There have been numerous instances of Muslims/Christians in Syria/Iraq talking about how ISIS is actually bringing Muslims and Christians closer together.



We are not afraid of shelling, we are not afraid of bombs, As long as we have these churches, Jesus Christ and Mary will Protect us

-Iraqi Christian


And in Syria, wrt the fight against ISIS/terrorists.







Published on Feb 4, 2013
CNN's Frederik Pleitgen reports on a mostly Christian town in Syria that is standing firmly behind President Assad.



Its important to note that there are examples of Christians in Syria/Iraq fighting back against the terrorists. And in some cases, we have Christians/Muslims joining forces to fight off ISIS and other "terror groups"

I would hope not... Can we also assume sympathy and empathy amongst a range of other emotions that include anger?

My response isn't to the article itself, why would anyone even think that , it's to it being posted here for no apparent reason. Is the purpose of the thread to provide an opportunity for expressions of sympathy? I thought that this was a forum for discussions on RG&T, not a notice board for news stories about awful events. If the article is about a bad thing, the OP is immune from criticism? I'm really struggling with this.

The nonchalance and indifference exist entirely in the minds of those projecting it onto me, because I'm neither. I've already said earlier ITT that I actually have strong feelings about this but other than agreeing with a general condemnation of this behaviour, what else is there to say?

Whatever, I'm out. This whole discussion seems to be about my completely inoffensive objection to the fact that there's nothing to discuss. I'll leave you to it.

A question that thekid is trying address is "What is the response of moderate Muslims to ISIS?" If they allow ISIS to hijack Islam by remaining silent then they are complicit and ISIS becomes the face of Islam.

Most people in the US doesn't spend time talking about Uganadan christian extremists. Does that mean that they are now the face of Christianity?

They don't get the coverage that ISIS gets. ISIS is all over social media too. The ISIS brand of Islam plays right into the belief that Islam is a violent abhorrent religion.

So the problem is that you are complaining that 1.6 billion muslims not part of ISIS don't get enough media coverage? Maybe because they are the ones not threatening to murder christians ldo?

Even the most basic analysis of the situation would conclude that islam was not a monolith as this is a sunni insurgency against an oppressive shia government in baghdad.

Can I ask you again what your purpose in creating this thread was? What exactly is it that you wanted to happen?

I won't ask again, just in case anyone is thinking about taking out a restraining order or something. I don't know why you won't answer the question though. I know exactly why I start threads, I'm sure you had your reason.

To troll you and thekid

While ISIS is clearly not representative of Islam in general, I think it is fairly obvious that Islam's emphasism on submission to holy authority makes it a very effective doctrine for recruiting extremists.

Teaching people not to question authority is rarely a recipe for enlightenment.

oh goody looks like people will use this thread to make broad brush criticisms of Islam, who could have guessed!

Yeah, those zany people and their broad brushes.

Probably just trying to get some kind of conversation going...

Stop. Please, just stop. You keep on tarding up this thread, promising to leave, then coming back and doing it all over.

Difficult to 'tard up' such a nothing thread where even the OP won't give a reason for why he started it, plus I'm still pretty pissed off about being accused of being unsympathetic and I don't see any apologies or even admissions of error forthcoming.

Whatever, have at it.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt after you explained yourself, but still, sorry that I suggested you were nonchalant about the issue.

I think sometimes the forum gets caught up in arguing about things, and end up arguing about someone in particular, like, "was MB unsympathetic?" I don't think anyone really thinks you hate anyone, it's just been slow around here.

Sorry, only just seen this after popping back in to see how this thread was getting on, or not..... (without the 'conversation' about my 'alleged' lack of empathy I think there'd be about 4 posts on this thread).

Thanks for the apology. I'm not nonchalant about anyone dying.

I'm fairly nonchalant about members of ISIS dying. I have little sympathy for people who crucify others for not giving up smoking.

That said, I think it is important that the region stabilizes itself with minimal external involvement. This is, to be perfectly clear, an outright dreadful thing to say and something which would (should it come to pass) doom millions of people to horrible fates.

I'm also not sure the region can stabilize itself. If Iran involves itself heavily, I suspect we'll see a regional conflict which will go far beyond ISIL vs Iran, and dwarf the Iraq-Iran wars. The entire middle-east might shift dramatically geopolitically; old enemies find themselves on the same side while old friends will suddenly be enemies. Just look at Turkey, which suddenly find themselves as allied with the Kurds, an ethnicity they have tried very hard to eradicate for the last three decades.

I'm not nonchalent, I see them, generally speaking, as victims. I'm sure their crowd includes some genuine sociopaths, maybe even some psychopaths, but for the rest of them, the rank and file, if someone hadn't done such a religious head job on them they wouldn't be behaving as they are. Is it their fault if they've been programmed to think in this way? If 'orders' from a mere man were enough to make Nazi prison camp guards do their jobs then how authoritative is a command from god?

I think religious differences will prevent this region from every being stabilized, until one 'side' wins.

A bunch of spoiled kids so engrossed about being right that they would rather crucify someone than listen to them? Good riddance.

I have the completely opposite view. No side can ever win, but the region could potentially be stabilized.

really? I know next to nothing about the region, or the conflict, but in my imagination, spoiled kids is the last thing I would think of. Spoiled kids to me means kids with Ipads, money, no responsibilities, looked after by mum and dad, sense of entitlement, etc. I imagined that the conflict would target the poorest and least educated. Perhaps you mean something different by spoiled kids?

ISIS is not the romanticized Mujaheddin of the 80s and the middle-east is not tents surrounded by camels. ISIS is a sophisticated and wealthy network that is based more on Ipads than mosques. The (current) region of the conflict is an advanced region in terms of both technology and education.

A good comparison to ISIS is Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. They both speak of "mythic pasts" and romanticizes their own despotic visions with simplified version of earlier times.

It is not about poor uneducated people fighting something out of their own confusion, it is about an knowing and calculating party committing an organized effort to enforce a perverted version of antiquated ideals onto a (almost exclusively) non-willing populace.

Can I just make sure that we're talking about the same thing. I define Nonchalant as "Seeming to be coolly unconcerned or indifferent".

Two things; Firstly, it's only 'seeming' to be uncaring and indifferent, whilst one might actually care but just be giving the appearance of not caring. Second, even if it meant 'doesn't care at all', there isn't a type of death I could not care about. Even if it were a death I supported and all I felt was relief or even satisfaction, I would care about it.

I feel no particular satisfaction over their deaths. I don't hate them. I find their non-existence an improvement, however.