Philosophy Now Forum

the later sayings supersede the previous ones mean that it does tend to promote a violent approach.

No, it means that some sects use it to promote a violent approach. The Quran promotes nothing on its own. The Quran on its own is not Islam.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Pluto wrote:

bobevenson wrote:their lack of expressed outrage at the terrorists may indicate tacit support.

They see it on the whole, correctly, as rather state sponsored terrorism, and so are as confused as the rest of us to know what to think and do.

In what way is jihadism correctly definable as state-sponsored terrorism?

Jihadism is an effect of the terrorism done by the state. The principal Jihadists ISIS are a state sponsored wrecking ball let loose on the state's enemies. Be they foreign lands or the state's own citizenry. The war on terror is a war of terror on the people by the state. It is a war by the state on Muslims and Islam. The terror was brought to them not the other way around. But we have politicians and a mass media system which paints it as if they, the west, are reluctantly yet resolutely committed to destroying this evil. The Muslims have been scapegoated as a precursor to global war.

Pluto wrote: Jihadism is an effect of the terrorism done by the state. The principal Jihadists ISIS are a state sponsored wrecking ball let loose on the state's enemies. Be they foreign lands or the state's own citizenry. The war on terror is a war of terror on the people by the state. It is a war by the state on Muslims and Islam. The terror was brought to them not the other way around. But we have politicians and a mass media system which paints it as if they, the west, are reluctantly yet resolutely committed to destroying this evil. The Muslims have been scapegoated as a precursor to global war.

You've misunderstood my question. The Westphalian concept of the nation state is one which is well understood and acknowledged in international diplomacy. A state is a state if and only if a substantial majority of other states recognise it as such. Therefore when you use the word "state" in your word salad then you are obviously using it in a way other than according to this common usage? I have highlighted the words whose meanings are unclear to me.

Which state or states are you referring to?

Obviously the US and its coalition of the willing. When I say state I mean government and all its off-shoots, such as security services and financers, etc.

It's more accurate to say the corporate state in the sense that Mussolini thought it, as a melding of government and private business. The US is synonymous with big business and this model has been copied by the coalition of the willing. A government or corporate state will create a typhoon (of destruction and death) and then manipulate it, to work in power's favour. We struggle to know what's happening for real because power itself has the airwaves.

Bob, your premise sucks and so do you.

(I was divinely directed to tell you this.)

Pluto wrote:Obviously the US and its coalition of the willing. When I say state I mean government and all its off-shoots, such as security services and financers, etc.

It's more accurate to say the corporate state in the sense that Mussolini thought it, as a melding of government and private business. The US is synonymous with big business and this model has been copied by the coalition of the willing. A government or corporate state will create a typhoon (of destruction and death) and then manipulate it, to work in power's favour. We struggle to know what's happening for real because power itself has the airwaves.

You draw too long a bow. To suggest that nation states involve themselves in rogue behaviour is not the same as to suggest that they are therefore a rogue state, because such a broad definition could probably be applied to every nation state in the world. Are Mexico and Columbia state sponsors of terrorism because many of their upper echelons of government are corruptly under the sway of narco-trafficking cartels? Is China a rogue state because some elements of its government collude in the illegal theft of intellectual property? Is Australia a rogue state because its secret police have been caught red-handed planting surveillance devices in foreign embassies? I'm not suggesting that any of these behaviours should be condoned but where the hell would you draw the line? Surely such rogue behaviour could only be defined as state-sponsored terrorism if it could clearly be shown to be a part of official state policy, and this is clearly not the case. Panama under Noriega might almost have been an example but even then this would have been gilding the lily somewhat.

Your enthusiasm for global conspiracy theories reflects much about your incipient paranoia but demonstrates a woeful naivety when it comes to international realpolitik. If all you're trying to say is that the plutocrats are ruling the world by proxy then you're hardly offering breaking news.

Lacewing wrote:Bob, your premise sucks and so do you.

So you deny the Quran tells its followers to do harm to non-believers? Are you asking me to provide you with chapter and verse? And if I do, you will shove that statement up your ass (oh, I'm sorry, arse)?

bobevenson wrote:

Lacewing wrote:Bob, your premise sucks and so do you.

Oh, so you deny the Quran tells its followers to do harm to non-believers? Are you asking me to provide you with chapter and verse? And if I do, you will shove that statement up your ass (oh, I'm sorry, arse)?

And I would take that Oozing prophecy and shove it down my toilet.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:And I would take that Oozing prophecy and shove it down my toilet.

Why don't you stay in the chit-chat room, asshole?

bobevenson wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:And I would take that Oozing prophecy and shove it down my toilet.

Why don't you stay in the chit-chat room, asshole?

Why don't you get some intelligence, dickhead?

PhilX

bobevenson wrote:

Lacewing wrote:Bob, your premise sucks and so do you.

So you deny the Quran tells its followers to do harm to non-believers? Are you asking me to provide you with chapter and verse? And if I do, you will shove that statement up your ass (oh, I'm sorry, arse)?

Your premise for this thread "Most Muslims are undeniably peaceful, but their lack of expressed outrage at the terrorists may indicate tacit support" sucks... and so do you.

Lacewing wrote:Your premise for this thread "Most Muslims are undeniably peaceful, but their lack of expressed outrage at the terrorists may indicate tacit support" sucks... and so do you.

I said "may." Can't you read English, or are you saying that conjectures suck?

bobevenson wrote:Listen, pal, you're the kind of guy who would fuck up a wet dream!

And you're the type that would screw up the Oozing prophecy.

PhilX

bobevenson wrote:

Lacewing wrote:Your premise for this thread "Most Muslims are undeniably peaceful, but their lack of expressed outrage at the terrorists may indicate tacit support" sucks... and so do you.

I said "may." Can't you read English, or are you saying that conjectures suck?

What sucks, Bob, is that you single out Muslims and make it a topic when there are OBVIOUSLY so many freakin' holes in it. It's NO different than any "supposed" lack of expressed outrage by Christians for all the hateful and twisted dimensions of Christianity. There are simply so many LARGER PIECES to consider... but AS USUAL, you focus on some little crumb of a thought that you find particularly tasty. And when someone points out a larger piece to thoughtfully consider/share, you IGNORE that and move on to the next crumb. You essentially leave a trail of your slobbery crumbs everywhere! What a mess!