Boko Haram, pulls a lebron

[MavsSuperFan]

Betas want to join ISIS now because they need more help to spread islam:coleman:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-31784538

this generation of islamic militants dont want the competition and would rather team up.

[IcanzIIravor]

Betas want to join ISIS now because they need more help to spread islam:coleman:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-31784538

this generation of islamic militants dont want the competition and would rather team up.

Bad move for them. They just gave the African nations around them even more incentive to root them out. Hence the stepped up campaign to smash them.

[SugarHill]

that title lmao

[highwhey]

Nigerian militant group Boko Haram has pledged allegiance to Islamic State (IS), according to an audio statement.

The message, which has not been verified, was posted on Boko Haram's Twitter account and is believed to be by the group's leader, Abubakar Shekau.

Why does twitter allow terrorist organizations to have a twitter :facepalm

[Done_And_Done]

Boko are brutal mofo's. Anyone who targets schools to get their hate messages across should be erased from existence.

[fiddy]

They have been affiliated for a long time now.


Boko are brutal mofo's. Anyone who targets schools to get their hate messages across should be erased from existence.
kidnapping girls making them marry their soldiers, shit is fuсked up

[sweggeh]

Why does twitter allow terrorist organizations to have a twitter :facepalm

Why not? Its actually a really good thing because they can be monitored better and any retards trying to join them or interacting with twitter account can be put on a watch list by the feds.

[Dresta]

Why not? Its actually a really good thing because they can be monitored better and any retards trying to join them or interacting with twitter account can be put on a watch list by the feds.
Are you retarded? Those twitter accounts post nothing but propaganda, get closed and reopened weekly, and are of no use whatsoever to 'the feds'

As if they're going to post any sensitive information on twitter smh, it's all pictures of dead and mutilated children (evil Assad etc.), and the braggadocio of the jihadist cause, with edited war movies clearly aimed to entice young muslims who play a lot of video games, as well as a daily exaltation of all the executions carried out, people killed, hands cut off etc.

[tomtucker]

:facepalm ..weak era for terrorists.........remember when they did not have to team up with others to spread fear and dead ?

.
Fukking Lebrons........and yes, the Heat are losing alot of games, but they are playing with joy and fun in their hearts since the asshole left them.......

[MavsSuperFan]

I will say this about hamas, they are over the hill and well past their prime in the Second Intifada, at this point they chuck rockets and are extremely inefficient at hitting their targets, but they arent afraid of taking shots. You dont see these guys jihad chasing and trying to join ISIS SMH

These analytics guys and their obsession with efficiency disgust me. Sure Boko Haram is being more efficient but they choke when it matters.

[pauk]

Help spread Islam? Yea OP... that sure is Islam right there....

[Dresta]

Help spread Islam? Yea OP... that sure is Islam right there....
It has as much right to call itself Islam as whatever petty creed you yourself follow. You are not the ultimate arbitrator of what does and does not constitute Islam.

[MavsSuperFan]

Help spread Islam? Yea OP... that sure is Islam right there....
A version of Islam that is much closer to what Muhammad wanted then what liberal secular muslims want. If they want to implement a society where laws are based on Islamic teachings (eg. illegal to drink alcohol, eat pork, be gay, etc), I dont see how you can argue they arent spreading islam.

It would be like arguing the Spanish inquisition is unrelated to Christianity.

Liberal secular muslims and christians, basically choose to ignore significant portions of their religions. Eg. Christians that choose not to be bigoted towards gays or are tolerant of a womens right to abort a child, are not really devout christians.

[Dresta]

A version of Islam that is much closer to what Muhammad wanted then what liberal secular muslims want. If they want to implement a society where laws are based on Islamic teachings (eg. illegal to drink alcohol, eat pork, be gay, etc), I dont see how you can argue they arent spreading islam.

It would be like arguing the Spanish inquisition is unrelated to Christianity.

Liberal secular muslims and christians, basically choose to ignore significant portions of their religions. Eg. Christians that choose not to be bigoted towards gays or are tolerant of a womens right to abort a child, are not really devout christians.
:lol

You cannot be serious? Anyone who finds it agreeable to 'tolerate the abortion of children' is really so far removed from Christian teaching that they cannot rightly be called a Christian.

Individual human life is considered sacred in Christianity, and yet you think it's normal for Christians to be tolerant the abortion of defenceless human life for largely selfish motives?

GAWD man, the ignorance is strong with you.

[MavsSuperFan]

:lol

You cannot be serious? Anyone who finds it agreeable to 'tolerate the abortion of children' is really so far removed from Christian teaching that they cannot rightly be called a Christian.

Individual human life is considered sacred in Christianity, and yet you think it's normal for Christians to be tolerant the abortion of defenceless human life for largely selfish motives?

GAWD man, the ignorance is strong with you.
That is the message i was trying to convey.... reading comprehension much.

I am not pro Christianity at all and think liberal christians and muslims ignore large parts of their religion.


GAWD man, the ignorance is strong with you.

you whole post essentially contained the same message I wrote, and did not contradict it at all. We both agree that abortion cant be supported by christians and any christian that supports a women right to choose is not very christian.

We differ on whether being christian is a good thing.

[Dresta]

Sorry, i read it completely differently, but there is a certain amount of ambiguity there. You said:


Liberal secular muslims and christians, basically choose to ignore significant portions of their religions. Eg. Christians that choose not to be bigoted towards gays or are tolerant of a womens right to abort a child, are not really devout christians.

To be honest, your imprecision invites misunderstanding here. You say the first type of Muslims and Christians choose to ignore significant portions of their religions (you meant scripture, whereas i thought you meant individuals, assuming it a follow-on from Pauk - the liberal muslim - pretending that IS are not real muslims). In the same way, i assumed you were saying liberal Christians don't consider those who are anti-abortion to be Christian, which is ridiculous, though not much more ridiculous than Pauk pretending people who blow themselves up in the name of Allah aren't muslims.


I don't think Christianity is a good thing either, just many of the things i deplore about it you now enshrine in a secular ideology of your own.
Moreover, i recognise that it is the basis of many of the things that you in fact value more than i do, but attribute it to some other mystical force, something 'innate' (meaning: an utter fabrication, like the ever-evolving list of 'human rights', and the abstract and nonsensical concept of 'human dignity' - these things have no objective basis: they grew out of myth and superstition, as did reason and the obsessions with truth!). Your much-vaunted liberalism would not even exist without Christianity - it is its direct descendent, and any even remotely detailed study of history and philosophy will show you this.

[MavsSuperFan]

Sorry, i read it completely differently, but there is a certain amount of ambiguity there. You said:



To be honest, your imprecision invites misunderstanding here. You say the first type of Muslims and Christians choose to ignore significant portions of their religions (you meant scripture, whereas i thought you meant individuals, assuming it a follow-on from Pauk - the liberal muslim - pretending that IS are not real muslims). In the same way, i assumed you were saying liberal Christians don't consider those who are anti-abortion to be Christian, which is ridiculous, though not much more ridiculous than Pauk pretending people who blow themselves up in the name of Allah aren't muslims.


I don't think Christianity is a good thing either, just many of the things i deplore about it you now enshrine in a secular ideology of your own.
Moreover, i recognise that it is the basis of many of the things that you in fact value more than i do, but attribute it to some other mystical force, something 'innate' (meaning: an utter fabrication, like the ever-evolving list of 'human rights', and the abstract and nonsensical concept of 'human dignity' - these things have no objective basis: they grew out of myth and superstition, as did reason and the obsessions with truth!). Your much-vaunted liberalism would not even exist without Christianity - it is its direct descendent, and any even remotely detailed study of history and philosophy will show you this.



To be honest, your imprecision invites misunderstanding here. You say the first type of Muslims and Christians choose to ignore significant portions of their religions (you meant scripture, whereas i thought you meant individuals, assuming it a follow-on from Pauk - the liberal muslim - pretending that IS are not real muslims). In the same way, i assumed you were saying liberal Christians don't consider those who are anti-abortion to be Christian, which is ridiculous, though not much more ridiculous than Pauk pretending people who blow themselves up in the name of Allah aren't muslims.

I was disagreeing with Pauk, and basically saying that ISIS is a truer representation of Islamic scriptures than liberal Muslims, the same way liberal christians dont aren't living as close to their scriptures as right wing social conservatives,


In the same way, i assumed you were saying liberal Christians don't consider those who are anti-abortion to be Christian,

I honestly dont see how you can interpret that from what i wrote.


I don't think Christianity is a good thing either, just many of the things i deplore about it you now enshrine in a secular ideology of your own.
Examples? How so? I will provide an explanation for why I believe the things I do if you would provide an example.


Moreover, i recognise that it is the basis of many of the things that you in fact value more than i do, but attribute it to some other mystical force, something 'innate' (meaning: an utter fabrication, like the ever-evolving list of 'human rights', and the abstract and nonsensical concept of 'human dignity' - these things have no objective basis: they grew out of myth and superstition, as did reason and the obsessions with truth!). Your much-vaunted liberalism would not even exist without Christianity - it is its direct descendent, and any even remotely detailed study of history and philosophy will show you this.

We have had this debate before
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10936080&postcount=56

You never responded to my post.


Your much-vaunted liberalism would not even exist without Christianity - it is its direct descendent, and any even remotely detailed study of history and philosophy will show you this.

the morality you attribute to Christianity, exists in many areas that have never experienced Christianity. There are tribes in the south pacific, and the rain forests of south america that live communally, in fact often the biggest taboos in these societies that were untouched by outside influences for thousands of years is the hoarding of/not sharing resources. Another big taboo is often dishonestly. In the past there were tribes in africa that developed similar morals (eg honesty, charity, compassion, caring, self-sacrifice, care taking of the disabled, etc) before outside forces ever contacted them. How do you think these uncontacted people develop morals if you think Christianity serves as the basis for them?


You believe


because it is far more engrained in our morality and custom than someone like you is willing to admit.

How do you explain same kindness and honesty in shanghai, chengdu, kunming, tokyo, yokohama, etc

Besides even if I accept that certain values i ascribe to exist because of Christianity (I dont), how does that detract from my arguments against the parts of Christianity I find reprehensible?


like the ever-evolving list of 'human rights', and the abstract and nonsensical concept of 'human dignity' - these things have no objective basis
You dont acknowledge in order to survive in small groups with limited resource there is an advantage to being social and treating others in a way that will foster some affection for you among them?

Eg. A guy in a hunter gather society breaks his leg and needs his tribal to provide food for him so he can heal up and not starve.

[Dresta]

Considering you were discussing the issue with Pauk it only makes sense to interpret what you said in such a way. Be clearer in the future.

Jesus Christ, just because others have moral values that are necessary to preserve any community (i.e. they are based on expedience - that is, not moral at all), it doesn't mean they aren't different to one another. I think you'll find individual human life is deemed of far less import in places like China (and that has been the case, historically), the idea of the right to privacy is not at all the same, neither the concept of individual moral conscience (something that is very much the basis of Christian thinking, and something that is quickly becoming collectivised into a new social conscience again, of the sort common in fanatical societies like the USSR). There hasn't been a much safer and more secure place to live in the world than the Anglican Britain of the early 20th century, which was a cool and thoughtful rather than fanatical religion (based around two profound and beautiful collections of literature, the King James Bible and the book of common prayer). I know i'd rather be living there than in China or Japan of the same period and later (the latter especially before we exerted massive influence on the island nation, when all citizens were basically property of the Emperor, who was some kind of deity incarnate), and i don't even like Christian morality. The morality of these two cultures was utterly suffocating, and you would not want to live under it. Stop pretending they are the same. I've been to China - their customs and thus morality is very different to ours, even though globalisation results in a homogenisation of sorts. Remember, we have exported our Christian morality into international institutions like the UN, thus instilling a worldwide implementation of our morals and customs. Many Americans still consider liberal democracy to be the end of history, and work to spread it throughout the world (the Iraq adventure was a mere decade ago - how is morality doing in that region?).

And then, if you recognise that of all moralities in human history (many of which valued human sacrifice, cannibalism, and an infinite range of other customs that would repulse you and your Christian morals), the only ones capable of preserving themselves, are those willing to engage in profound immorality when it comes to spreading said morality. The basis of all morality is thus profoundly immoral - there is nothing objective to it, rather it is conditioned into you by your culture and environment, and you only believe it because of the immoral acts of men of the past. There are just so many examples of moralities massively at odds with the present morality for there to be anything innate about it - it is conditioned by generrations of obedience. The Stoic morality of the Greeks is perhaps the polar opposite of contemporary western morality, and going back earlier, the warrior morality of Homer and the early Greek tragedians (cunning, strength, courage, ruthlessness etc. were what was valued then).

And that thread from before: i'd forgotten about that, and i'd meant to reply too. It'd honestly take me too long to go through it with you in detail, so i'll post a condensed note i'd already written on Nietzsche, one that expresses the matter as clearly as can be done (i.e. if you don't get it, you're not ready for it; and that's ok, most people can't live without incessantly deluding themselves, but please excuse me when i declare your ideology a faith):


‘Morality in Europe today is herd-animal morality’ - this expanding morality has the pretension to declare itself the only standard of morality in existence, the true morality, the true understanding of good and evil. Hence, with the aid of religion, ‘it has got to the point where we discover even in political and social institutions an increasingly evident expression of this morality: the democratic movement inherits the Christian.’ The slowness and somnolence of this tempo is too great for the ‘sick and suffering of said instinct’ – and their expression's found in the anarchists and socialists of European culture, supposed opposites, but actually the same instinct expressed in different form (‘the stupid philosophasters and brotherhood fanatics who call themselves socialists and want a “free society”, they are in fact at one with them in all their total and instinctive hostility towards every form of society other than that of the autonomous herd’ + their neglect of every worthwhile ‘right’ or ‘privilege’ & rejection of punitive justice ‘as if it were an assault on the weaker, an injustice against the necessary consequence of all previous society’ but they are ‘equally at one in the religion of pity, in sympathy with whatever feels, lives, suffers….at one, one and all, in the cry and impatience of pity, in mortal hatred for suffering in general, in their almost feminine incapacity to remain spectators of suffering, to let suffer. . . at one in their faith in the morality of mutual pity, as if it were morality in itself and the pinnacle, the attained pinnacle of man, the sole hope of the future, the consolation of the present and the great redemption from all the guilt of the past – at one, one and all, in their faith in the community as the savior, that is to say in the herd, in “themselves”. . .’).

(so pardon me for calling this a faith: it seems pretty faith-based to me)

Nor do you mention that all of these communities worship a deity of some sort anyway, which is something that gives solidity to their moral customs. What you don't seem to get is that expedience does not equal morality, a true moral belief is something you stick to and defend regardless of its value, in fact, it would be a surer sign of moral strength if one could stick to one's morality in times when it harms one to do so (i.e. being moral is the opposite of doing things because they are in your interest).

As for this:


Besides even if I accept that certain values i ascribe to exist because of Christianity (I dont), how does that detract from my arguments against the parts of Christianity I find reprehensible?

Well, most of your negative arguments about Christianity stem from a crass literalism and lack of understanding on your part (there are a lot of justifiable criticisms to be levelled at Christianity, but yours only show your lack of understanding). There are many legitimate criticisms of Christianity to be made, and there have been many (you haven't read enough of them, clearly); yours on the other hand, are crude and simplistic.

Just take the example of the Garden of Eden: i don't know any sensible Christian that takes this as fact, rather it is a warning about the arrogance of mankind (and quite an accurate one at that). The serpent’s silky promise that if we reject the supposedly foolish and trivial restrictions imposed on us by an interfering, jealous nuisance of a God, then we shall be liberated.
As the serpent promises: "Ye shall be as gods." - whenever we have accepted this liberation, en masse, it has rather quickly lead to revolutionary terror, to mass-murder and the building of concentration camps for those unteachable souls who don't share your true vision of the world.

It's about the fall of man, in Christianity 'man has fallen' - i don't know how you can't look around at all the things done by men, all the tortures and horrors of the world, and not find this idea of man corrupted by nature as incredibly seductive, as the source of the most profound kind of consolation. I understand its draw, you on the other hand fail to recognise these subtleties, largely because you think there is some kind of innate goodness to man, a goodness we are trending towards, the goodness of progress (progress to what exactly? never have I heard such a facile expression in those who speak constantly of 'progress'!).

The absence of the belief in God, from my analysis of history, always leads to the worship of power (i.e. the state, the Party, a personality cult, or all 3), as with fascism and communism and modern liberalism (all products of 19th century nihilism, where Christian moral value judgements persisted, and people despaired at them, particularly because they no longer believed in the redeemer of suffering), and individual human beings just become the tools of calculation for the meeting of some abstract end, usually one purported to bring salvation, but which never does. As the Stalinists used to say during the purges: 'the methods follow by logical deduction' - there was much justification of mass murder for the sake of 'logical consistency' and 'progress' during these times. You would do well not to forget them.

I do not believe in God, but i've come to understand that it's something the plebs need, otherwise they just become social justice warriors without even noticing the religious basis for all their fanciful moral condemnations. Men have proven to be just as fanatical without God as with, at least.

edit: see, this is why i cba to reply the first time ^^^^^ - too ****ing long

[MavsSuperFan]

Considering you were discussing the issue with Pauk it only makes sense to interpret what you said in such a way. Be clearer in the future.


I was disagreeing with pauk on islam. I was making the point that secular/moderate/liberal Muslims ignore significant parts of their religious teachings, similar to how liberal christians behave. Eg. a pro choice christian.

Sorry took a while to get back to you, always a busy time for me this time of year.


You realize that for the vast majority of western history after Christianity became popular that the western world was ruled by autocratic rulers with absolute power right?. Why limit you views on how Christianity influences society to the 19th or 20th century, and why limit it to England.

Your basic point is ridiculous. Russian Tsars, French kings, Spanish emperors, etc have ruled with autocratic power throughout european history. even the pope himself.


Remember, we have exported our Christian morality into international institutions like the UN, thus instilling a worldwide implementation of our morals and customs.

Christian Morality :rolleyes:
Explain the Spanish inquisition
the catholic inquisition
the salem which trials
etc.


I think you'll find individual human life is deemed of far less import in places like China

Why only use china to make your point? Human life in countries like japan are quite valued. They take care of their poor and sick much better than America does.


Many Americans still consider liberal democracy to be the end of history, and work to spread it throughout the world (the Iraq adventure was a mere decade ago - how is morality doing in that region?).


the middle east has many issues, not being christian isnt one of them.


Well, most of your negative arguments about Christianity stem from a crass literalism and lack of understanding on your part (there are a lot of justifiable criticisms to be levelled at Christianity, but yours only show your lack of understanding). There are many legitimate criticisms of Christianity to be made, and there have been many (you haven't read enough of them, clearly); yours on the other hand, are crude and simplistic.


Do you live in the real world? my criticisms of Christianity are the same as my criticisms of Islam. Christians and muslims use their religion as the basis of actions I deem negative and destructive.

In respect to Christianity:
-Blocking stem cell research
-blocking the access to abortion (which helps society)
-Promoting homophobic bigotry
-oppression of women

In africa christianity's negative affects are more pronounced.


i don't know any sensible Christian
Why do you limit your argument to sensible christians?


The absence of the belief in God, from my analysis of history, always leads to the worship of power (i.e. the state, the Party, a personality cult, or all 3), as with fascism and communism and modern liberalism (all products of 19th century nihilism, where Christian moral value judgements persisted, and people despaired at them, particularly because they no longer believed in the redeemer of suffering)...

An utterly ludicrous point. you seem to believe Christianity started in the 19th century.


The absence of the belief in God, from my analysis of history, always leads to the worship of power
:lol European Absolute Monarchs, local feudal lords and even the Pope himself have justified their autocratic powers by pretending they are divine.

Christianity existed throughout medieval Europe. Are you under the impression that all human life was highly valued by medieval europe? Are you denying christianity's influence on medieval europe?

Christianity is dying in europe based on public polling. Europe is becoming increasingly secular.

Also: I have never said I put faith in nothing. I object to putting faith in a religion that has no proof or evidence that suggests it is true. There is nothing wrong with having faith in stuff you are taught is true. If everything science believes about the physical universe is someday proven to be wrong, that still doesn't change the fact that scientists formulated their conclusions on observable or testable data and hypothesis derived from previous conclusions.