Islamic State abducts at least 90 Christians in Syria

At least 90, many of them women, children and elderly. Some will be killed quickly, others enslaved, raped and tortured.

Just because they are different. But lets not forget that even those who believe the "right" religion still live in a constant state of fear and oppression.

IS must be destroyed, quickly and completely.

^yes, indeed, but they will not be destroyed. They are not a completely modular unit, removed from the rest of the world; they are linked directly with the more extreme side of Islam, and are fragmented across the globe, so will, I hate to say, most likely never be eradicated. Not until the idea of religion is eradicated, and to do that we need to wipe out hate, fear, and inequality, and educate people beyond believing in fairies.

"A report by Amnesty International released Tuesday said the captives (hundreds of Yazidi women and girls) - including girls as young as 10 - endured torture, rape and sexual slavery, and that several abducted girls committed suicide."

reference: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Islamic+extremists+commit+atrocities+against+girls+women/10678117/story.html

Yeah, ISIS is about religion. Religion from the time before writing was invented. Follow the money, starve these animals and burn them in cages; that seems to be the religion these freaks practice, the religion of killing women and children. Sick making.

@TheInterstat

Religion is not a bad thing in itself. But as you said, Extremism is.

In the past, Mankind benefited greatly from Islamic civilization(s). In fact, far more tolerance was shown by Muslims than Christians. (At the same time, what happened to the Library of Alexandria was an irreparable loss, and set Science, and other fields, back several centuries).

Even now, investigation shows that, despite the ignorant or willfully deceitful intentions of some media sources, the majority of Muslims are not "out to take over the world".

Tolerance, as was in the past, is the key. If we're not fighting over religion, something else will replace it. The current situation with Ukraine and Russia is a good example.

(At the same time, what happened to the Library of Alexandria was an irreparable loss, and set Science, and other fields, back several centuries).

That was done by the Muslims and not the Christians. You need to also realize that the Ottoman Muslims (i.e. Turkey) kept the Arab Muslims in check for many centuries, up until the end of WWI. So for those who want to say the US and Christanity are the cause of ISIS are greatly misinformed on their history, and the conflict within Islam that has been going on for centuries.

"they are linked directly with the more extreme side of Islam" - comments

One refinement: They are linked directly with the more extreme Interpretation of Islam sold as hate and used to profit a cabal of manipulative thieves. Follow the money.

One criticism of ISIS, too often repeated, is that ISIS is Islam. It is as if, somehow, all Muslims had been secretly waiting to decapitate women and children and burn men alive in cages. ISIS is a criminal organization.

That was done by the Muslims and not the Christians.

That was done by "some" Muslims, and I'm aware of this. I offered this fact as a counter to an equally misguided fancy that they've never done anything wrong. That would be biased and untrue.

I'd agree that the Ottoman Empire was a major factor in stabilizing the Middle East. Unfortunately Western powers divided the region up, with the same insensitivity as they did in Africa, and things largely went to crap thereafter.

Christians, Jews, etc have been living alongside Muslims in the Middle East. As a whole, Europeans have been less tolerant in the past, as can be seen with the Reformation, the Inquisition, various pogroms, etc. We should not overlook that a significant number of those who emigrated to the North American continent, and elsewhere, did it to escape religious persecution or at least practice with more freedom. But to claim Muslims (which is an almost criminal simplification of a vast number of people, over an extended period of time) are, or ever were, not guilty of engaging similar behaviour would be downright stupid.

As for the US, this is truly a can of worms. I think I'd prefer to take a quick nap. But I'll say this beforehand - Were they entirely responsible? No. Partially? Yes.

I'm still not quite sure whether all the moral outrage emanating from the west is entirely justified wrt murders carried out by ISIS.

I've been wondering what - if any - difference there is between beheading someone and dropping a 500lb bomb on a building that 'intelligence' claims contains 'territorists' or 'insurgents' (quite possibly nothing more than dads defending their courtyard against invaders/occupiers)?

At the end of the day, people die, but only one group is filmed. 

Does the fact one is being filmed make any difference? 

Not to my mind.   The filming changes nothing; it is used purely for propaganda, 

If western forces filmed their bombs, missiles and drones blowing people to little pieces and posted those clips on Facebook, I wonder how the selective moral outrage of people who are disgusted at ISIS's actions would change?

Would we be as horrified as many people are at ISIS beheadings? I really don't think so,

To me, the killing on both sides is unacceptable. 

Western forces have killed hundreds of thousands more (many of them civilians) than ISIS have. If we are to hold a morally balanced view, we should be venting far more and much louder against our own nations' governments if they have contributed to the carnage in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.

ISIS beheading 21 people doesn't even begin to compare to the death toll created by western nations and yet - apparently because ISIS films some of their execution and puts on FB - it's a big deal?

Reformed Basher:

" Religion is not a bad thing in itself. But as you said, Extremism is. "

We keep hearing this but it is false. "Extremism" of what? Are you afraid of extreme pacificists? Of extreme Amish? Of extreme humanitarians? Of extreme charity donors? Of extreme nuns? Don´t you see how silly this slogan is?

Lets be clear about this: The issue here is extreme fundamentalists Islam, and nothing else. In case of ISIS very specifically extreme Sunni Wahabi Islam. Fwiw, the rule imposed by ISIS is not substantially different from the laws in Saudi Arabia.

@SushiSake3 If you count the civilians killed in the Islamists' futile attempt at legitimacy (i.e. the Syria and Iraq wars), the death toll is higher than from Western bombs. They just need to realize their ideology is not going to be allowed. There is no need to be tolerant of the intolerant.

@WilliB

Let's define "Extremism". Without consulting any references, online or otherwise, taking a belief (does not have to religious, political extremism is just as bad) to an extreme and trying to bend reality into what one sees fit, at the expense of other's well-being, pretty well sums up "extremism" for me.

Extreme pacifism can certainly be detrimental. For example, allowing Adolf Hitler, and others, to do as they wished (following their own forms of Extremism) made things worse. Easy to say in hindsight though.

Funny you mention Amish. Yes, I was reading about an Amish extremist this morning in fact. Sam Mullet.

Charity is generally a good thing. Unskillfully done, or with bias, can be harmful.

Violent religious orders have certainly existed in the past, and they still do. I'll admit I'm not aware of any mob of nuns currently performing atrocities though. I did know one who was fond of using the cane when I was in Grade 3 at elementary school, but I don't think she had any ulterior motives, just a mean streak and a rather strong right arm for an old "lady".

Saudi Arabia? I dislike Wahhabism there. In fact, there are a lot of locals who feel the same way. I sincerely wish them good luck ridding themselves of what seems an extreme system. Maybe some would call it moderate, but I'd disagree. It's being forcefully imposed.

Each of the above are separate and should be considered as such.

One good thing is that many previously silent Muslims are now speaking out, or acting upon, violent acts committed by IS. I'd like to optimistically think, extreme or oppressive beliefs will be gradually replaced with tolerance. But I don't think religion is the only problem in the region. The situation between Israel and some its neighbours still exists. Old hatreds and jealousies abound elsewhere too.

The overriding issue is that Islam flourishes in poor countries, and in poor countries it is easier to raise extremists. The reason for these nations being poor is long and complex, but looking at the other side, radical Islam will fade when the caliphate becomes a caliphate of capitalism and democracy. Nothing stops a fight faster than giving both sides a stack of cash to spend on whatever they want and to improve their immediate surroundings.

The west does not have the direct equivalent of ISIS because it is richer and is not a bleak sand filled zone of nothingness.

While culture and religion are twisted and used to drive the hatred, and are not the root cause. The fact that these people are living in really poor and nasty environments is.

Cue next beheading or burning movie. Savages.

As for the US, this is truly a can of worms. I think I'd prefer to take a quick nap. But I'll say this beforehand - Were they entirely responsible? No. Partially? Yes.

I would say more an Great Britain can of worms. It was the Royal Geographical society that made up the nation of Iraq and put a Saudi Arab in place as a ruler after WWI, and they went back on a lot of their agreements that they used to get the Arab muslim help to fight the Ottomans in WWI (i.e. Lawerence of Arabia).

The overriding issue is that Islam flourishes in poor countries, and in poor countries it is easier to raise extremists.

Not true. The 9/11 hijackers came from well off (i.e. middle class) families and had college degrees and access to money to come to America and go to colleges in Europe. Also, bin-Laden was the son of a very rich man. If you look at the people that are going to Syria from England or France to join, they are not living in abject poverty in England being that they get plenty of government subsidies to get by.

Take a look in Nigeria and Boko-Haram. Yes they come from a poor country, but also, there are poor Christians in Nigeria, and I have not heard of groups of young, unemployed Christan rampaging villages and taking young muslim girls hostage for sex slaves and to sell into slavery and force them to wear explosive vests to blow themselves up in Muslim areas.

So I am not going to buy that these are just the poor who need a "jobs program" to take their mind off jihad. Remember, the main Whabi leaders are rich men from Saudi Arabia, and those men are not poor by any means but want their brand of religion to be the dominate religion in the world.

I would say more an Great Britain can of worms.

Yes, we should not overlook their part, however old, very much responsible for the present situation. Initial stimulus that triggered a chain reaction.

Good points with your comments on stating extremism is not necessarily related to poverty. I'd imagine the 90 or more Christians in the story were no better off monetarily, and perhaps worse off, than their captors. With regards to Boko Haram, I've read they have been, at least partially, financed by rich Muslim backers from the Northern part of Nigeria.

So I am not going to buy that these are just the poor who need a "jobs program" to take their mind off jihad.

A smart bomb would do much better in taking their minds off jihad. It would be good if there was a bit more sound for the last few seconds of it's plummet, so some upturned faces with looks of surprise would hopefully be captured in the footage. One can only wish.

I'd imagine the 90 or more Christians in the story were no better off monetarily, and perhaps worse off, than their captors.

Those 21 Coptic Christians from Egypt who were recently beheaded on the beach in Lybia were in Lybia looking for work, which they couldn't find in Egypt. So they were poor men looking for work, yet they didn't use their religion and the fact that they didn't have a job as a basis for going around and beheading 21 persons of a different religion.

This is not a matter of economics, but one religion where certain followers of that religion want to use violent means to convert non-believers, and those of the same religion who don't practice it their particular way. ISIS has killed more muslims so far as they have non-Muslims.

WilliBFEB. 25, 2015 - 09:48AM JST Reformed Basher:

" Religion is not a bad thing in itself. But as you said, Extremism is. "

We keep hearing this but it is false. "Extremism" of what? Are you afraid of extreme pacificists? Of extreme Amish? Of extreme humanitarians? Of extreme charity donors? Of extreme nuns? Don´t you see how silly this slogan is?

Lets be clear about this: The issue here is extreme fundamentalists Islam, and nothing else. In case of ISIS very specifically extreme Sunni Wahabi Islam. Fwiw, the rule imposed by ISIS is not substantially different from the laws in Saudi Arabia.

I tend to agree with the statement extremists (in context) are what we should be worried about, whether it is Muslim extremists, the tea party, churches in the U.S. that still allow marriage to children, Christian based religions that take a similar with us or against us stance.

Not true. The 9/11 hijackers came from well off (i.e. middle class) families and had college degrees and access to money to come to America and go to colleges in Europe. Also, bin-Laden was the son of a very rich man. If you look at the people that are going to Syria from England or France to join, they are not living in abject poverty in England being that they get plenty of government subsidies to get by.

I said Islam, not extremism. Seems like you have jumped from one to the other automatically... Uh oh!

Looks like the Jordanians need to increase their airstrikes on IS.

ReformedBasher:

" In the past, Mankind benefited greatly from Islamic civilization(s). In fact, far more tolerance was shown by Muslims than Christians. (At the same time, what happened to the Library of Alexandria was an irreparable loss, and set Science, and other fields, back several centuries). Even now, investigation shows that, despite the ignorant or willfully deceitful intentions of some media sources, the majority of Muslims are not "out to take over the world". "

Alas, that is largely wishful thinking. It is true that there have been some Caliphs there were rather moderate, and it is true that pre-enlightenment Christianity was pretty brutal at times.

But what ISIS does does reflects exactly what Mohammed did; read the Haddiths and you see that ISIS follows them to the letter. So, like all Salafis, they go back to the roots, and you have no leg to stand on if you want to argue against them on religious grounds. And they know that. And that is why keep attracting followers.

And while the "majority of muslims" (I dont now why people keep bringing this up, as if "the majority" mattered) are not out to conquer the word, Mohammed certainly was, this is embedded in the teaching. Final peace "Dar Al Salam" will be achieve when the whole world is submitted under Shariah. That is fundamentalist doctrine, and again ISIS acts on that exactly.

I dont know why it is so hard for many Westerners to face reality.

And while the "majority of muslims" (I dont now why people keep bringing this up, as if "the majority" mattered) are not out to conquer the word, Mohammed certainly was, this is embedded in the teaching.

Of course "the majority" matters. What a strange thing to say.

You've spent at least ten years mostly posting exclusively negatively about Islam on an English language website dedicated to Japan. To this day I've no idea why, other than that you're clearly rabidly ant-Islamic.

Do you have a solution for radical Islam? Are you of the ilk that think there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim? Fill in the gaps, please.

Haddiths and you see that ISIS follows them to the letter. So, like all Salafis, they go back to the roots, and you have no leg to stand on if you want to argue against them on religious grounds.

That is the problem a lot of the world, not just the west doesn't understand. Yes Christanity has had a rough past, but also they had a reformation that changed some things. Just like Judaism and to some extend the other religiouns like Hinduism and Buddahism have modified their ways over the years to reflect the changing attitudes in their religion as compared to how society has changed. Don't think so, just look at how some Christian churches have started to adopt the issue like gay marriage.

Under Islam, the Quran was not written by man (like the Bible and other religous texts) but was dictated to Mohammed by the angel Gabriel. So for any Muslim to try to change the words and meanings of the Quran would be blasphemy and those who believe that would be an apostate, and that would be someone worse than an infidel, since they should know better to go against the Quran while an infidel dosen't know any better. Thus you have the part of the basis for the whole Sunni/Shia rift in Islam.

In the past, Mankind benefited greatly from Islamic civilization(s).

Yes that is true, but those were in areas where the leaders were more secular than strict adherents to the teachings. Ask yourself this, what was the last great scientific or artistic advancement that has come out of a predominately Islamic society lately?

Madverts:

" Of course "the majority" matters. What a strange thing to say. "

No, the "majority" matters NOT, when you talk about the danger of an ideology.

To point out the obvious: The majority of Communist party members in China are just ordinary citizens, no red guards. Does that make Communism harmless? The majority of Communist party members in North Korea are just ordinary citizens, not concentration camp guards. Does that make the Kim regime harmless? The majority of Nazi party members in Germany were just ordinary citizens, not Stasi member. Does that make Nazism harmless? I could go on. The "majority" of anything are always just simple followers. It is ALWAYS the radicals that represent the danger of any ideology.

This excuse of hiding behind the numbers is really getting old. Besides, when you talk about islam, keep in mind the apostesy laws: It is impossible to leave islam. As we speak, Saudi Arabia is going to behead a citizen who declared he wanted to do that. So you are not talking about voluntary members, but forced members.

The "majority" of anything are always just simple followers. It is ALWAYS the radicals that represent the danger of any ideology.

@ WilliB: You are mistaken if you think the majority is important. You cite the Nazis in your post. If a few of the majoity would have stood up when they first rose to power, maybe the bad things that followed would not have happened. Maybe not all of Nazis were extremists, then if that were the case after the fall of Stalingrad and the constant bombing, wouldn't you think that vast majority would have stood up and demanded more from their government. What if they did, things would be different.

But, because the extremist knew they have the "silent majority" on their side, they continued on their rampage. So of course the majority matters. If they got fed up with the ISIS types, it would be a coalition of Muslims heading towards Syria to fight them and take back their religion. But, the majority are silent, leaving them to believe that they have their support.

Willi,

You ignored my questions. Then you went off on another Islamaphobic diatribe.

Are you of the ilk that thinks there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim?

Do you have a solution for radical Islam?

For someone who has devoted 95% of his posting history to Islam, I'm sure you can muster a retort to those two simple questions.

@ WilliB: You are mistaken if you think the majority is important.

Correction to my post, that should read "You are mistaken if you think that majority is unimportant."