Another First World Muslim Joins ISIS

[Kaitzilla]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Iraq-Syria-UK-Army-Reserve.html#ixzz34tMlwnQh

More British citizens signed up to fight in Iraq and Syria than joined the Army Reserve last year, it can be revealed.

Just 170 extra reservists enlisted over the past year - despite a Government target to boost the stand-by force by 11,000 by 2018.

But at the same time the brutal al-Qaeda inspired ISIS forces tearing through Iraq have been boosted by 'several hundred' Brits, ministers told MailOnline.

The terror organisation ISIS has wreaked havoc in Iraq and Syria. Ministers are increasingly concerned British-born recruits could return to the UK intent on carrying out attacks in the UK

Terror experts believe there could be as many as 500 Brits fighting alongside the jihadists in the Middle East for ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria).

What's the big deal?
A few hundred is barely a drop in the bucket.
Every war attracts a few people from various countries who want to fight.


http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/0...friends-in-minnesota-to-fight-alongside-isis/

See?
America had 16 guys from Minneapolis, Minnesota go join ISIS fighting.

 

[Sanguivorant]

It's not like numbers mean anything in modern warfare anyhow. This should not be a big concern.

While ISIS might get more recruits, the British armed forces are more professional and efficient through technological superiority.

 

[Tahuti]

So when you say "religion", what you really mean is "society?

Effectively yes. The two are strictly speaking distinct, yet the overlap is so great they are often the same thing in practice. Societies that claim to be "secular" are essentially dysfunctional Objectivist hellholes (the West) or Neostalinist leader worshipping cults (North Korea).

Now, that doesn't mean I am deeply religious (I have essentially lapsed Judaism, even though I would consider myself theistic) or that I advocate theocracy. However, religion is a gold standard of sorts. A completely secularised society without any notion of sacrality will be Ayn Rand's utopia or a totalitarian cult of personality.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's not like numbers mean anything in modern warfare anyhow. This should not be a big concern.

While ISIS might get more recruits, the British armed forces are more professional and efficient through technological superiority.

Presumably numbers still mean something, or the British Army would just be one guy sitting on top of an enormous pile of guns.

Effectively yes. The two are strictly speaking distinct, yet the overlap is so great they are often the same thing in practice. Societies that claim to be "secular" are essentially dysfunctional Objectivist hellholes (the West) or Neostalinist leader worshipping cults (North Korea).

Now, that doesn't mean I am deeply religious (I have essentially lapsed Judaism, even though I would consider myself theistic) or that I advocate theocracy. However, religion is a gold standard of sorts. A completely secularised society without any notion of sacrality will be Ayn Rand's utopia or a totalitarian cult of personality.

You claim that personality cults are a form of religion, but then you claim that they're effectively secular. You also claim that secularism is opposed to religion, but you also claim that secularism is itself a religion with a non-divine focus.

It's hard to follow your reasoning if you don't use consistent categories.

 

[Sanguivorant]

Yeah, but one pilot is worth like 10000 land troops.

I doubt ISIS has any Boeing 757's at their disposal.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yeah, but one pilot is worth like 10000 land troops.

I doubt ISIS has any Boeing 757's at their disposal.

Well, according to Wikipedia, the Iraqi air force has 212 air craft, thus at least 212 pilots. If 1 Iraqi pilot = 10,000 ISIS soldiers, but ISIS is still holding the Iraqi government at bay, it follows that ISIS has over 2,120,000 soldiers operating in Iraq. Which you'd think somebody would surely have noticed.

Point being, while it's true that warfare is not about throwing huge masses of men against each other, it's also not about throwing huge masses of materiel against each other. It's all very contextualised, and this conflict demonstrates the continuing effectiveness of apparently-inferior forces when conditions are in their favour.

 

[Old Hippy]

Effectively yes. The two are strictly speaking distinct, yet the overlap is so great they are often the same thing in practice. Societies that claim to be "secular" are essentially dysfunctional Objectivist hellholes (the West) or Neostalinist leader worshipping cults (North Korea).

it sort of misses the point that a modern secular society, is Christan, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, Scientologist, Socialist and rampant consumerist, all wrapped up in the worship of sport teams, and sun worship

 

[JollyRoger]

If that doesn't make things worse, he even burns his own Canadian passport. I know many people that would give their right arm to become a Canadian citizen, and this guy is perfectly fine with getting rid of that privilege.

Even first world Christians are getting rid of the privilege these days:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-texas-ted-cruz-renounces-canadian-citizenship-20140611-story.html

 

[Tahuti]

You claim that personality cults are a form of religion, but then you claim that they're effectively secular. You also claim that secularism is opposed to religion, but you also claim that secularism is itself a religion with a non-divine focus.

Secularism (not as in the separation and church and state but as a general worldview) is anti-sacralism. However, since society needs a notion of sacrality religions are able to bring, sacrality is substituted for materialistic concepts and principles as well as personality cults, which are an inferior basis on to which to keep a society together.

So yes, secularism is a religion, though a false one, for its rejection of sacrality - to maintain the fiction of being non-religious. This is how I understand idolatry.

 

[Sanguivorant]

Secularism (not as in the separation and church and state but as a general worldview) is anti-sacralism. However, since society needs a notion of sacrality religions are able to bring, sacrality is substituted for materialistic concepts and principles as well as personality cults, which are an inferior basis on to which to keep a society together.

So yes, secularism is a religion, though a false one, for its rejection of sacrality - to maintain the fiction of being non-religious. This is how I understand idolatry.

Someone's been reading up on some Bernard Lewis, eh?

He also makes that claim that secularism is its own religion.

The basic definition for religion is a set of beliefs and values. Who doesn't have those?

 

[Traitorfish]

The stuff about "keeping a society together" smacks of Durkheim to me.

 

[Sanguivorant]

Which book in particular? I'd be interested in reading.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm afraid that my knowledge of Durkheim is all second-hand, so I couldn't point you to a particular text. I might have been better saying "smacks of functionalism".

 

[CuddlyBear]

Well, religion usually contains a creed (i.e. a collection of statements what you believe) of something in place of it, and a community surrounding it. Even if you are not part of a religious organisation, you almost certainly end up with a creed, usually something like "life is good" and "I believe in myself" (Randroidism, even if the person has never heard of Randroidism) and find yourself with people of comparable beliefs.

I still don't understand. How do you religiously worship humanity?

I don't understand those big school words like Randroidism. Just use normal people words so I can understand what you're talking about.

 

[Tahuti]

it sort of misses the point that a modern secular society, is Socialist and rampant consumerist, all wrapped up in the worship of sport teams

FTFY

The stuff about "keeping a society together" smacks of Durkheim to me.

Go back further. One of Durkheim's influences, Joseph De Maistre, stated the basis for the state - that kept together things - was religion. Without religion, there can be no legitimacy.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It smacks of a phobia towards atheism and agnosticism to me.

 

[Sanguivorant]

Atheists and agnostics are relatively peaceful people. Nothing to fear from them.

 

[Traitorfish]

Go back further. One of Durkheim's influences, Joseph De Maistre, stated the basis for the state - that kept together things - was religion. Without religion, there can be no legitimacy.

Okay, well: why?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Atheists and agnostics are relatively peaceful people. Nothing to fear from them.

Not according to those who keep trying to turn secularism into a religion. They will incessantly mention that Stalin and Mao are our secret poster boys. That we can't possibly have morals even though they are remarkably similar to many of their own.

 

[Sanguivorant]

I believe we are going off topic. If there is nothing more to say about this topic, I should probably request it to be locked.