of Suna threat, alienated the Suna and separated them from the political process. The current fight comes as no shock.

It would however be very wrong to assume that the US was the only force capable of striving to cross that divide with objectivity. Inside Iraq there is one man who is clearly in touch with the needs of Iraq and its people, and regularly strives to maintain balance and, uniquely, does so from a selfless position. That person would be Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani. While serving in Iraq, I became very familiar not just with his policies, which often left our Generals grinding their teeth in frustration, but he acted as a necessary check on even our political ambitions in the country. Whether we wished it to be or not, religious concerns, and by extension that of religious followers, were part of the process. IMHO, we were incredibly fortunate to have a rational humanist like Sistani as a agent rather than mafia style gangster like Muqtada as Sadr that so often arises instead.

It is through that lens that I saw one particular thing emerge from the situation that not only saddens me, but that I find more alarming that the fall of territory. (Mosul traded hands many times during War, its lose is not as dire as it seems as its long been a hot bed for Suna insurgent forces.)

http://www.nytimes.com...

It is really difficult to convey just how influential this man is in Iraq, and what a public announcement and call to arms (all Iraqis, not Shia or Suna) means here. There is a Rubicon that has been crossed with this issue. A man comfortable with moving in the shadows, a man who has stepped from Sadr to Abu Risha with ease has stopped ... and is ready to fight instead. That more than anything demonstrates just how serious the situation is in Iraq, and, even worse, that it may no longer be possible to put the proverbial genie back in the bottle. I have little doubt that the extremists in Iraq murdering people in the streets don't know what it means, and it is ... bad. Very, very bad.

For the larger audience there are a couple of points to make:

#1 - Whether you like it or not, religion is part of the world (including those different than your own). We have to understand how it is shaping things and, more importantly, how it CAN shape things.

#2 - We need to be able to recognize positive leaders in religion, Al Sistani, vice negative ones, Al Sadr.

#3 - The temptation is to simplify and blame religion. The reality is FAR more complex, and the nuanced views of someone like Al Sistani are necessary to understand. For example, as a Shia Cleric, it would be easy to see this as Shia/Suna divide and miss the call to all able bodied men to defend Iraq.

That it has reached that level, that Al-Sistani is issuing the call is measure of just how desperate the situation has become in Iraq. If we wish to avoid a wider Sectarian war started by extremists than it is incumbent upon us to support Al-Sistani's call by all means necessary.

The question is a religious one, and the question now is about how to use religion to calm a dreadfully violent situation from becoming a far worse problem. At this point, after a decade of more in these conflicts, our policy makers and think tanks understand this if our public does not. Its bad, and we must empower those who are able minded and capable. We must empower and continue to empower those whose moderation and humanity matter. We must ensure that others understand the forces of extremism and moderation and the role of policy in understanding and supporting.

State atheism is the solution to the problem. In state atheism a leader leaves his religion so that he can serve the people of his country equally.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 6:12:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 6:10:24 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:06:54 AM, neutral wrote:
As an Iraq War vet, I have been following the activity in Iraq with alarm, if not surprise. To those who have not served, you will not understand the level of mistrust between Suna and Shia, tribe vs tribe, and the often zero sum game that is at play. The level of distrust between the two is palpable and not without cause in either direction. Under current regime, any empowerment of the Suna was seen as likely to breed a direct challenge to the Shia and the former enacted policies that brought Suna concerns into the fold. Te Shia were not, as we see on the ground now, not groundless with their fears. What the US bought was objectivity to the situation. We were the neutral arbiters that often settled the disputes and, very often less with military force than with simple reason, some tea and a willingness to listen and ensure that power and economic mobility effected all Iraqis equally.

Our loss in that aspect certainly hurt, particularly as Al-Maliki has proven unable to manage the political dynamic in a similarly inclusive manner. His policies have, however based in legitimate concern of Suna threat, alienated the Suna and separated them from the political process. The current fight comes as no shock.

It would however be very wrong to assume that the US was the only force capable of striving to cross that divide with objectivity. Inside Iraq there is one man who is clearly in touch with the needs of Iraq and its people, and regularly strives to maintain balance and, uniquely, does so from a selfless position. That person would be Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani. While serving in Iraq, I became very familiar not just with his policies, which often left our Generals grinding their teeth in frustration, but he acted as a necessary check on even our political ambitions in the country. Whether we wished it to be or not, religious concerns, and by extension that of religious followers, were part of the process. IMHO, we were incredibly fortunate to have a rational humanist like Sistani as a agent rather than mafia style gangster like Muqtada as Sadr that so often arises instead.

It is through that lens that I saw one particular thing emerge from the situation that not only saddens me, but that I find more alarming that the fall of territory. (Mosul traded hands many times during War, its lose is not as dire as it seems as its long been a hot bed for Suna insurgent forces.)

http://www.nytimes.com...

It is really difficult to convey just how influential this man is in Iraq, and what a public announcement and call to arms (all Iraqis, not Shia or Suna) means here. There is a Rubicon that has been crossed with this issue. A man comfortable with moving in the shadows, a man who has stepped from Sadr to Abu Risha with ease has stopped ... and is ready to fight instead. That more than anything demonstrates just how serious the situation is in Iraq, and, even worse, that it may no longer be possible to put the proverbial genie back in the bottle. I have little doubt that the extremists in Iraq murdering people in the streets don't know what it means, and it is ... bad. Very, very bad.

For the larger audience there are a couple of points to make:

#1 - Whether you like it or not, religion is part of the world (including those different than your own). We have to understand how it is shaping things and, more importantly, how it CAN shape things.

#2 - We need to be able to recognize positive leaders in religion, Al Sistani, vice negative ones, Al Sadr.

#3 - The temptation is to simplify and blame religion. The reality is FAR more complex, and the nuanced views of someone like Al Sistani are necessary to understand. For example, as a Shia Cleric, it would be easy to see this as Shia/Suna divide and miss the call to all able bodied men to defend Iraq.

That it has reached that level, that Al-Sistani is issuing the call is measure of just how desperate the situation has become in Iraq. If we wish to avoid a wider Sectarian war started by extremists than it is incumbent upon us to support Al-Sistani's call by all means necessary.

The question is a religious one, and the question now is about how to use religion to calm a dreadfully violent situation from becoming a far worse problem. At this point, after a decade of more in these conflicts, our policy makers and think tanks understand this if our public does not. Its bad, and we must empower those who are able minded and capable. We must empower and continue to empower those whose moderation and humanity matter. We must ensure that others understand the forces of extremism and moderation and the role of policy in understanding and supporting.

State atheism is the solution to the problem. In state atheism a leader leaves his religion so that he can serve the people of his country equally.

Yeah, North Korea would be much better.

That is exactly the anger of atheistic prejudice regarding religion. Rather than understand the problem, rather than analyze and seek solutions, we'll advocate something that is unfeasible, unhelpful, and, if actually enacted as policy, would inflame the situation to immeasurable violence.

Great job atheist.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 6:47:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 6:12:55 AM, neutral wrote:
Yeah, North Korea would be much better.

That is exactly the anger of atheistic prejudice regarding religion. Rather than understand the problem, rather than analyze and seek solutions, we'll advocate something that is unfeasible, unhelpful, and, if actually enacted as policy, would inflame the situation to immeasurable violence.

Great job atheist.

Congratulations on another great bit of reading comprehension. He didn't say state-enforced atheism, merely religiously neutral state leaders as a way of appeasing different religious groups. Whether you disagree with it or not, ask yourself this; was not bothering to understand his point and then just calling him stupid with your usual flavour of broad-strokes bigotry the best way to respond?

Myself, I don't really see this as a religious conflict. People who have hated each other for thousands of years still hate each other. It seems to me that the religious divides are more likely to be a consequence of this ingrained tribalist antipathy than the origin of the problem.
civilbuthonest
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 7:04:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 6:06:54 AM, neutral wrote:
As an Iraq War vet, I have been following the activity in Iraq with alarm, if not surprise. ....

Thank you for your thoughtful and caring analysis of a complex situation.

I agree that the problems in Iraq are far more complex than differing religions.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 7:27:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 6:12:55 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:10:24 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:06:54 AM, neutral wrote:
As an Iraq War vet, I have been following the activity in Iraq with alarm, if not surprise. To those who have not served, you will not understand the level of mistrust between Suna and Shia, tribe vs tribe, and the often zero sum game that is at play. The level of distrust between the two is palpable and not without cause in either direction. Under current regime, any empowerment of the Suna was seen as likely to breed a direct challenge to the Shia and the former enacted policies that brought Suna concerns into the fold. Te Shia were not, as we see on the ground now, not groundless with their fears. What the US bought was objectivity to the situation. We were the neutral arbiters that often settled the disputes and, very often less with military force than with simple reason, some tea and a willingness to listen and ensure that power and economic mobility effected all Iraqis equally.

Our loss in that aspect certainly hurt, particularly as Al-Maliki has proven unable to manage the political dynamic in a similarly inclusive manner. His policies have, however based in legitimate concern of Suna threat, alienated the Suna and separated them from the political process. The current fight comes as no shock.

It would however be very wrong to assume that the US was the only force capable of striving to cross that divide with objectivity. Inside Iraq there is one man who is clearly in touch with the needs of Iraq and its people, and regularly strives to maintain balance and, uniquely, does so from a selfless position. That person would be Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani. While serving in Iraq, I became very familiar not just with his policies, which often left our Generals grinding their teeth in frustration, but he acted as a necessary check on even our political ambitions in the country. Whether we wished it to be or not, religious concerns, and by extension that of religious followers, were part of the process. IMHO, we were incredibly fortunate to have a rational humanist like Sistani as a agent rather than mafia style gangster like Muqtada as Sadr that so often arises instead.

It is through that lens that I saw one particular thing emerge from the situation that not only saddens me, but that I find more alarming that the fall of territory. (Mosul traded hands many times during War, its lose is not as dire as it seems as its long been a hot bed for Suna insurgent forces.)

http://www.nytimes.com...

It is really difficult to convey just how influential this man is in Iraq, and what a public announcement and call to arms (all Iraqis, not Shia or Suna) means here. There is a Rubicon that has been crossed with this issue. A man comfortable with moving in the shadows, a man who has stepped from Sadr to Abu Risha with ease has stopped ... and is ready to fight instead. That more than anything demonstrates just how serious the situation is in Iraq, and, even worse, that it may no longer be possible to put the proverbial genie back in the bottle. I have little doubt that the extremists in Iraq murdering people in the streets don't know what it means, and it is ... bad. Very, very bad.

For the larger audience there are a couple of points to make:

#1 - Whether you like it or not, religion is part of the world (including those different than your own). We have to understand how it is shaping things and, more importantly, how it CAN shape things.

#2 - We need to be able to recognize positive leaders in religion, Al Sistani, vice negative ones, Al Sadr.

#3 - The temptation is to simplify and blame religion. The reality is FAR more complex, and the nuanced views of someone like Al Sistani are necessary to understand. For example, as a Shia Cleric, it would be easy to see this as Shia/Suna divide and miss the call to all able bodied men to defend Iraq.

That it has reached that level, that Al-Sistani is issuing the call is measure of just how desperate the situation has become in Iraq. If we wish to avoid a wider Sectarian war started by extremists than it is incumbent upon us to support Al-Sistani's call by all means necessary.

The question is a religious one, and the question now is about how to use religion to calm a dreadfully violent situation from becoming a far worse problem. At this point, after a decade of more in these conflicts, our policy makers and think tanks understand this if our public does not. Its bad, and we must empower those who are able minded and capable. We must empower and continue to empower those whose moderation and humanity matter. We must ensure that others understand the forces of extremism and moderation and the role of policy in understanding and supporting.

State atheism is the solution to the problem. In state atheism a leader leaves his religion so that he can serve the people of his country equally.

Yeah, North Korea would be much better.

That is exactly the anger of atheistic prejudice regarding religion. Rather than understand the problem, rather than analyze and seek solutions, we'll advocate something that is unfeasible, unhelpful, and, if actually enacted as policy, would inflame the situation to immeasurable violence.

Great job atheist.

Can't you read. I did not mean to convey the idea of state-enforced atheism but merely religiously neutral state leaders (in State atheism system) as a way of appeasing different religious groups . Even in counties who have state atheism, religious people exist and practice their religion legally.
I think state atheism is the solution to the religious hate problem in middle east and. Afghanistan as well. It may even go global. At least there will be less hate crimes everywhere and people won't have to fear world trade center bombing. The US has a very high hate crime rate.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 8:53:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 7:27:18 AM, debateuser wrote:


Can't you read. I did not mean to convey the idea of state-enforced atheism but merely religiously neutral state leaders (in State atheism system) as a way of appeasing different religious groups . Even in counties who have state atheism, religious people exist and practice their religion legally.
I think state atheism is the solution to the religious hate problem in middle east and. Afghanistan as well. It may even go global. At least there will be less hate crimes everywhere and people won't have to fear world trade center bombing. The US has a very high hate crime rate.

Is there some reason atheists need to be so deliberately offensive?

Can i read? Seriously atheist? Do you guys need to be so arrogant?

Why you are talking about Afghanistan rather than Iraq? No idea.

State atheism, additionally, North Korea - does not allow religion to exist - period. Secularism is the inclusion of ALL beliefs without favoritism, not just blocking all but the one you happen to belong to from power (which leads to ... right North Korea). It is the SECULAR process that Iraq is struggling with as forces of extremism seek to deliberately undermine it.

Excluding EVERYONE from power but atheists? Would cause the situation to explode.

Its why prejudiced views of atheism, with its over simplification of very complex ideas, are so harmful.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 9:07:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 6:47:55 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:12:55 AM, neutral wrote:
Yeah, North Korea would be much better.

That is exactly the anger of atheistic prejudice regarding religion. Rather than understand the problem, rather than analyze and seek solutions, we'll advocate something that is unfeasible, unhelpful, and, if actually enacted as policy, would inflame the situation to immeasurable violence.

Great job atheist.

Congratulations on another great bit of reading comprehension. He didn't say state-enforced atheism, merely religiously neutral state leaders as a way of appeasing different religious groups. Whether you disagree with it or not, ask yourself this; was not bothering to understand his point and then just calling him stupid with your usual flavour of broad-strokes bigotry the best way to respond?

Myself, I don't really see this as a religious conflict. People who have hated each other for thousands of years still hate each other. It seems to me that the religious divides are more likely to be a consequence of this ingrained tribalist antipathy than the origin of the problem.

Yeah, atheism would go over wonderfully in the middle east.

Perhaps you should reign in your personal antics and actually address the point.

State atheism is very different from state secularism, which is an INCLUSIVE process of all points of view and works well in the West. It is precisely the inability to meld Suna an Shia in a way that both sides trust that is the root of the problem ... a problem being exacerbated be extremists bent on using that divide for no better purpose than war.

State atheism, the idea that neither Suna nor Shia could understand or cross the divide (so much for representational democratic principles here - we need an elite 'beyond' religion) would fail. It would be violent. It is EXACTLY what we tired in the initial invasion and it blew up n our faces.

But heh, we will advocate something that is idiotic, divorced entirely from understanding of a complex situation, and ignore the fact that empowered atheism at eh expense of the people would either immediately be over thrown, or lead to direct favoritism of a religious choice that is inimical to the people it governs.

So if you want to pick another fight over misunderstanding because you cannot bury a hatchet, I believe you have demonstrated the correct way to move forward - and it is definitely not reasoning with you. I am not going to do watch you twist words again to start another knife fight grainy. Debate can clarify his own position or not without your personal barbs and temper.

State atheism in Iraq would have to be one of the dumbest and least feasible ideas ever enunciated. It demonstrates EXACTLY how religious prejudices can infect the political process to disastrous results.

The solution to Iraq requires understanding Iraq, not in dreamily thinking YOUR religious views given political power (despite the history of that particular policy) would somehow magically make Iraq work and make Suna and Shia trust one another.

Al-Sistani is a Shia that Suna trust. Therein lies the seriousness of the situation when he calls people to arms. A fact that atheists seem reluctant to even acknowledge much less understand in the complexity of Iraq.
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 9:28:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 9:07:16 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:47:55 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:12:55 AM, neutral wrote:
Yeah, North Korea would be much better.

That is exactly the anger of atheistic prejudice regarding religion. Rather than understand the problem, rather than analyze and seek solutions, we'll advocate something that is unfeasible, unhelpful, and, if actually enacted as policy, would inflame the situation to immeasurable violence.

Great job atheist.

Congratulations on another great bit of reading comprehension. He didn't say state-enforced atheism, merely religiously neutral state leaders as a way of appeasing different religious groups. Whether you disagree with it or not, ask yourself this; was not bothering to understand his point and then just calling him stupid with your usual flavour of broad-strokes bigotry the best way to respond?

Myself, I don't really see this as a religious conflict. People who have hated each other for thousands of years still hate each other. It seems to me that the religious divides are more likely to be a consequence of this ingrained tribalist antipathy than the origin of the problem.

Yeah, atheism would go over wonderfully in the middle east.

Perhaps you should reign in your personal antics and actually address the point.

State atheism is very different from state secularism, which is an INCLUSIVE process of all points of view and works well in the West. It is precisely the inability to meld Suna an Shia in a way that both sides trust that is the root of the problem ... a problem being exacerbated be extremists bent on using that divide for no better purpose than war.

State atheism, the idea that neither Suna nor Shia could understand or cross the divide (so much for representational democratic principles here - we need an elite 'beyond' religion) would fail. It would be violent. It is EXACTLY what we tired in the initial invasion and it blew up n our faces.

But heh, we will advocate something that is idiotic, divorced entirely from understanding of a complex situation, and ignore the fact that empowered atheism at eh expense of the people would either immediately be over thrown, or lead to direct favoritism of a religious choice that is inimical to the people it governs.

So if you want to pick another fight over misunderstanding because you cannot bury a hatchet, I believe you have demonstrated the correct way to move forward - and it is definitely not reasoning with you. I am not going to do watch you twist words again to start another knife fight grainy. Debate can clarify his own position or not without your personal barbs and temper.

State atheism in Iraq would have to be one of the dumbest and least feasible ideas ever enunciated. It demonstrates EXACTLY how religious prejudices can infect the political process to disastrous results.

The solution to Iraq requires understanding Iraq, not in dreamily thinking YOUR religious views given political power (despite the history of that particular policy) would somehow magically make Iraq work and make Suna and Shia trust one another.

Al-Sistani is a Shia that Suna trust. Therein lies the seriousness of the situation when he calls people to arms. A fact that atheists seem reluctant to even acknowledge much less understand in the complexity of Iraq.

It would seem that you consider atheists to be a large part of the problem in Iraq, is that right?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 9:36:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 9:28:54 AM, bulproof wrote:


It would seem that you consider atheists to be a large part of the problem in Iraq, is that right?

Are there a lot of atheists in Iraq? Then how could that be a problem?

The problem is that atheistic/secular prejudices HAVE influenced policy in a bad direction regarding Iraq ... something we learned the hard way (myself included) ... and as we see again with the flippant demand for 'state atheism'.

To anyone familiar with Iraq, that, pardon the expression, floating log of crap, is about the equivalent of advocating policy by wrapping yourself in tin foil and offering interpretive dance as a means of policy.

Its completely unfeasible.

The danger here is PRECISELY that failure to understand religion, which, if instead of inserting their religious biases into something like Iraq, atheists sought to remove, would facilitate FAR better understanding and policy guidance.

Christians have the ams potential problem, wherein we blame those 'Muslims' who are always violent. Those views have been largely silenced and dismissed accurately for the prejudice that they are.

Our biases can really screw things up. And in this one, given the themes so prevalent in atheism, the failure to understand religion or to always see it as stupid and evil ... leads to such conclusions like advocating state atheism for an area of the world in that is Islamic and believes that religion IS part of the political process.

State atheism. Really?

Lets just give nth sides nucs while we are at ... that would also be as helpful as state atheism in that neck of the woods.

State atheism wouldn't work in the West, who in their right mind would advocate it for Iraq?
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 9:55:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 9:36:08 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/14/2014 9:28:54 AM, bulproof wrote:


It would seem that you consider atheists to be a large part of the problem in Iraq, is that right?

Are there a lot of atheists in Iraq? Then how could that be a problem?

The problem is that atheistic/secular prejudices HAVE influenced policy in a bad direction regarding Iraq ... something we learned the hard way (myself included) ... and as we see again with the flippant demand for 'state atheism'.

To anyone familiar with Iraq, that, pardon the expression, floating log of crap, is about the equivalent of advocating policy by wrapping yourself in tin foil and offering interpretive dance as a means of policy.

Its completely unfeasible.

The danger here is PRECISELY that failure to understand religion, which, if instead of inserting their religious biases into something like Iraq, atheists sought to remove, would facilitate FAR better understanding and policy guidance.

Christians have the ams potential problem, wherein we blame those 'Muslims' who are always violent. Those views have been largely silenced and dismissed accurately for the prejudice that they are.

Our biases can really screw things up. And in this one, given the themes so prevalent in atheism, the failure to understand religion or to always see it as stupid and evil ... leads to such conclusions like advocating state atheism for an area of the world in that is Islamic and believes that religion IS part of the political process.

State atheism. Really?

Lets just give nth sides nucs while we are at ... that would also be as helpful as state atheism in that neck of the woods.

State atheism wouldn't work in the West, who in their right mind would advocate it for Iraq?

Don't look now but dubya was informed by his christian god to invade Iraq, no atheists involved.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 9:55:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 7:27:18 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:12:55 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:10:24 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/14/2014 6:06:54 AM, neutral wrote:
As an Iraq War vet, I have been following the activity in Iraq with alarm, if not surprise. To those who have not served, you will not understand the level of mistrust between Suna and Shia, tribe vs tribe, and the often zero sum game that is at play. The level of distrust between the two is palpable and not without cause in either direction. Under current regime, any empowerment of the Suna was seen as likely to breed a direct challenge to the Shia and the former enacted policies that brought Suna concerns into the fold. Te Shia were not, as we see on the ground now, not groundless with their fears. What the US bought was objectivity to the situation. We were the neutral arbiters that often settled the disputes and, very often less with military force than with simple reason, some tea and a willingness to listen and ensure that power and economic mobility effected all Iraqis equally.
Our loss in that aspect certainly hurt, particularly as Al-Maliki has proven unable to manage the political dynamic in a similarly inclusive manner. His policies have, however based in legitimate concern of Suna threat, alienated the Suna and separated them from the political process. The current fight comes as no shock.
It would however be very wrong to assume that the US was the only force capable of striving to cross that divide with objectivity. Inside Iraq there is one man who is clearly in touch with the needs of Iraq and its people, and regularly strives to maintain balance and, uniquely, does so from a selfless position. That person would be Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani. While serving in Iraq, I became very familiar not just with his policies, which often left our Generals grinding their teeth in frustration, but he acted as a necessary check on even our political ambitions in the country. Whether we wished it to be or not, religious concerns, and by extension that of religious followers, were part of the process. IMHO, we were incredibly fortunate to have a rational humanist like Sistani as a agent rather than mafia style gangster like Muqtada as Sadr that so often arises instead.
It is through that lens that I saw one particular thing emerge from the situation that not only saddens me, but that I find more alarming that the fall of territory. (Mosul traded hands many times during War, its lose is not as dire as it seems as its long been a hot bed for Suna insurgent forces.)

http://www.nytimes.com...

It is really difficult to convey just how influential this man is in Iraq, and what a public announcement and call to arms (all Iraqis, not Shia or Suna) means here. There is a Rubicon that has been crossed with this issue. A man comfortable with moving in the shadows, a man who has stepped from Sadr to Abu Risha with ease has stopped ... and is ready to fight instead. That more than anything demonstrates just how serious the situation is in Iraq, and, even worse, that it may no longer be possible to put the proverbial genie back in the bottle. I have little doubt that the extremists in Iraq murdering people in the streets don't know what it means, and it is ... bad. Very, very bad.

For the larger audience there are a couple of points to make:

#1 - Whether you like it or not, religion is part of the world (including those different than your own). We have to understand how it is shaping things and, more importantly, how it CAN shape things.

#2 - We need to be able to recognize positive leaders in religion, Al Sistani, vice negative ones, Al Sadr.

#3 - The temptation is to simplify and blame religion. The reality is FAR more complex, and the nuanced views of someone like Al Sistani are necessary to understand. For example, as a Shia Cleric, it would be easy to see this as Shia/Suna divide and miss the call to all able bodied men to defend Iraq.

That it has reached that level, that Al-Sistani is issuing the call is measure of just how desperate the situation has become in Iraq. If we wish to avoid a wider Sectarian war started by extremists than it is incumbent upon us to support Al-Sistani's call by all means necessary.

The question is a religious one, and the question now is about how to use religion to calm a dreadfully violent situation from becoming a far worse problem. At this point, after a decade of more in these conflicts, our policy makers and think tanks understand this if our public does not. Its bad, and we must empower those who are able minded and capable. We must empower and continue to empower those whose moderation and humanity matter. We must ensure that others understand the forces of extremism and moderation and the role of policy in understanding and supporting.
Is there some reason atheists need to be so deliberately offensive?
Can i read? Seriously atheist? Do you guys need to be so arrogant?
Why you are talking about Afghanistan rather than Iraq? No idea.
State atheism, additionally, North Korea - does not allow religion to exist - period. Secularism is the inclusion of ALL beliefs without favoritism, not just blocking all but the one you happen to belong to from power (which leads to ... right North Korea). It is the SECULAR process that Iraq is struggling with as forces of extremism seek to deliberately undermine it.
Excluding EVERYONE from power but atheists? Would cause the situation to explode.
Its why prejudiced views of atheism, with its over simplification of very complex ideas, are so harmful.

You are wrong that there are no religious believers in atheist states. Atheist states just stop religious hatred. For example no one can burn qurans in atheists states as they have done so in USA

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

State atheism is better than secularism. Take the example of Bangladesh which is a secular country but illegal Islamic sharia courts exists there and the state does not do enough to stop them. In state atheism this is not the problem. That is why in such States hate crimes are very less. The state is very strict to enforce equality. The state does not allow religious groups to attack each other even with words. The hate crime rate is less in atheist states.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Religious violence bangladesh
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

In Bangladesh a 14 year old girl was lashed to death by religious fundamentalists.

http://edition.cnn.com...

State atheism does not allow religion in government affairs. A leader is required to leave his previous faith, so that he can serve everyone equally. Whereas in secularism , most of the government can still be comprised of majority sect or religion. In Bangladesh no non-Muslim has become the Prime Minister since its independence even though they do have a sizeable non-Muslim minority. That's the problem here. That is why state policy will still be in favour one sect or religion. Although the favouritism is reduced in secular government but it still exist and is not eradicated. Also religious violence is not eradicated because the government can have politicians who are in favour of it. In state atheism this is not the problem. If you are a law abiding citizen, you can simply leave your previous faith and serve all people. State atheism eliminates religious differences and promotes the idea that to us you are as much a citizen than anybody else. This is equality. Whereas in religious countries if you are born in a certain religion or sect , it haunts you forever
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 9:57:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 9:55:07 AM, bulproof wrote:


Don't look now but dubya was informed by his christian god to invade Iraq, no atheists involved.

Well, THAT conveys a strong understanding of what is going on in Iraq, why, and what to do about it.

Atheists are so helpful to policy issues.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 9:59:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 8:53:47 AM, neutral wrote:
Can't you read. I did not mean to convey the idea of state-enforced atheism but merely religiously neutral state leaders (in State atheism system) as a way of appeasing different religious groups . Even in counties who have state atheism, religious people exist and practice their religion legally.
I think state atheism is the solution to the religious hate problem in middle east and. Afghanistan as well. It may even go global. At least there will be less hate crimes everywhere and people won't have to fear world trade center bombing. The US has a very high hate crime rate.
Is there some reason atheists need to be so deliberately offensive?
Can i read? Seriously atheist? Do you guys need to be so arrogant?
Why you are talking about Afghanistan rather than Iraq? No idea.
State atheism, additionally, North Korea - does not allow religion to exist - period. Secularism is the inclusion of ALL beliefs without favoritism, not just blocking all but the one you happen to belong to from power (which leads to ... right North Korea). It is the SECULAR process that Iraq is struggling with as forces of extremism seek to deliberately undermine it.

Excluding EVERYONE from power but atheists? Would cause the situation to explode.

Its why prejudiced views of atheism, with its over simplification of very complex ideas, are so harmful.

You are wrong that there are no religious believers in atheist states. Atheist states just stop religious hatred. For example no one can burn qurans in atheists states as they have done so in USA

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

State atheism is better than secularism. Take the example of Bangladesh which is a secular country but illegal Islamic sharia courts exists there and the state does not do enough to stop them. In state atheism this is not the problem. That is why in such States hate crimes are very less. The state is very strict to enforce equality. The state does not allow religious groups to attack each other even with words. The hate crime rate is less in atheist states.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Religious violence bangladesh
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

In Bangladesh a 14 year old girl was lashed to death by religious fundamentalists.

http://edition.cnn.com...

State atheism does not allow religion in government affairs. A leader is required to leave his previous faith, so that he can serve everyone equally. Whereas in secularism , most of the government can still be comprised of majority sect or religion. In Bangladesh no non-Muslim has become the Prime Minister since its independence even though they do have a sizeable non-Muslim minority. That's the problem here. That is why state policy will still be in favour one sect or religion. Although the favouritism is reduced in secular government but it still exist and is not eradicated. Also religious violence is not eradicated because the government can have politicians who are in favour of it. In state atheism this is not the problem. If you are a law abiding citizen, you can simply leave your previous faith and serve all people. State atheism eliminates religious differences and promotes the idea that to us you are as much a citizen than anybody else. This is equality. Whereas in religious countries if you are born in a certain religion or sect , it haunts you forever
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 10:01:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago

That it has reached that level, that Al-Sistani is issuing the call is measure of just how desperate the situation has become in Iraq. If we wish to avoid a wider Sectarian war started by extremists than it is incumbent upon us to support Al-Sistani's call by all means necessary.

The question is a religious one, and the question now is about how to use religion to calm a dreadfully violent situation from becoming a far worse problem. At this point, after a decade of more in these conflicts, our policy makers and think tanks understand this if our public does not. Its bad, and we must empower those who are able minded and capable. We must empower and continue to empower those whose moderation and humanity matter. We must ensure that others understand the forces of extremism and moderation and the role of policy in understanding and supporting.
Is there some reason atheists need to be so deliberately offensive?
Can i read? Seriously atheist? Do you guys need to be so arrogant?
Why you are talking about Afghanistan rather than Iraq? No idea.
State atheism, additionally, North Korea - does not allow religion to exist - period. Secularism is the inclusion of ALL beliefs without favoritism, not just blocking all but the one you happen to belong to from power (which leads to ... right North Korea). It is the SECULAR process that Iraq is struggling with as forces of extremism seek to deliberately undermine it.
Excluding EVERYONE from power but atheists? Would cause the situation to explode.
Its why prejudiced views of atheism, with its over simplification of very complex ideas, are so harmful.

You are wrong that there are no religious believers in atheist states. Atheist states just stop religious hatred. For example no one can burn qurans in atheists states as they have done so in USA

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

State atheism is better than secularism. Take the example of Bangladesh which is a secular country but illegal Islamic sharia courts exists there and the state does not do enough to stop them. In state atheism this is not the problem. That is why in such States hate crimes are very less. The state is very strict to enforce equality. The state does not allow religious groups to attack each other even with words. The hate crime rate is less in atheist states.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Religious violence bangladesh
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

In Bangladesh a 14 year old girl was lashed to death by religious fundamentalists.

http://edition.cnn.com...

State atheism does not allow religion in government affairs. A leader is required to leave his previous faith, so that he can serve everyone equally. Whereas in secularism , most of the government can still be comprised of majority sect or religion. In Bangladesh no non-Muslim has become the Prime Minister since its independence even though they do have a sizeable non-Muslim minority. That's the problem here. That is why state policy will still be in favour one sect or religion. Although the favouritism is reduced in secular government but it still exist and is not eradicated. Also religious violence is not eradicated because the government can have politicians who are in favour of it. In state atheism this is not the problem. If you are a law abiding citizen, you can simply leave your previous faith and serve all people. State atheism eliminates religious differences and promotes the idea that to us you are as much a citizen than anybody else. This is equality. Whereas in religious country

Thank you DB, for the clarion ability to use google to fundamentally misunderstand Iraq and its issue by linking it to EVERYTHING Islamic ANYWHERE in the world so you can advocate a completely unfeasible pipe dream that would only encourage both sides to further violence. Its helpful.

Benghazi is on an entirely different continent ... but, heh, we our religious biases are so think and heavy that we do not understand why that might be an issue.

And we'll use that bias to continue advocating a pipe dream, because being atheist, and seeing elision as the problem, rather than being an intelligent person who sees how it is being used by both sides (including your own BTW), we will just advocate for eth elimination of it!

Lets harness the US military to eliminate Islam from Iraq ... which I am SURE would go over swimmingly.

THAT is the danger of atheistic biases in policy.
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 10:05:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 9:57:00 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/14/2014 9:55:07 AM, bulproof wrote:


Don't look now but dubya was informed by his christian god to invade Iraq, no atheists involved.

Well, THAT conveys a strong understanding of what is going on in Iraq, why, and what to do about it.

Atheists are so helpful to policy issues.
Understand religion? Like the opinion held by many muslims that America is the great satan?
Or the christian view that Islam is a construct of satan?

No, I don't understand how people can bring their imaginary friends into real world scenarios and claim that they somehow have validity.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 10:07:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 10:05:54 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/14/2014 9:57:00 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/14/2014 9:55:07 AM, bulproof wrote:


Don't look now but dubya was informed by his christian god to invade Iraq, no atheists involved.

Well, THAT conveys a strong understanding of what is going on in Iraq, why, and what to do about it.

Atheists are so helpful to policy issues.
Understand religion? Like the opinion held by many muslims that America is the great satan?
Or the christian view that Islam is a construct of satan?

No, I don't understand how people can bring their imaginary friends into real world scenarios and claim that they somehow have validity.

Are you trolling? Again? If you cannot participate - don't. Your acerbic, and frankly insulting comments, are neither appreciated nor relevant.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 10:12:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 10:01:32 AM, neutral wrote:

That it has reached that level, that Al-Sistani is issuing the call is measure of just how desperate the situation has become in Iraq. If we wish to avoid a wider Sectarian war started by extremists than it is incumbent upon us to support Al-Sistani's call by all means necessary.

The question is a religious one, and the question now is about how to use religion to calm a dreadfully violent situation from becoming a far worse problem. At this point, after a decade of more in these conflicts, our policy makers and think tanks understand this if our public does not. Its bad, and we must empower those who are able minded and capable. We must empower and continue to empower those whose moderation and humanity matter. We must ensure that others understand the forces of extremism and moderation and the role of policy in understanding and supporting.
Is there some reason atheists need to be so deliberately offensive?
Can i read? Seriously atheist? Do you guys need to be so arrogant?
Why you are talking about Afghanistan rather than Iraq? No idea.
State atheism, additionally, North Korea - does not allow religion to exist - period. Secularism is the inclusion of ALL beliefs without favoritism, not just blocking all but the one you happen to belong to from power (which leads to ... right North Korea). It is the SECULAR process that Iraq is struggling with as forces of extremism seek to deliberately undermine it.
Excluding EVERYONE from power but atheists? Would cause the situation to explode.
Its why prejudiced views of atheism, with its over simplification of very complex ideas, are so harmful.

You are wrong that there are no religious believers in atheist states. Atheist states just stop religious hatred. For example no one can burn qurans in atheists states as they have done so in USA

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

State atheism is better than secularism. Take the example of Bangladesh which is a secular country but illegal Islamic sharia courts exists there and the state does not do enough to stop them. In state atheism this is not the problem. That is why in such States hate crimes are very less. The state is very strict to enforce equality. The state does not allow religious groups to attack each other even with words. The hate crime rate is less in atheist states.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Religious violence bangladesh
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

In Bangladesh a 14 year old girl was lashed to death by religious fundamentalists.

http://edition.cnn.com...

State atheism does not allow religion in government affairs. A leader is required to leave his previous faith, so that he can serve everyone equally. Whereas in secularism , most of the government can still be comprised of majority sect or religion. In Bangladesh no non-Muslim has become the Prime Minister since its independence even though they do have a sizeable non-Muslim minority. That's the problem here. That is why state policy will still be in favour one sect or religion. Although the favouritism is reduced in secular government but it still exist and is not eradicated. Also religious violence is not eradicated because the government can have politicians who are in favour of it. In state atheism this is not the problem. If you are a law abiding citizen, you can simply leave your previous faith and serve all people. State atheism eliminates religious differences and promotes the idea that to us you are as much a citizen than anybody else. This is equality. Whereas in religious country

Thank you DB, for the clarion ability to use google to fundamentally misunderstand Iraq and its issue by linking it to EVERYTHING Islamic ANYWHERE in the world so you can advocate a completely unfeasible pipe dream that would only encourage both sides to further violence. Its helpful.

Benghazi is on an entirely different continent ... but, heh, we our religious biases are so think and heavy that we do not understand why that might be an issue.

And we'll use that bias to continue advocating a pipe dream, because being atheist, and seeing elision as the problem, rather than being an intelligent person who sees how it is being used by both sides (including your own BTW), we will just advocate for eth elimination of it!

Lets harness the US military to eliminate Islam from Iraq ... which I am SURE would go over swimmingly.

THAT is the danger of atheistic biases in policy.

Nobody is talking about eliminating Islam .People can believe in whatever religion they want to believe. I am just saying that religion should not dictate government policy because it causes a lot of problem in USA as well as abroad. State atheism is the solution to religious hatred.
As far as US army is concerned. First it should eradicate its islamophobic teachings and stop institionalizing prejudice. Then government officials in USA should stop supporting burning of Quran incidents. Its a shame that only hawks are dictating policy while tolerant people are sidelined.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 10:16:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 10:07:58 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:05:54 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/14/2014 9:57:00 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/14/2014 9:55:07 AM, bulproof wrote:


Don't look now but dubya was informed by his christian god to invade Iraq, no atheists involved.

Well, THAT conveys a strong understanding of what is going on in Iraq, why, and what to do about it.

Atheists are so helpful to policy issues.
Understand religion? Like the opinion held by many muslims that America is the great satan?
Or the christian view that Islam is a construct of satan?

No, I don't understand how people can bring their imaginary friends into real world scenarios and claim that they somehow have validity.

Are you trolling? Again? If you cannot participate - don't. Your acerbic, and frankly insulting comments, are neither appreciated nor relevant.

You have no valid response so as usual, you just attack.
If you weren't so pathetic you'd still be funny doctor.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 10:45:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 10:16:39 AM, bulproof wrote:

You have no valid response so as usual, you just attack.
If you weren't so pathetic you'd still be funny doctor.

Right, you have been quite helpful to a discussion of Iraq. Tell you what, any further personal shots will be handled as you atheists have instructed me.

The topic is Iraq, where ISLAM would be relevant. You rambling nonsensical view of atheism is not relevant. Unless you want to demonstrate, as you seem intent on doing, how destructive it is to understanding Iraq.

Point conceded, highly prejudiced views of atheism, that are so thick and pervasive that you cannot discuss either the current situation in Iraq, or its political-religious realities is INCREDIBLY destruction to nominal human problem solving and understanding.

We got it already.

Iraq. Islam. Suna-Shia. Tribalism. Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia. Extremism vs. moderation.
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 10:58:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 10:45:07 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:16:39 AM, bulproof wrote:

You have no valid response so as usual, you just attack.
If you weren't so pathetic you'd still be funny doctor.

Right, you have been quite helpful to a discussion of Iraq. Tell you what, any further personal shots will be handled as you atheists have instructed me.

The topic is Iraq, where ISLAM would be relevant. You rambling nonsensical view of atheism is not relevant. Unless you want to demonstrate, as you seem intent on doing, how destructive it is to understanding Iraq.

Point conceded, highly prejudiced views of atheism, that are so thick and pervasive that you cannot discuss either the current situation in Iraq, or its political-religious realities is INCREDIBLY destruction to nominal human problem solving and understanding.

We got it already.

Iraq. Islam. Suna-Shia. Tribalism. Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia. Extremism vs. moderation.

As usual you attack me for some personal angst regarding atheism when I mentioned christianity. Remember what dubya said?

Try as hard as you can to comprehend what other people are saying and not what you want them to say?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 11:16:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 10:58:54 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:45:07 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:16:39 AM, bulproof wrote:

You have no valid response so as usual, you just attack.
If you weren't so pathetic you'd still be funny doctor.

Right, you have been quite helpful to a discussion of Iraq. Tell you what, any further personal shots will be handled as you atheists have instructed me.

The topic is Iraq, where ISLAM would be relevant. You rambling nonsensical view of atheism is not relevant. Unless you want to demonstrate, as you seem intent on doing, how destructive it is to understanding Iraq.

Point conceded, highly prejudiced views of atheism, that are so thick and pervasive that you cannot discuss either the current situation in Iraq, or its political-religious realities is INCREDIBLY destruction to nominal human problem solving and understanding.

We got it already.

Iraq. Islam. Suna-Shia. Tribalism. Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia. Extremism vs. moderation.

As usual you attack me for some personal angst regarding atheism when I mentioned christianity. Remember what dubya said?

Try as hard as you can to comprehend what other people are saying and not what you want them to say?

Try very hard to comprehend that you are way off topic and dragging in none germane nonsense.
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 11:22:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 11:16:59 AM, neutral wrote:

Try very hard to comprehend that you are way off topic and dragging in none germane nonsense.

Do you mean like this?
You rambling nonsensical view of atheism is not relevant.

When I haven't mentioned atheism? And most certainly have not been involved in a rambling nonsensical view in the three line responses I've made.

Start spitting at the screen while you respond, I don't think you have a choice.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 11:57:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 11:22:48 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/14/2014 11:16:59 AM, neutral wrote:


Try very hard to comprehend that you are way off topic and dragging in none germane nonsense.

Do you mean like this?
You rambling nonsensical view of atheism is not relevant.

When I haven't mentioned atheism? And most certainly have not been involved in a rambling nonsensical view in the three line responses I've made.

Start spitting at the screen while you respond, I don't think you have a choice.

Bully boy, do you see the topic? Your rambling diatribe and atheistic BS about 'imaginary friends' as if its relevant to what has or is unfolding in Iraq is nothing but insulting.

Your have been told its insulting and invited to make a RELEVANT point on any number of actually relevant scenarios involving Iraq and understanding it - without offering up the atheistic BS of how stupid religious people are in your opinion ... yet again.

The subject is Iraq, not how your prejudice leads you to believe that everyone in religion is stupid.

That is called trolling.
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2014 10:22:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 11:57:20 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/14/2014 11:22:48 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/14/2014 11:16:59 AM, neutral wrote:


Try very hard to comprehend that you are way off topic and dragging in none germane nonsense.

Do you mean like this?
You rambling nonsensical view of atheism is not relevant.

When I haven't mentioned atheism? And most certainly have not been involved in a rambling nonsensical view in the three line responses I've made.

Start spitting at the screen while you respond, I don't think you have a choice.

Bully boy, do you see the topic? Your rambling diatribe and atheistic BS about 'imaginary friends' as if its relevant to what has or is unfolding in Iraq is nothing but insulting.

Your have been told its insulting and invited to make a RELEVANT point on any number of actually relevant scenarios involving Iraq and understanding it - without offering up the atheistic BS of how stupid religious people are in your opinion ... yet again.

The subject is Iraq, not how your prejudice leads you to believe that everyone in religion is stupid.

That is called trolling.
What is unfolding in Iraq is laid squarely at the feet of the USA's illegal, unwarranted, god ordered invasion of that country.

That is called reality.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 4:16:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/14/2014 10:22:07 PM, bulproof wrote:

What is unfolding in Iraq is laid squarely at the feet of the USA's illegal, unwarranted, god ordered invasion of that country.

That is called reality.

Gee, thanks for the completely unsupported opinion.

I am sure that Saddam, having brutalized his way into have and have nots, very similar to what is happening in Syria, would have kept the lid on forever ... and ever ... and ever ... despite having put down SEVERAL insurgent uprisings that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and, prior to the Iraq War, had us flying no-fly zones to protect Iraqi people from chemical weapons attacks.

Interestingly enough, the crushed rebellions were in Shia parts of Iraq, now ... they are in Suna parts.

The problem has long been how to include BOTH.

I am sure the situation would have remained peaceful indefinitely ... just like Syria.

And its of course the US's fault that Suna insurgents took Mosul. Because we say so.

Again, when our pride and biases prevent us from even studying a situation in order to allow facts to justify our position, then we have issues.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 4:42:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 4:16:09 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:22:07 PM, bulproof wrote:

What is unfolding in Iraq is laid squarely at the feet of the USA's illegal, unwarranted, god ordered invasion of that country.

That is called reality.

Gee, thanks for the completely unsupported opinion.

I am sure that Saddam, having brutalized his way into have and have nots, very similar to what is happening in Syria, would have kept the lid on forever ... and ever ... and ever ... despite having put down SEVERAL insurgent uprisings that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and, prior to the Iraq War, had us flying no-fly zones to protect Iraqi people from chemical weapons attacks.

Interestingly enough, the crushed rebellions were in Shia parts of Iraq, now ... they are in Suna parts.

The problem has long been how to include BOTH.

I am sure the situation would have remained peaceful indefinitely ... just like Syria.

And its of course the US's fault that Suna insurgents took Mosul. Because we say so.

Again, when our pride and biases prevent us from even studying a situation in order to allow facts to justify our position, then we have issues.

Why is uncle Sam using Taliban in Syria. Why used al-qaeda in Libya. These are just allies of uncle Sam. The war on terror is more of a war for spreading terror. Everybody knows al-qaeda works for uncle Sam.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 4:47:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 4:42:04 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/15/2014 4:16:09 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:22:07 PM, bulproof wrote:

What is unfolding in Iraq is laid squarely at the feet of the USA's illegal, unwarranted, god ordered invasion of that country.

That is called reality.

Gee, thanks for the completely unsupported opinion.

I am sure that Saddam, having brutalized his way into have and have nots, very similar to what is happening in Syria, would have kept the lid on forever ... and ever ... and ever ... despite having put down SEVERAL insurgent uprisings that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and, prior to the Iraq War, had us flying no-fly zones to protect Iraqi people from chemical weapons attacks.

Interestingly enough, the crushed rebellions were in Shia parts of Iraq, now ... they are in Suna parts.

The problem has long been how to include BOTH.

I am sure the situation would have remained peaceful indefinitely ... just like Syria.

And its of course the US's fault that Suna insurgents took Mosul. Because we say so.

Again, when our pride and biases prevent us from even studying a situation in order to allow facts to justify our position, then we have issues.

Why is uncle Sam using Taliban in Syria. Why used al-qaeda in Libya. These are just allies of uncle Sam. The war on terror is more of a war for spreading terror. Everybody knows al-qaeda works for uncle Sam.

Maybe this comes as a shock to you?

#1 - The Taliban are in ... Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is the ENTIRE country of Iran in between them and Iraq. Given that the Taliban regularly attack the Hazarra, Shia Afghans, and Iran is ... Shia, there is no love lost between Iran and the Taliban.

#2 - As you clearly missed it, the administration has been pointedly NOT supporting the jihadi groups in Syrian from which the insurgents in Iraq jumped out of.

#3 - you are doing the same thing religious bigots of Islam do. They to jump all over the world and selectively pull bits and pieces and blame 'Islam' for it.

The discussion is Iraq, and you are talking about events in Lybia, the Horn of Africa, Yemen, and Pak-Af.

That is exactly the danger of anti-religious biases and prejudices. It prevents you from even attempting to use the rational process to understand what is going on. And when we are attempting to understand Iraq by pointedly not looking at Iraq (or even the countries and political processes closest to Iraq) ... that is stupid.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 5:01:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 4:47:07 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/15/2014 4:42:04 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/15/2014 4:16:09 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:22:07 PM, bulproof wrote:

What is unfolding in Iraq is laid squarely at the feet of the USA's illegal, unwarranted, god ordered invasion of that country.

That is called reality.

Gee, thanks for the completely unsupported opinion.

I am sure that Saddam, having brutalized his way into have and have nots, very similar to what is happening in Syria, would have kept the lid on forever ... and ever ... and ever ... despite having put down SEVERAL insurgent uprisings that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and, prior to the Iraq War, had us flying no-fly zones to protect Iraqi people from chemical weapons attacks.

Interestingly enough, the crushed rebellions were in Shia parts of Iraq, now ... they are in Suna parts.

The problem has long been how to include BOTH.

I am sure the situation would have remained peaceful indefinitely ... just like Syria.

And its of course the US's fault that Suna insurgents took Mosul. Because we say so.

Again, when our pride and biases prevent us from even studying a situation in order to allow facts to justify our position, then we have issues.

Why is uncle Sam using Taliban in Syria. Why used al-qaeda in Libya. These are just allies of uncle Sam. The war on terror is more of a war for spreading terror. Everybody knows al-qaeda works for uncle Sam.

Maybe this comes as a shock to you?

#1 - The Taliban are in ... Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is the ENTIRE country of Iran in between them and Iraq. Given that the Taliban regularly attack the Hazarra, Shia Afghans, and Iran is ... Shia, there is no love lost between Iran and the Taliban.

#2 - As you clearly missed it, the administration has been pointedly NOT supporting the jihadi groups in Syrian from which the insurgents in Iraq jumped out of.

Then what are Taliban doing in Syria and that too at a moment when uncle Sam has decided to interfere in Syria. Why have not the all qaeda even for a single time object to the US help of all Qaeda rebels in Libya. The all Qaeda is just a proxy organization of uncle Sam. Just as the KKK is.

#3 - you are doing the same thing religious bigots of Islam do. They to jump all over the world and selectively pull bits and pieces and blame 'Islam' for it.

Islamic fundamentalists blame Islam itself. Are you joking.
I will blame religious extremism also. Why did uncle Sam need to blast its own buildings to convince everyone to go to war. The Taliban , majority of them are pro uncle Sam . The rest agree on religious conservatism as does uncle Sam. The al-qaeda purely uncle Sam organization. I totally support eradicating Islamic way of governing from government affairs. State atheism is the solution.

The discussion is Iraq, and you are talking about events in Lybia, the Horn of Africa, Yemen, and Pak-Af.

I am trying to show that wherever uncle Sam goes, it mostly supports religious governments. Why does it not support extreme secularism and state atheism.

That is exactly the danger of anti-religious biases and prejudices. It prevents you from even attempting to use the rational process to understand what is going on. And when we are attempting to understand Iraq by pointedly not looking at Iraq (or even the countries and political processes closest to Iraq) ... that is stupid.

Wow
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2014 5:06:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/15/2014 5:01:04 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/15/2014 4:47:07 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/15/2014 4:42:04 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 6/15/2014 4:16:09 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/14/2014 10:22:07 PM, bulproof wrote:

What is unfolding in Iraq is laid squarely at the feet of the USA's illegal, unwarranted, god ordered invasion of that country.

That is called reality.

Gee, thanks for the completely unsupported opinion.

I am sure that Saddam, having brutalized his way into have and have nots, very similar to what is happening in Syria, would have kept the lid on forever ... and ever ... and ever ... despite having put down SEVERAL insurgent uprisings that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and, prior to the Iraq War, had us flying no-fly zones to protect Iraqi people from chemical weapons attacks.

Interestingly enough, the crushed rebellions were in Shia parts of Iraq, now ... they are in Suna parts.

The problem has long been how to include BOTH.

I am sure the situation would have remained peaceful indefinitely ... just like Syria.

And its of course the US's fault that Suna insurgents took Mosul. Because we say so.

Again, when our pride and biases prevent us from even studying a situation in order to allow facts to justify our position, then we have issues.

Why is uncle Sam using Taliban in Syria. Why used al-qaeda in Libya. These are just allies of uncle Sam. The war on terror is more of a war for spreading terror. Everybody knows al-qaeda works for uncle Sam.

Maybe this comes as a shock to you?

#1 - The Taliban are in ... Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is the ENTIRE country of Iran in between them and Iraq. Given that the Taliban regularly attack the Hazarra, Shia Afghans, and Iran is ... Shia, there is no love lost between Iran and the Taliban.

#2 - As you clearly missed it, the administration has been pointedly NOT supporting the jihadi groups in Syrian from which the insurgents in Iraq jumped out of.

Then what are Taliban doing in Syria and that too at a moment when uncle Sam has decided to interfere in Syria. Why have not the all qaeda even for a single time object to the US help of all Qaeda rebels in Libya. The all Qaeda is just a proxy organization of uncle Sam. Just as the KKK is.

#3 - you are doing the same thing religious bigots of Islam do. They to jump all over the world and selectively pull bits and pieces and blame 'Islam' for it.

Islamic fundamentalists blame Islam itself. Are you joking.
I will blame religious extremism also. Why did uncle Sam need to blast its own buildings to convince everyone to go to war. The Taliban , majority of them are pro uncle Sam . The rest agree on religious conservatism as does uncle Sam. The al-qaeda purely uncle Sam organization. I totally support eradicating Islamic way of governing from government affairs. State atheism is the solution.

The discussion is Iraq, and you are talking about events in Lybia, the Horn of Africa, Yemen, and Pak-Af.

I am trying to show that wherever uncle Sam goes, it mostly supports religious governments. Why does it not support extreme secularism and state atheism.

That is exactly the danger of anti-religious biases and prejudices. It prevents you from even attempting to use the rational process to understand what is going on. And when we are attempting to understand Iraq by pointedly not looking at Iraq (or even the countries and political processes closest to Iraq) ... that is stupid.

Wow

You are doing a poor job of it, and when confronted with the reality of the Suna Shia divide, you are telling me that you are trying to make a point ... with evidence from some place besides Iraq, while pointedly ignoring someone who is an expert on the situation.

My last boss in Iraq was a three star General. An Iraqi three star General. In fact, there are few people on the planet that I respect as much as that man. None that I respect more.

So if you are attempting to make a point about what our military has and has not done, you should probably make references to what we have and have not done ... in Iraq.

If you are talking about Muslims fighting one another, then you should probably make the point in reference to Iraq, rather than Bengazi.

Are there Muslims fighting in Iraq? You bet. Is that Uncle Sam's fault? Nope. That divide goes back thousands of years to the Persian/Arab divide - the two Empires were exhausted as the late Mohammed's forces unified on the Arabian peninsula, and poured forth and trounced them.

You seem to want me to take your unlearned position and refusal to learn seriously? Well, that I cannot do. No one should.