RustyNails
Member
No surprise whatsoever. These terrorists destroyed Jonah's mosque as well.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
IS destroys iconic al-Nuri mosque in Mosul
- Thread starter Oersted
- Start date
Arkage
Banned
Considering they're trying to blame Americans for its destruction they probably thought it'd be a good recruiting stunt since their ranks have been thinning so rapidly.
It could be that, from Reuters:
But when IS first captured Mosul, they did attempt to destroy the minaret of the mosque. AP: Blowing up shrines, extremists shrug off restraint and unleash their vision on Iraq's Mosul
elrechazado
Banned
Lots of no true Scotsmen arguments in here.
This. Bombing the mosque of the Prophet you claim to follow... Something doesn't add up 👀
This reminds me of Hitler destroying the railroad car that held the 1918 armistice of Compiègne while his forces were breathing their last breaths. this mosque represent a huge symbol for their organization as we all know that it was the theater where their leader declared the "Caliphate" in the climax of ISIS rising.
ISIS worry too much about their image as the unbeatable and the God-aided organization, they are losing badly and they are trying to look as victorious, anyway we are now witnessing the last weeks of ISIS and the losing men hit harder in their very end than ever before.
Brace yourselves for more ISIS attacks and that could be anywhere.
ISIS worry too much about their image as the unbeatable and the God-aided organization, they are losing badly and they are trying to look as victorious, anyway we are now witnessing the last weeks of ISIS and the losing men hit harder in their very end than ever before.
Brace yourselves for more ISIS attacks and that could be anywhere.
Kibbles
Member
How did this work against fucking ISIS? What do they care about killing innocents?
Sunster
Member
tell me more
Sunster
Member
judging by #alnurimosque on Twitter they seem pretty upset.
Saint of Killers
Member
The most devout Muslims.
So basically their plan was to use this as a recruiting tool, not thinking about people with cameras actually catching it getting blown up.
Yeah, but a quick tour of Aljazeera's comment section shows a lot of conspiracy theories.
"ISIS is a US-zionist creation"
"US did this to upset Muslims"
Sunster
Member
a quick tour of literally every news website's comment section will display such things.
And yet none of the usual spam "I make 5000 dollars a week working at home, you can too"
Wow. ISIS probably did that as a publicity stunt for recruitment purposes, and apparently forgot that cameras exist. That's some next level stupid.
Sales of artifacts to billionaires. Takes too long and requires to much skill to dig up normally... So they just blow it up to get to it. It's fucked up.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
The comment section on al-Jazeera English is one of the worst.
Really, comment section in any news portal is one of the worst aspect of the modern world. I'm glad it's now disabled by default.
Maybe they did that because the architecture is somewhat persian and one must not forget the weight of arab nationalism in ISIS thinking. They can accept non-arabs provinces as submitted wilayat, but the leading center must be arabic. Everything foreign, especially persian, is perceived as decadent.
darkinstinct
...lacks reading comprehension.
They only partially destroyed it and it can be restored.
Sorry if it's already been asked, but why would they destroy a mosque? Is it just a scorched earth thing so they deprive us of being able to raise a flag on a site that was once important to them?
Have you not realised by now that the whole thing is a fight between Muslims? Sunnis vs Shiites. Saddam Hussein was Sunni. The majority of Iraq is Shiite. ISIS is Sunni. Iran is Shiite. Saudi-Arabia is Sunni. Syria is Sunni with a minority (Alawites, Assad) being in powert. It's all a religious war. The only reason why it influences the West is because we interfered. They don't care about mosques. They wanted to destroy it three years ago.
J
JoJo UK
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah I'm not sure I understand the reference either, could you explain please.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
He is angry we are saying that they are not representing islam or muslims.
It's a recurrent meme against muslims. Muslims should condemn terrorism and reject the terrorist interpretation of Islam, but if they do so, they are accused of using the "No true Scotsman" argument.
F0rneus
Tears in the rain
It's an old story about a Scotsman, who is reading his newspaper and sees that a woman has been raped. He shouts out "No Scotsman would do that". The next day he reads his paper and they caught the rapist, and he's Scottish. So our guy screams out "No true Scotsman would do this".
Bullshit, the destruction of these things is nothing more than to sell artifacts to rich idiots, using religion as a cover up. Normal digging takes too long, and they thus use heavy handed techniques to do it instead. Same with oil. ISIS uses religion to indoctrinate the cannonfodder and to appear scary to the west. The top of ISIS couldn't care SHIT about Islam, they are just in it for the power, money and being feared. Basically you're looking at Ali Baba and his 40 robbers.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Iran, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria (FSA and Gov), Jordan, Morocco, UAE.... are allied with 15 christians and secular countries against ISIS.
So it's hardly a religious war.
Chuckie
Member
Well it is a 'religious' war in the sense of ISIS' perverted distorted version of Islam vs the rest of the world, be it Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims, Christians or Atheists.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
Yeah, from their perspective (at least their public stance), it's definitely "a holy war between faith and disbelief".
At the height of the reformation following the iconoclasm and wars with the catholic south, Dutch protestants sought alliances with the Ottoman Empire (that was laying siege to Europe at the time) and would wear crescent moon icons that read "rather be Turkish than Papist"
Brittle interfaith alliances may be just as much proof of a religious war as refutation against it.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
At the height of the reformation following the iconoclasm and wars with the catholic south, Dutch protestants sought alliances with the Ottoman Empire (that was laying siege to Europe at the time) and would wear crescent moon icons that read "rather be Turkish than Papist"
Brittle interfaith alliances may be just as much proof of a religious war as refutation against it.
Awesome anecdote ! Never heard of it, thanks for sharing it.
Chasm Skulker
Banned
Wasn't this the mosque Baghdadi declared the caliphate from? Seems strange, like, it was good enough for him then but not now?
These shit stains are all off their faces on amphetamines anyway, can't exactly expect rational, or least, predictable behavior
These shit stains are all off their faces on amphetamines anyway, can't exactly expect rational, or least, predictable behavior
Monocle
Member
Not content to limit their depredations to thinking feeling human beings, these psychos have to attack culture as well. They're like all the worst things about our species rolled into a single ball of filth, and religion is the dung beetle.
The sheer ubiquity of religious hypocrisy is one of the bigger factors that led to my disenchantment with religion. In the end it's all part of the same noxious hydra.
If only we could all agree to run with secular humanism and leave violent mythologies where they belong: in books that teach us what not to do.
Good post.
They're sure laying out a compelling case for faith by doing their damnedest to create hell on earth.
Surprising no one. I don't know if I've seen a single conversation about religious extremism where someone comes to the defense of religion without resorting to that kind of intellectual dishonesty.
The sheer ubiquity of religious hypocrisy is one of the bigger factors that led to my disenchantment with religion. In the end it's all part of the same noxious hydra.
If only we could all agree to run with secular humanism and leave violent mythologies where they belong: in books that teach us what not to do.
texhnolyze
Banned
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
Please provide the quranic verse where it speak about how big the stick should be or how many cows a daughter is worth. Nothing openly misogynistic or violently tribalistic exist in the Quran. Of course, you'll find horrendous interpretation who reflect nothing but the mind of the interpreter but nothing in the litteral revealed text.
Also your argumentation about intrinsic inability of the muslim to ever be civilized because of the relation they got with their text is a copy/past of the argumentation people made with the jewish faith. A little peak in the history of islamic/jewish philosophy just show that it can go as far/further from what the christian intellectual tradition have accomplished.
And amending the divine law is what muslim jurists have been doing the last 1400 years. Context, greater good or easiness are valid argument in islamic jurisprudence (fiqh). It is also believed that their is to kind of verses in the Quran, the abrogant and the abrogated, so a verse can replace another. For instance, the first punishment for adultery was seclusion and was then replaced by a virtually-impossible-to-apply 100 lashes.
+1 special bonus for the use of Allah instead of God.
Monocle
Member
It's all interpretation. There is no such thing as a religious text with a single objective unalterable meaning. And who's going to accept that their interpretation is wrong if they don't want to hear it?
This is a big bear of a problem for people who truck with irrationalism. This is how you get people opening all-inclusive LGBT friendly churches while their neighbors next door think they all deserve to lynchedand they're reading the exact same book.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
I believe that the objective meaning is with God only and we can only try to reach it. The idea that it's all an attempt should be what prevent us to commit crimes in the name of God, it's the antithesis of fanaticism, it's why fundamentalism always try to destroy the intermediary role of the human reason in the lecture of a religious text.
Also, you're right: most people will stick with the interpretation most useful to them. So if you want to conquer the world, you won't go for the more contemplative interpretation of your sacred text.
Monocle
Member
Much of the history of religion is people striving for, or believing they've found, the correct interpretation of their source texts. It's 2017 and we still have extremists sawing off each other's heads, treating women like cattle, and destroying priceless art.
Clearly religion is not its own antidote. We have to move past this beastly snare of conflicting beliefs, and embrace shared humanistic values. Religion is part of our global culture, and the benign parts of culture should be preserved. Over 2500 years of this war of interpretations, and here's ISIS in the 21st Century. Can religion ever be entirely benign? How many more generations would that take?
There are no simple answers. It's beyond frustrating.
Sorry what? What values are those? The same ones that many of these religions that you're so intolerant of preach or? And what percentage of them should be shared? Who is going to be the arbiter in deciding that?
And here they are committing flagrant abuses of the most basic tenets of a faith they claim to follow. Killing innocent women and children, the vast majority of which are muslims, torture, rape, attacking the prophet's mosque, blowing up other mosques- everything they do flies in the face of the religion they claim to follow- their actions are actions against the vast majority of the muslim ummah and yet here you are talking about intellectual dishonesty?
J
JoJo UK
Unconfirmed Member
I had heard the phrase before but was unsure who was 'the Scotsman' in this context (reading back it makes sense, early morning brain fart), thanks guys.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
Abolishing religion won't change anything since the main issue are the motivation of domination in the first place. Religions are not a magical phenomenon distinct from others phenomenons, the worst things you'll find in the worst religious interpretations, you'll be able to find them as well in seculars ideologies or even humanism. Marxism is a form of humanism and history show us where did that goes. French colonialism was made in the name of humanism, but was not different from the "christians conquest" from England or the Spain.
Religion is just used as a tool. Give anything to humans beings, the worst of them will do the same: dominate, kill and conquer in the name of this tool. The only change is the symbol they put on the flag.
I don't think that essentializing religion can lead somewhere, especially when you agree it's "all interpretation". If it's "all interpretation", so it's all humans. If it's all humans, you won't solve anything except by changing human nature. And we also saw where this project went historically.
Cuz they're monsters who are fakeass Muslims.
Monocle
Member
Enlightenment values, basically. It's all laid out by philosophers like Plato whose work shares certain common threads that include seeking virtue and respecting human dignity. We can also rely on the much older golden rule: treating people how we (or better yet, they) want to be treated.
It's actually not that complex, with our vast inheritance of wisdom from earlier centuries, just hard to put into practice because everyone's constantly kicking over each other's sand castles. What we've got to do is use our best tools (science) to understand the nature and causes of human suffering, and then we develop policies and align our behavior toward the goal of minimizing suffering for as many people as possible.
We raise kids a bit like the Ancient Greeks, on stories that inspire virtue (defined by expert consensus and the lessons of the past) and cultivate civic pride. We do so in an environment that conditions children to ask a lot of questions, encouraging them to exercise their curiosity and develop their skepticism, and teaching them how using evidence and their own rational capacities to find answers or ask better questions is intrinsically rewarding. Then we let our educated, well-adjusted citizens use their finely honed consciences to guide them in daily situations that can't be solved by appealing to laws or social mores. It's a cyclical process where better people lead to better conditions, which in turn lift the next generation to higher peaks.
If religion can't even stop people from behaving that way, how can anyone trust it to moderate normal behavior?
And to think people have the gall to say it takes religion to be good. I, an atheist, have no desire to burn down a fucking church or mosque even if the people inside it want to stone or shoot me. Wonder how that happened.
I don't think anyone really believes that overcoming religion would solve the world's problems. However, it would make their solving simpler since we wouldn't have a massive network of cults that propagate highly tenacious brain worms which specifically instruct people to trust their feelings, believe without evidence, mistrust evidence, huddle themselves into hostile little (or not so little) tribes that think every outsider is corrupted and deluded, etc.
I'm not for a second claiming that every religious person is like this. Most of the people in this world are religious, and I coexist with them in peace every day. But religion itself is a uniquely potent compound, and delivery system, of weaponized irrationality. There's nothing else quite like itnothing that can compromise so many people's minds with such virulent efficiency, convincing them to act against their own best interests and those of their fellow human beings.
dripdripsplash
Member
No thats not what's happening. What's happening is muslims are saying that Isis has absolutely nothing to do with Islam and that they are not muslims and we should stop doing that.
Its not all 100 procent about Islam. But it also has SOMETHING to do with Islam
Audioboxer
Member
The long story short is humans can and will act tribalistic whatever it is they huddle around. Religion does tend to be the most potent source in 2017 as it claims to answer the biggest angst we all face: mortality. It will probably forever be at the head of the table. However, you look at sports teams, favourite games console, favourite brand of clothes, and so on and you can still see tribalistic us vs them behaviour. I'd say politics is right up there behind religion, sometimes overlapping it, but most of the most extreme forms of oppression, abuse, and even killing still happen in the name of religion. I guess political religions are really the most extreme.
All we really can do is firmly keep Church separated from state and routinely hoist up our countries values. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are both immensely important for societies to inch further towards a future that doesn't need to have religion eradicated, but it needs to continue to show people religion should remain a personal choice, not something to oppress/rule others with. That is one of the biggest challenges we face in countries where ISIS reside. Oppression and force used to make people conform or face penalties as serious as death. Putting aside their interpretations of 90% of their book of God, it's the parts about ruling by the sword or spreading the religion by the sword that cause some of the most inhumane actions. Kill the unbelievers, heretics and so on. Then from there we can look at the rest of what they do which is still often seriously abuse and harm those that ARE believers, but are born with vaginas and breasts ~ In other words, women are treated soo bad it's abysmal to see in 2017. Most religions still have serious issues with women though, every text of choice is routinely heavily misogynistic and all about men and power. They all plagiarise from each other so that's not really a shock. Hitchens has always been right here that women in the Middle East need to be propped up and helped, but so often we in the West fail to help them in any way and routinely mock them by our hand-waving of misogyny in our own countries (part of that being we do not want to offend religious people).
Anyway, this topic isn't really a catch-all for religion. ISIS destroying things they do not like/history is precisely them carrying out this oppression and force though, so a little bit of context as to why they do it and where it comes from isn't too offtopic. It does also show as most of us know they do not just target the unbelievers or the West, the majority of their killing and oppression is towards other Muslims for not being the right kind of Muslim. Just scour the internet to see the amount of car bombs/suicide explosions and gun killings going on in any ISIS filled country. You're lucky if the death counts reaching 40~50~60+ from one attack even make our news at times.
Sunster
Member
and I wanted examples of posts that displayed this fallacy.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
So Muslims should reject ISIS but accept it as the same time. Interesting. If i say what ISIS does have something to do with my faith, i would be called a terrorist. If i say otherwise, i will be call an hypocrite.
Do christians have to acknowledge as well that KKK have something to do with their faith ? Does atheists have to acknowledge what Stalin did in the name of their ("absence of") faith ?
Let's just people (which are the first concerned, NOT YOU) decide for themselves if they want to acknowledge those group as part of their faith or not.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
Any sense of higher purpose does that, from the perspective of someone who don't share it.
I cannot even understand how you can think my religious practice go against my best interests or the people around me ? For instance, i have to give wealth every year to poor people. I'm highly encouraged to give whatever i can to every person in need i can encounter. I must also give assistance to anybody who may need it. In what sense i am hurting myself or the people around me ?
You can make the case that a lot of evil is religiously motivated in this world, and i would agree. But it's difficult to say that it outweigh the good deed who are religiously motivated. Just look at religious charities or the amazing personnalities like MLK, Malcolm X or Ghandi who were highly inspired and motivated by their religious sentiment.