RE: Are the right accepting daesh's claims at face value for propaganda purposes?

RE: Are the right accepting daesh's claims at face value for propaganda purposes? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

Are the right accepting daesh's claims at face value for propaganda purposes?

Yes, definitely

36% (4)

Yes, most likely

27% (3)

Maybe

18% (2)

No, probably not

18% (2)

No, absolutely not

0% (0)

Total Votes : 11

(last vote on : 10/24/2017 7:26:15 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

Edwird -> RE: Are the right accepting daesh's claims at face value for propaganda purposes? (10/24/2017 12:25:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 Like okay, all I can say is. Thank Gawd I live in a country where our government cares about our safety and doing everything possible to prevent these things from happening. Thank Gawd the British Empire kicked your little sorry-ass "country" into existence in the first place.

WhoreMods -> RE: Are the right accepting daesh's claims at face value for propaganda purposes? (10/24/2017 4:31:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods It's an interesting question, though it does imply foresight and planning on the part of the ~~alt.right~~leftist media conspiracy. Deash are neither terribly Islamic, nor a State as such. Despite this, half of the alt.right, and almost all of the resident felchgobblers on here can rarely be arsed to insert a "so-called" or "supposed" in front of the term "Islamic State". This lack of rigour about definitions, and accepting a terrorist organisation's somewhat ridiculous term for itself uncritically suggests that the alt.right would dearly love for daesh to be exactly what it claims to be: an Islamic State that speaks for all moslems without exception with their demands for a global caliphate where all of the infidels will be executed or forcibly converted, and so will ignore any evidence that it isn't, and doesn't speak for a majority of the world's moslems. It's a pretty cute misprisioning generalisation coming from people who like to insist the bulk of the alt.right have nothing at all in common with the klansmen and white supremacists, isn't it? Interesting as in Eastern Africa, the term "Daesh" is used to mean the same thing as the U.S. uses the term "Isis". There ya go... according to BBC; Isis, IS, Daesh are all different names for the same organization. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27994277 Interesting in that daesh is a dismissive insult, whereas using a title of their own which implies that they're either islamic or a state treats them with unwarranted respect. Is that really so difficult to grasp that it has to be spelled out?

Edwird -> RE: Are the right accepting daesh's claims at face value for propaganda purposes? (10/24/2017 5:19:50 AM)
Some of us need to hear the ABCs of things, sometimes. So while we're here . . . I was wondering if 'misprisioning generalisation' might (or might not) be otherwise be stated as 'misprisional generalisation', just for kicks. We run the risk of putting somebody in the wrong prison in all this, I'm aware, and I'm not meaning to be confrontationing about it, but it's my habit to come up with words no one has ever heard of before, even before we get to something like WobberJacky, for instance. Sorry. here I am again, trying to make hogs into paletas (Mexican popsicles). This 'multiculturalismus' thing has got me all confuzzled.

WhoreMods -> RE: Are the right accepting daesh's claims at face value for propaganda purposes? (10/24/2017 5:35:07 AM)
Misprision was probably the wrong term to use in the first place, if I'm honest: I was thinking more of the literary usage than the legal one, which involves deliberately misinterpreting something to suit one's own ends.

Edwird -> RE: Are the right accepting daesh's claims at face value for propaganda purposes? (10/24/2017 5:53:12 AM)
I was just being silly, that's all I was doing.. But I don't think your use of the term was out of league in the first place. Spot on, actually.

BoscoX -> RE: Are the right accepting daesh's claims at face value for propaganda purposes? (10/24/2017 6:00:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods It's an interesting question, though it does imply foresight and planning on the part of the ~~alt.right~~leftist media conspiracy. Deash are neither terribly Islamic, nor a State as such. Despite this, half of the alt.right, and almost all of the resident felchgobblers on here can rarely be arsed to insert a "so-called" or "supposed" in front of the term "Islamic State". This lack of rigour about definitions, and accepting a terrorist organisation's somewhat ridiculous term for itself uncritically suggests that the alt.right would dearly love for daesh to be exactly what it claims to be: an Islamic State that speaks for all moslems without exception with their demands for a global caliphate where all of the infidels will be executed or forcibly converted, and so will ignore any evidence that it isn't, and doesn't speak for a majority of the world's moslems. It's a pretty cute misprisioning generalisation coming from people who like to insist the bulk of the alt.right have nothing at all in common with the klansmen and white supremacists, isn't it? Interesting as in Eastern Africa, the term "Daesh" is used to mean the same thing as the U.S. uses the term "Isis". There ya go... according to BBC; Isis, IS, Daesh are all different names for the same organization. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27994277 Actually, BLM and Antifa have more in common with the KKK of the 1960s than the alt-Right. They preach the same kind of hate message, want another race disenfranchises and property confiscated inf not killed outright. At least the most vocal rants sound so so much like the rabid ignorant spew heard on the courthouse steps from white robed and masked ignorant asshats back in the 60s. Insane little whore boy is sadly confused, as always Their name is not some vast right wing conspiracy ISIS (or as Obama referred to them, ISIL), is an acronym for Islamic State In Syria / Levant Which, they established a defacto Islamic state in that region while Obama laughed and golfed and partied with his new gazillionaire friends Those are the facts, like it or not.

MercTech -> RE: Are the right accepting daesh's claims at face value for propaganda purposes? (10/24/2017 6:36:04 AM)
Consider that serving in the army of another country can be seen as relenquishing one's citizenship under U.S. law; U.S. residents that went abroad to serve in Isis face penalties. Give them a hearing and if found to have supported Isis; document they have relinquished citizenship and send them back to the Middle East sans passport. No prison expense just leave them without a country since they rejected their own.

BoscoX -> RE: Are the right accepting daesh's claims at face value for propaganda purposes? (10/24/2017 6:54:26 AM)
Interesting, how leftists have brainwashed each other into really believing (as little whore boy emphatically states above) that ISIS is not a Muslim group... Though what ISIS has worked to accomplish, represents Islam in it's purest form. They have done exactly what the Quran demands And according to Al Jazeera they enjoy wide support across the Islamic world (80% favorable) Pew claims that ISIS support is much lower, but only polled Shiite Muslim states and ignored Sunni states (and ISIS is a Sunni Muslim organization)

ShaharThorne -> RE: Are the right accepting daesh's claims at face value for propaganda purposes? (10/24/2017 7:14:12 AM)
Have you EVEN read a Quran? I have an English copy because I like studying religion and all I am seeing is you spewing BS...

Greta75 -> RE: Are the right accepting daesh's claims at face value for propaganda purposes? (10/24/2017 7:16:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaharThorne Have you EVEN read a Quran? I have an English copy because I like studying religion and all I am seeing is you spewing BS... I thought Muslims were peaceful UNTIL I read the Quran. Because obviously, before reading a Quran. All you know is, Islam equals the religion of Peace! How can anybody who have read the Quran and claim to see a peaceful prophet when it was all war war war in there! Compared to Jesus - He didn't fight back, allowed himself to be killed rather than fight and hurt other people. To be fair, clearly his father is an asshole! For allowing him to be born just to be murdered brutally. Christianity got some sick shit but end of the day, they simply told you to fear this asshole God who will send you to hell if you don't obey. But as this power hungry God WANTS full authority to be the one melting out the punishments personally, so if any living human Christians melt out the punishments on their God's behalf, they will probably burn in hell too. So kinda, not that bad! Compared to Buddha - IF he had enemies, he'd probably do what Jesus do. Just let them kill him rather than fight back, because he is a pacifist but of course nobody bothered with Buddha because he was such a pacifist, zero power hungry, not stepping on anybody toes. Who wants to kill a crown prince who gave up his ascension to the throne and all his wealth and power voluntarily to live like a begger below poverty line right? Buddha was the definition of Peaceful! And Buddha never claims to be a creator or a God. Just another ordinary human like you and me. Very humble. Muhammad is all about revenge revenge revenge. It's all their fault that they gotta all die and suffer! And gaining more and more power. And how to become more powerful. Every single violence Muhammad advocated, he tried to justify violence to solve problems ALL the time! On top of that, he married an extremely wealthy woman 25 yrs old older than him to be his sugar mummy so that he can inherit her wealth and then start a fucking war and take revenge on the city who made fun of him. He was obedient and submissive to her when she wore the pants and held the power. That's why he went power crazy when she died. And he is free to be the tyrant he is. And Muhammad's Allah advises him to melt out punishment on earth on his behalf. Infact, to refuse to melt out punishment on earth to offenders, means burn in hell for him and their followers. So ironically, Muslims face going to hell for not participating in Jihad. It's clear as night and day, all the differences.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Spam Policy

0.046875