Captain Courage

[Leonardo17]

It is not always easy to understand (even for someone who is present in the Middle-East) to determine how some people are able to interpret religious teachings the way they do. See this example:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/drug-called-c...22468.html
 

---

 
The drug is called “Captain Courage”. Hitler gave a similar type of drug to make them attack enemy lines without any consideration of their own lives (and Putin does that as well).
 
The first objection is that our culture does not like the consumption of alcohol that much. Most scholars will agree that anything that’s harmful to the body has to be avoided if possible.
 
2) The main idea is that these things (meaning light-kind of drugs) will “put you down”. Meaning you don’t “get high” by consuming these substances. Actually what they do is to decrease your mental and physical capabilities.
 
So “How do they consume something that is known as “The Cocaine of the poor man” and start murdering people being high on that?” should be one of the first questions that people who believe in that religion should be asking.
 
Another issue is “adultery” (or zina in Arabic). In one way of seeing things, the veil is supposed to be an instrument to help people avoid fornication. And in the more contemporary teachings, “Zina” is when two people are having sexual relation without being married + a third party has to be present who is benefitting from this relationship. In my understanding this means man and or woman + male or female prostitute + pimp or third party who is making money as a result of that relationship.
 
So that’s where we are (or are supposed to be). ISIL is known to have pushed all these “Women of the Caliphate” to have sex with anyone including teenagers (without any marriage or anything like that) to get pregnant with future Mujahedeens.
 
So my point is “Is it possible to misinterpret religious scriptures?”
- Yes, our minds being what it is, you are not human if you are not doing it all the time.
But, “Is it possible to miss the target that much?”
My answer is: “Only if you are a real fool who should not have anything to do with any religious teaching if you are that stupid”.
 

---

 
I mean “Captain Courage”? “Jihadi Drug”?
 
-       It’s either as I said or there are simply more of us than we are tempted to think
 

[The Grand Nudger]

IDK how people mess it up either. Magic book seems pretty damned clear on sex outside of marriage. It's fine as long as you own the girl.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

IDK how people mess it up either.  Magic book seems pretty damned clear on sex outside of marriage.  It's fine as long as you own the girl.

And kill the non-virgins, just in case.

[The Grand Nudger]

Gods people don't like used product, outside of their religions, ofc.

[Leonardo17]

As I have said many times before. A superficial approach to spiritual issues will usually lead to greater mistakes on a personal level than someone who has decided to be an atheist or an agnostic.
 

---

 
It is possible that the issue of sexual intercourse outside marriage is just another that has been understood only on a very superficial level.
 
The way I see sex is that it is what it is. It’s a rather compulsive bodily function that can be very enjoyable. The only problem is that it won’t solve all your problems, it won’t add meaning to your life if you feel like you are drafting, it won’t fulfill you greater / deeper spiritual quests etc.
 
The attachment of a negative / guilt element to sex is but a result of the previous Dark Age interpretation of religious texts because of some social / political necessities of that era.
 
And again: In the Quranic definition of Adultery (Ar. Zina): There are two persons who are having sex outside marriage + one person making profit from that.
 

---

 
Now: I know there are people who cannot find a sexual partner because of physical and/or psychological issues and end up travelling to Amsterdam (or to Vegas if you like). But I can easily relate to the rule stated in the previous paragraph. Today we have what we call “ethics”. So no one needs to be this or that in order to be opposed to prostitution. It’s a matter of personal principle for most people. And I think it’s a rather positive thing for a religious teaching to be in the same page with normal basic level ethic principles.
 
N.B.: What you are talking about are the issues that have to do with anthropology and sociology more than religion.
 

---

These are the taboo issues that have to be resolved in one way or the other. You know I am not a great fan of the veil for instance. That’s because there are now psychology seminars in which male participants stand up and apologies from female participants and tell them how much they love and respect them, than female participants are made to stand up and do the same to male participants.
 
If you just look at some xXx websites and some of the actions that are performed there, you can see the level of rupture that is present (mostly on a subconscious level) between the two sexes. These are all grown-up stuff I’m talking about, but the ways we treat the LGBT community is an indicator of our deeper unresolved sexual fears and misunderstandings.
 
So This “I own you” attitude is to be seen in this perspective. The veil is also a tool designed to reinforce this separation and misunderstanding and unloving attitude toward the opposite sex (I mean the way it is used today by political islamists).
 

---

[Leonardo17]

Also, it’s not like I approve of Israeli atrocities on Gazan territory or in the West Bank. We all see the decades long oppressive and expansionist policies of the Jewish State against Arabs in that region.

---

And I’m going to refer you to a 2012 movie called “Inch’Allah” that is available with an affordable price tag on Google Play.

 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2336960/
 
The movie is about a Young and Attractive French-Canadian doctor who stays in West Jerusalem and works in East Jerusalem hospital. She is gradually getting under the influence of the tense situation in the region and ends up sympathizing with the Palestinians who are severely oppressed by the Israeli State.
 
Still, I cannot look at the people Hamas took as hostages this time and think that these guys are something other than terrorists.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hamas-no-long...18423.html
 

---

There is something called asymmetric warfare or Guerrilla warfare in which you use hit and run tactics and such to defy a much stronger opponent. In Central America for instance, guerrilla group are known to kidnap American tourists in order to extract ransom from their families. But who kidnaps children? (And/or very elderly people).
 
I’m asking this because hostage situations are known to be tough. These are traumatic experiences even for adults. Therefore putting little children and/or old people in this situation is definitely an act of Barbary. Meaning that there is rules to asymmetric warfare too. If you cross these lines, that makes you a terror organization.


So I would doubt the sincerity of any state or organization who fails to make this distinction right now.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Barbarity". Barbary was a pirate kingdom on the north shore of Africa.

[The Grand Nudger]

There is something called asymmetric warfare or Guerrilla warfare in which you use hit and run tactics and such to defy a much stronger opponent. In Central America for instance, guerrilla group are known to kidnap American tourists in order to extract ransom from their families. But who kidnaps children? (And/or very elderly people).
 
I’m asking this because hostage situations are known to be tough. These are traumatic experiences even for adults. Therefore putting little children and/or old people in this situation is definitely an act of Barbary. Meaning that there is rules to asymmetric warfare too. If you cross these lines, that makes you a terror organization.


So I would doubt the sincerity of any state or organization who fails to make this distinction right now.

Kidnapping civilians isn't an instance of the application of asymmetric warfare - it's an instance of a warcrime.  People engaged in guerrilla war might also be in the business of kidnapping, ofc.  I never saw a chapter in any SOP at any of the MOUT ranges I went to or NCOd for on proper hostage taking procedures.  Prisoners (of any kind, any age, legal or illegal) are a serious pain in the ass for conventional and guerrilla tactics.  You have to care for them - whether that's to the standards of human rights conventions or to the standards of a cynical financial transaction..and every single bit of money or manpower you spend on that, and every single hostage you deign to take, detracts from your offensive capabilities while adding a level of risk and vulnerability to your entire operation.  Even internally, your kidnappers -or- your prison guards are going to be a very different cadre from your warfighters. I'll let you in on a little secret..it's almost universal in the militaries of the world that these two groups are so disparate in both duty and temperament that they loath each other.

Say we lay aside all of the rules, all of the conventions, all of the normative right and wrong.  The functional or practical basis of those ideas is still in effect.  That we often see people resort to this does not indicate that it is a worthwhile or prudent course of action..simply that short sighted near term gains (often private gains) will override operational success in any organization that can't prevent it.  To use a particularly american example...we might see the locals shouting in joy at the news of an american..civilian or soldier, captured...but I gaurantee you they're having a very different conversation about that back at hq.  Something along the lines of getting noticed and pounded into the stone age and all of their efforts being for naught because one stupid fuck didn't have the foresight to shoot the pigdog dead and leave them to rot. There are faaaar easier ways to fund an assymetric force than to peddle hostages, and a long list of reasons why any asymmetric force would very much not want that sort of attention.

[Leonardo17]

   Back in the 1960’s, kidnapping people to make a stand or to demand the release of other ideological sympathizers from government prisons etc. was not that rare among left wing groups. These groups could resort to the bombing of some places and/or the shooting of police officers in some places a little bit like the Black panthers in the US.
 

---

 
   These are what I call Urban Guerrillas. Similarly, I can also remember how the ideological continuation of such youth movements in the 60’s had murdered a prominent business man in Istanbul in the second half of the 90’s. We can also go as far as the Munich Massacre by the Palestinian Liberation Organization in 1973.  
 
   These were the Left Wing Urban Guerillas of their times. Some see them as liberators or freedom fighters. But by definition, the acts that they have committed are acts of terrorism. Which is why the PKK here (a left-wing group fighting for Kurdish Independence) is also considered to be a terror organization.
 
   But what I say is, the deeper you go into these things, the less you are a “freedom fighter” and the more you are “nothing short than a typical barbarian”.  
 

---

 
   So the End does not justify the means. And that’s Gandhi’s invention. For Gandhi, if the end is truth (or Satya) the means to that end will have to be satvic (or truthful) by definition. That’s where the commies were wrong. And that’s also where the hippies almost got it right in the beginning but got it completely wrong in the end.

[The Grand Nudger]

That is not ghandis invention. That question was asked centuries before ghandi was a twinkle in some caste lovers eyes, and he got it wrong. Depending on the true end, there may be some wholly disingenuous means to get there. That much is manifestly obvious. The true end..for example, in financial hostage taking... is to make money. Pretending that it's freedom fighting is a great means to achieve that end, even as it's a detriment to the end of freedom. I mean, just roll it around in your mouth. "We take hostages for freedom!".

...........?

Property and/or infrastructure destruction and combat against uniformed agents of the state are not war crimes. The cops can be occupation authorities - take a look at all the russian pows in ukraine that were part of police units. Not equivalent to kidnapping tourists at all. You can hold a piece of the enemy's defense industry and demand the return of prisoners (or...hostages.....). You can offer prisoners in exchange for prisoners (or for hostages)...but you cannot take hostages. As for the ends justifying the means. To a professional uniformed soldier bound by military conventions hostage taking isn't even a means to the desired end, to be justified or considered, in the first place. You help civilians in a warzone like they were your own fucking mother..because but for the grace of god, they might be. You do not snatch them and extort their family members. The kinds of prisoners uniformed professional soldiers take cannot be brought or bought back with mere bribes...or, if we prefer, that's not how that's supposed to work, lol. We all fall down, ofc. To use a really blunt example. The seals did not bring an atm reader to the raid of osama bin ladens compound. No one has ever been released from gitmo because their wife came up with the proper amount of cash in a gofundme push.

It's not obvious how any of this leads into the commies getting something wrong or the hippies getting something right then wrong. You'd have to flesh that one out, I think.