Every single one of these Taliban men was birthed by a woman, nursed by one, and mostly raised by one.
Women, if you raise your son’s to be Muslim they will treat your daughter’s like this. Tell them that there is no Allah, tell them that Abdul and Mohammad were wicked, tell them that the Imam is a shaman. Tell them the truth before it’s too late.
It is amazing to me how different the views are. One on side you got Westerner apologists whose knowledge of Islam is what they half remember from a video they saw on YouTube ten years ago on the other hand you have the Taliban. Both sides claim to know what real Islam is about. Well sorry not sorry I am going to believe the people who live with the Koran vs you.
You know good Muslims? I do as well. Does that make the tenents of Islam good? I don’t think so. Does that make them true? Nope. All you can really say is that you know people who aren’t following their own religion and as a result they are good people.
Correct, and the same for Christianity. The doctrines are really quite similar in their treatment of minorities. The only difference in that respect is that one doctrine says to just kill them, and the other says to exile and shun them (but stoning for some), or torment them mentally and emotionally until they abandon their beliefs and conform to the doctrine of the church.
The tenets of Islam are pretty good tho - pray a lot every day, give money to the poor, do a pilgrimage - it’s the historic and contemporary leadership, culture, violence, and precedence that are bad
No, not all Muslims treat their daughters like this. Too many do, yes, but not all. Look at Indonesia, for example, or many Western countries which have Muslim populations. It's partly religion, partly culture.
Yes it is possible to be a moral person and a god fearing one, it is just harder. To the extent that they are NOT following their religion they should be praised. The gotcha works the other way better.
Attack the argument and not the person. Do I need to put it in some Koran-like form?
And skydaddy said it unto the prophet blessed be he, thus sayeth Allah the most merciful. It is far better for a person to attack the ideas than the men who spoketh the idea. For the first leads to reasoned debate the latter is Haram and leads to logical fallacies.
There, that ought to do it. See? I am meeting you halfway. Do you need a copy of basic logic as well?
It’s not the religion they’re worried about, it’s the adherents. And if you’re wondering why that is, there’s two towers in New York that used to be there and aren’t anymore.
Muslims allowing islam to be known as ‘the religion of peace’ is one of the biggest doublespeaky manipulations around. They’re technically correct, because they’re referring to this line from the quran: “There will be peace on earth when there is no more al-fitnah”. Al-fitnah means ‘disbelief’ so what they’re saying is, there WILL be peace on earth, once we’ve converted everyone to our religion (forcibly or otherwise).
I’m a bookworm, read voraciously, and as a sad lonely young teen who struggled to understand religious people, decided to read all the books. Hindu vedas; Christian old / new testament; Buddhist dhamapada; quran, and the hadith. Islam is an awful religion when taken literally, and the few islamic sects who are genuinely peaceful (eg ahmadi, sufi) are not even considered ‘real muslims’ by the more popular interpretations (eg sunni / shia / salafi).
Don’t rely on out-of-context quotes from dodgy rightwingers, don’t rely on out-of-context explanations from muslims seeking to proselytise and make excuses, EVERYONE should read it for themselves so you’re debating on solid ground with facts on your side. My absolute favourite line from these particular religious texts is when Mohammed says he wants another wife to his (iirc final wife) Aisha. Aisha says something like, you’ve already had the maximum number of wives; Mo falls into a trance then says, don’t worry, I just spoke to god and he says it’s fine. She replies “Oh, how your god rushes to fulfil your desires”. Even she knew it was a crock of shit.
Good. This woman could have sickened not only her target, but anyone who came in contact with what she sent. While I share her politics, hate makes monsters of us all, and she crossed the line. While I don't think the "there are good people on both sides" argument holds much water, actions like hers remind me that there are definitely bad people on both sides.
There definitely is good people, you might not have met them, you are extremely disposed to not meet them and that is OK, hang around with people you want to, learned that myself not too long ago. You may have likely talked or interacted friendly with a (former) supporter.
I myself am not much invested, people’s hate of trump is weird given he ultimately did not even do much, like most presidents, but for me it is just stuff that can be felt outside US I dunno did california implode or did he personally appoint and send the floyd cop out or something. US for sure does not have a big beautiful mexico wall.
To be fair, I don't actually believe there are good and bad people (we're all a mix), and I agree with you that there are people who do good who are Trumpers (I'm a small town boy, so I grew up with a lot of them).
From a personal standpoint, the effect Trump had on California was significant and frightening, especially as a member of a mixed race family. It was real fun having to explain to my teenager why we were being followed by a Trump convoy on the freeway screaming the N word out the window. It fucking terrified both of us, as this had happened right after the bus got run off the road in Texas, and these guys clearly thought Trump had given the go ahead to go Mad Max on the libs.
From an economic standpoint, his immigration policies did real harm - my friends in the wine business had to leave grapes rotting on the vine because they were suddenly short workers (similar to what Florida is experiencing now). 70% + of international business on the west coast is with China, and he started a trade war that benefited no one, which really pissed off my techbro colleagues in e-commerce. The reason your taxes and mine went up this year is because of the package he passed while President, while permanently cutting taxes for the ultra-wealthy.
On top of that, the evil bastard put over 500,000 kids behind bars - many of whom are the extended family of my neighbors and co-workers, just trying to escape the cartel violence in Mexico.
So yes, there was a significant negative effect on California when Trump was elected. And while I can accept that people who support him are capable of good things, their support of him is definitely not one of them, and more than worthy of derision. Not murderous hate, however.
That and many, many, many other things, but I decided to focus on the kids in cages for this particular argument so that I didn't end up writing 20 pages.
Bro, I’m sorry, but if you don’t think Trump did much then you might be fucking blind and deaf. He incited a fucking insurrection dude, he’s currently in court for multiple indictments.
Every time I come upon that dynamic in real life, it's always turned out to be the wrong decision. The ends may justify the means, but the means defines the ends.
I would, many of them are my ancestors (both sides of the conflict, and some freed by it). And the results were horrifying, even if the means were justified by the evil of slavery (which was a far greater evil than what was inflicted on the Confederates).
Sherman's march made martyrs of the Confederate cause, and those that weren't martyrs turned around and started the KKK, using Union brutality as a rallying cry, and the political backlash derailed Reconstruction with Jim Crow laws.
The means defined the end result, which we're still dealing with today in the form of MAGA.
This is the dynamic I speak of. I don't believe fighting evil is the wrong decision, but per Sun Tzu:
To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
Had a peaceful solution been worked out, or a surrender negotiated before the razing of the Georgia countryside, I believe that Reconstruction would have been a success. Needless to say, those were unrealistic options at the time, so I do not fault my ancestors (those that fought on the winning side) for the choices they had to make. But those destructive actions led to more evil - driven underground - hiding until recent years, and still potent enough to affect our political discourse today.
would, many of them are my ancestors (both sides of the conflict, and some freed by it). And the results were horrifying, even if the means were justified by the evil of slavery (which was a far greater evil than what was inflicted on the Confederates).
Then you have no room to bitch and you thinking you can support a position so vile makes you not one of us, but just some fascist pretending to be. No actual Black person thinks that way. You are a cynically hateful racist by pretending to be one of us thinking it will legitimize your horrifying position.
Sherman’s march made martyrs of the Confederate cause, and those that weren’t martyrs turned around and started the KKK, using Union brutality as a rallying cry, and the political backlash derailed Reconstruction with Jim Crow laws.
Imagine blaming the Civil War for the KKK and not.m the actions of a group of people determined to keep slavery no matter what. Imagine not thinking they would have done what they did subsequently regardless.
The means defined the end result, which we’re still dealing with today in the form of MAGA.
Nope, it was their choice to try to undermine democracy to bring back slavery, and theirs alone. The moral responsibility to accept what they believe and do was wrong was solely on them, but they didn’t.
This is the dynamic I speak of. I don’t believe fighting evil is the wrong decision, but per Sun Tzu:
And once again you completely misinterpret history to fulfill a political agenda. Sun Tzu wasn’t just talking about peaceful solutions. He was talking about intimidating opponents into surrendering, usually with overwhelming shows of force, to stop further bloodshed, which Sherman did with his campaign and the U.S. did by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki almost a century later.
Had a peaceful solution been worked out, or a surrender negotiated before the razing of the Georgia countryside, I believe that Reconstruction would have been a success.
And that’s you showing you’re here in bad faith. That never would have happened because the South chose to fight and die for slavery, because for them white supremacy is a part of their culture. There never would have been peace without a resounding defeat and intimidation to surrender. They and they alone chose to be that way. The rest of the U.S. didn’t.
That kind of sick slavery apologia is why we reject that kind of “ends never justify the means” moral outlook and why we look at the reality of a situation before passing judgement.
Racist alt-right dipshit. As if we haven’t seen your ilk pretending to be different races to win arguments before. 🤦
That kind of sick slavery apologia is why we reject that kind of “ends never justify the means” moral outlook and why we look at the reality of a situation before passing judgement.
I know you're running hot after that one, but - didn't you mean "we reject ... ends never justify the means"?
Wait no, I just read back the thread again. You're saying that Sherman's march was justified, because it was pivotal in ending the Civil War with a Union win, and by extension, ending slavery in the US.
No. Sherman's march was not justified. It was horrible and cruel. When he decided to do it, and continue it, he lacked the hindsight that we enjoy. He could make some shorter term predictions, but nothing like being certain that it was necessary to end the war.
"But if it hadn't happened, or had failed, then the war may have turned out another way." That's an absurd thought experiment, because it didn't happen any other way. There is no "if."
The march happened, it was bad, historians now (with the benefit of hindsight) can point to the effects it did have (and historians don't always agree on everything or have complete and accurate information), the North won, slavery ended, which was good.
If the future ends justify the present means, that is license for anyone to do anything, with a clear conscience. And you never ever have to get to the stated end, even if it is your sincere belief, and even if your belief is in an empirically good thing.
That first part, before "Wait no," was the entirety of my initial comment. I was trying to be kind with what I thought was a correction.
And then I realized you actually meant that - that the ends justify the means. Which I firmly and wholly disagree with, for the reasons I explained above.
I'm not even really arguing, per se. But when someone is so wrong about something as critically important as the concept of "ends justifying means," I cannot let it stand without prompt and thorough comment. It is my civic duty to reply, if not for the person I am replying to, then for the passers-by who may be reading.
Wow, you’re actually unhinged with the personal attacks. They never said burning the South wasn’t justified at the time (they said the opposite). They pretty much only pointed out that certain means may carry unintended consequences to be aware of before engaging in such means. They ain’t blaming anyone. Where’s the racism/fascism in that?
No, they disarmed you by lying about their position and then went on to argue why they felt it was unjustified. Like all dumbass raciste masquerading as Black people to push their evil sophistry.
You understand without the Civil War I’d have likely been shot in the fields, mutilated to break me or turned into some kind of comfort girl or something, right?
When is it okay to just admit that some people are evil and those that are choose and want to be that way?
When do we ever get to label people as such?
Never?
Then you are evil yourself, and this conversation need not happen. Goodbye.
You are never going to have a meaningful conversation with anyone if you can’t accept that people with different opinions are just that: People with opinions. Most of them aren’t evil. Not deceitful. Just humans who’ve had different experiences than you.
If you label all these people as evil then indeed, violence against them is the only option you have. You create a world as radical, judgmental, and toxic as the sad history you’re trying to rectify by insulting and shutting up people who just express honest and valid concerns.
You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills. You just demonstrated the same unreasonable hate as the woman in the article, and it's led you to completely misinterpret what I'm saying, as other commenters have pointed out.
Because you let your hate drive this misinterpretation, none of your points were valid, and you come off looking like an idiot who can't read.
On top of which, attacking my race and my family's personal experience is the worst kind of straw man gatekeeping possible. Normally I wouldn't downvote someone disagreeing with me, but straight up fuck off - you have no idea who I am or what my experience is. I engaged your comment in good faith, and you decided throw insults. Grow up and learn to act like an adult.
Hate to do Godwins Law but the Allies brought death and destruction to destroy the reign of the Third Reich and I believe that we all know that was a good outcome.
That’s not a case of the ends justifying the means. Allied, offensive, strategic bombing was itself just, not because of what came after, but because of what came before.
I hate to do the Godwins Law but the Allies have brought down death and destruction to the reign of the Third Reich. Sherman let loose the dogs of war on the South to bring freedom to the slaves. I believe we all know that they brought good outcomes.
In what world is preventing authoritarian governments from expanding their power and committing genocides, or fighting to free slaves, doing bad things? Those conflicts were started by someone else doing bad things, and the reaction was to stop those people from continuing to do bad things.
If he dies of a heart attack or something before trial, his supporters will insufferably claim nothing was ever proven and will act like he’s some sort of conservative JFK and demand airports be named after him.
Why do we name airports in honor of people? Airports suck. We should name airports after bad people as punishment. “Yeah, it’s a great house but it’s in the flight path of Andy Dick International Airport.” “They lost my luggage at Cosby Field.” “I had a 6 hour layover at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.”
People say this a lot but honestly I don’t think he’d become a martyr if he died. I don’t condone assassination attempts obviously, but the key to a proper martyrdom is the people supporting you have to actually believe in what you stand for, and have to be loyal and dedicated. People who root for Trump don’t actually care about him or his policies, they just swallowed a bunch of propaganda, and are rooting more against the team they don’t like. We’ve already seen how quickly people drop Trump when he’s not their golden goose anymore. If he died, there’d be no point in following him if he isn’t spouting off buzzwords and dogwhistles constantly anymore. They’d just move on to the next guy who doesn’t like immigration or the gays. I mean, it’s not like anyone calls Hitler a martyr, or any other authoritarian dictators that have died in the past. A martyr has to be someone who inspires people beyond their death, and brings attention to a particular issue. Trump doesn’t inspire anyone, he’s just a convenient figurehead to rally behind.
Cool, they need to try this as a federal hate crime then. Trying to get a far trial in Mississippi for a POC is like trying to squeeze water from lava.
You do realize that means very little in the South, right?
“Patrick Braxton accomplished something no other black resident of the City of Newbern had ever accomplished since the city’s founding in 1854: he was duly elected Mayor of the City,” the lawsuit claims. “However, the minority White residents of the City, long accustomed to exercising total control over city government, refused to accept this outcome.”
Hmmmmm this title got me wondering if you can put in your will terms for a posthumous devorce in the event your spouse murders you or is some how responsible for your death
2 Full-time and 4 part-time employees quit. The population is 1,000 people. They should find 2 solid officers and 4 crisis workers. They will accomplish more for the community than the people that quit.
As a Californian, this could be a welcome respite in the middle of fire season if it dumps enough rain.
That being said, it's not good. Rainfall this late is going to throw harvest all out of whack, particularly in wine country. I'm guessing there's going to be a lot of Central Coast sweet wine on the market after this season -Botrytis cinerea thrives on a wet fall harvest. In 2017 (similar rainfall conditions) it was even found growing on Cabernet grapes, which are usually much more resistant to it than the white varietals.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.