Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 nels1031 wrote:
[The Ahmadiyya muslim community was declared outside the fold of Islam in the late 1800's, only a few years after it was founded and has faced heavy persecution in the countries its adherents live. Its worth noting that they espouse non-violence as one of their core values and also have a caliph. Sorta the non-violent ISIS. They are regarded as worse than non-muslims, because they left mainstream Islam, according to their detractors.

Is this for real? If so, it speaks volumes now doesn't it? Religion of peace my left foot...

...

Although after actually thinking for two seconds it occurs to me that non-violence might not be the reason they were declared outside of Islam. More information is required.

 Warpig1815 wrote:
. Speaking as a very patriotic British citizen, there was once a time when Great Britain was the worlds policeman, .

Speaking as a very Patriotic Irish citizen:They sucked at it.

@Bran Its slightly more complicated, they do add just a bit to the Muslim faith that mainstream Islam doesn't and that's where the differences lie.

ok, so excommunicated for reasons other than nonviolence. Thanks for clearing that up.

Bran Dawri wrote:
ok, so excommunicated for reasons other than nonviolence. Thanks for clearing that up.

Muslims don't generally get excommunicated for non-violence as far as I know.

Yeah, that thought occurred to me after about two seconds as well. The first post about the Ahmadiyya msulims was a bit misleading that way, hence the call for more information ;-) .

 Da krimson barun wrote:

 Warpig1815 wrote:
. Speaking as a very patriotic British citizen, there was once a time when Great Britain was the worlds policeman, .

Speaking as a very Patriotic Irish citizen:They sucked at it.

Everyone sucks at it, everyone wants a bigger piece of pie and will do what is necessary to get it. This is still happening now and will never change so long as humans are on this planet. The trick is to suck less than the other guys, usually by giving something in return for hegemony. In this the Empire was genuinely successful.

As for your perspective, the most patriotic Irish guys can seldom move on from the 17th century and are unstable witness to world events.

Police generally dont walk into a stadium and fire on an innocent crowd.And by 17th I assume you mean 20th century.

Perhaps your conversation would be better as a PM exchange rather than dragging this thread further off topic.

Jeepers!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2913338/Boko-Haram-fanatics-abducted-500-women-children-brutal-town-attack-says-eyewitness.html

-Survivor tells of horror in Baga after assault by Islamist terror group
-More than '500 women and children' kidnapped by militants
-Some have been released, but younger women remain captive
-Comes after satellite images showed destruction of towns by terror group
-Showed that 3,700 buildings including homes and schools were destroyed
-One witness says terrorists shot and killed a woman who was in labour
-Nigerian President makes surprise visit to Boko Haram heartland
-Goodluck Jonathan promised to tackle reign of terror
-Told people displaced by attack they would be able to return home

Has Nigeria really asked for help yet from the UN or the African Union?

 Matthew wrote:
Um, US? Why not help?

Because then we'd have to listen to swedes bitch about how we always have our noses in others buisness.

400 US troops are getting sent to Syria now to conduct training

 djones520 wrote:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/09/africa/boko-haram-violence/

Kano, Nigeria (CNN)Boko Haram militants opened fire on northern Nigerian villages, leaving bodies scattered everywhere and as many as 2,000 people feared dead.

"The attack on Baga and surrounding towns looks as if it could be Boko Haram's deadliest act," Amnesty International said in a statement.

Islamist militants sprayed bullets as they stormed in last weekend in trucks and armored vehicles, local authorities said Friday.

When they arrived, they unloaded motorcycles and pursued residents who fled into the bush, firing indiscriminately, said Baba Abba Hassan, a local district head.

Local officials reported death tolls ranging from hundreds to as many as 2,000 people.

"Dead bodies litter the bushes in the area and it is still no‎t safe to go and pick them (up) for burial," said Musa Bukar, the chairman of the local government where Baga is located.

"Some people who hid in their homes were burned alive."

I am a bit sad that today is the first I heard of this. Granted, what happened in Paris was horrible, but this... my god...

That's why I mentioned it in the Paris thread. Everyone on the news is up in arms about the magazine massacre, but never really talked about this nearly as much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah, coming on and asking the US to help is a bit rich. It would be great if the US did help out, but to be honest, they're probably not going to be able to cure the region of extremism with bombs and guns. Sadly.

Jeez. What a crappy friggin' situation. I hope we (the rest of the world) do something to support them.

Matthew, each of us should be looking to our own countries to be leaders on this and not expecting the hard choices to be made by others. With the criticism heaped on the US for their past military interventions, your comment is frankly provocative.

We went into Somalia and what did that get us?

Somalia was a political failure, not a military.

We achieved our objective in the Battle of Mogadishu, and inflicted huge losses on a numerically superior force. Then the politicians had to get weak kneed, pulled the plug, and that ended up spiralling the whole thing down the drain.

 djones520 wrote:

We achieved our objective in the Battle of Mogadishu, and inflicted huge losses on a numerically superior force. Then the politicians had to get weak kneed, pulled the plug, and that ended up spiralling the whole thing down the drain.

You were a member of the US military in 1993? What were the military objectives?

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

We achieved our objective in the Battle of Mogadishu, and inflicted huge losses on a numerically superior force. Then the politicians had to get weak kneed, pulled the plug, and that ended up spiralling the whole thing down the drain.

You were a member of the US military in 1993?

Dogma, go eff yourself.

Play your little word games with everyone else, but cut that gak out with me. I'm beyond tired of it.

 djones520 wrote:

Dogma, go eff yourself.

I am a proponent of digital rights, so there is no need to draw my attention to anything in that regard.

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Dogma, go eff yourself.

I am a proponent of digital rights, so there is no need to draw my attention to anything in that regard.

You're a proponent of being a digital dick. You're succeeding.

 djones520 wrote:

Play your little word games with everyone else, but cut that gak out with me. I'm beyond tired of it.

I am merely trying to understand your position.

What were the objectives that were achieved in Mogadishu?

 Jihadin wrote:
400 US troops are getting sent to Syria now to conduct training

Unfortunately this is the kind of response that isn't going to produce much more than a show of goodwill. There's a school of national security thought developing right now that goes something like this in regards to the Middle East (obviously paraphrasing):

"Get out completely, or Balls Deep."

By Balls Deep, i mean an even more forceful reaction than Desert Storm, or the Iraq / Afghan conflict. Million plus combat troops on the ground, not a couple hundred thousand.

I'm hearing the middle east being referred to as post WWII Germany scenario. Either commit for the indefinite long term, or gtfo ... any other strategy isn't going to work.

Some, not all, but some security analysts are starting to realize the controlled response method can never work in that region.


... i'm honestly not sure which one i support at this point. Because it's not contained, can't be contained, to just the middle east.

(note, this is just in reference to the point on advisors to Syria).

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Play your little word games with everyone else, but cut that gak out with me. I'm beyond tired of it.

I am merely trying to understand your position.

What were the objectives that were achieved in Mogadishu?

Then why didn't you ask that before, instead of making some snarky comment twisting my wording?

 dogma wrote:
I am a proponent of digital rights, so there is no need to draw my attention to anything in that regard.

Oh, you.

 djones520 wrote:

Then why didn't you ask that before, instead of making some snarky comment twisting my wording?

I asked the questions which would illustrate your position in my initial response.

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Then why didn't you ask that before, instead of making some snarky comment twisting my wording?

I asked the questions which would illustrate your position in my initial response.

BS yourself if you want to, but you're not kidding anyone else.

 djones520 wrote:

BS yourself if you want to, but you're not kidding anyone else.

Sure...

 dogma wrote:

You were a member of the US military in 1993? What were the military objectives?

 djones520 wrote:
Somalia was a political failure, not a military.

We achieved our objective in the Battle of Mogadishu, and inflicted huge losses on a numerically superior force. Then the politicians had to get weak kneed, pulled the plug, and that ended up spiralling the whole thing down the drain.

In the end, it was a failure. There was an extremely good PBS documentary on it years ago where members of the military and politicians were interviewed. The military that were there and some politicians in the loop damned the Clinton administration,and Madeline Albright in particular, about the failed mission to get Aidid.
It was part of "The American Experience" series, I believe.

 Sigvatr wrote:
So...people complain about America playing World Police if they do, but then complain about America not playing World Police if they don't?

Yeah it's really strange, I've heard people saying the US needs to get out of the middle east and then right away say they need to help those rebels in Syria...
All under some weird nonsense about stopping terrorism.
I'm not afraid of terrorists, better chance getting food poisoning from McDonalds or hit by a car...
I mean sure, there's a huge chunk of the world I will never go near and another religion I am weary of, but that's to be expected I suppose (I'm weary of a lot of religions).

Its interesting that this atrocity is buried under the headlines about muslim terrorist cells in Europe. I mean I get it....the whole Charlie Hedbo thing is literally, specifically, and pointedly an attack on the concept of free speech because it dishonored a particular religion. Western minds see that as a special kind of awful.

Still, important to remember that the folks who suffer the most from muslim (and to a larger degree Abrahamic) terrorism are invariably the poor & powerless in underdeveloped regions.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Its interesting that this atrocity is buried under the headlines about muslim terrorist cells in Europe. I mean I get it....the whole Charlie Hedbo thing is literally, specifically, and pointedly an attack on the concept of free speech because it dishonored a particular religion. Western minds see that as a special kind of awful.

Still, important to remember that the folks who suffer the most from muslim (and to a larger degree Abrahamic) terrorism are invariably the poor & powerless in underdeveloped regions.

Actually, it's more so the case that;
1. The vast majority of people killed by Islamist extremists are other Muslims.
2. The vast majority of the atrocities are carried out 'over there' and/or in countries that hold little worth for Western governments, as well as also being notoriously corrupt and tyrannical themselves.
3. The Liberal left & their bleeding heart socialist cheerleaders are too concerned with discussing BS like 'root causes' or else feel good Twitter whining campaigns, rather than taking the very much required action to stamp out this rapidly growing problem.

Nothing will change until a truly catastrophic attack or series of attacks is carried out on our shores. Until then, it's hand-wringing and avoiding the issue as normal for our weakling political leadership.

dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

We achieved our objective in the Battle of Mogadishu, and inflicted huge losses on a numerically superior force. Then the politicians had to get weak kneed, pulled the plug, and that ended up spiralling the whole thing down the drain.

You were a member of the US military in 1993? What were the military objectives?

djones520 wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

We achieved our objective in the Battle of Mogadishu, and inflicted huge losses on a numerically superior force. Then the politicians had to get weak kneed, pulled the plug, and that ended up spiralling the whole thing down the drain.

You were a member of the US military in 1993?

Dogma, go eff yourself.

Play your little word games with everyone else, but cut that gak out with me. I'm beyond tired of it.

I seriously hope you two are not basing your knowledge from a movie and a book? Seriously hope not. There is more to what is generally known to the public.....I'm not going to get between you two in your little pissing match but your both acting dumber then a box of rocks. So if there's some "confusion" over the span of time the Marines hit the beach up to when we pulled out let me know. I point you in the direction to help clarify US Military involvement in Mogadishu. Which lead up to US Service members refusing to serve under UN command and control.....I digress..It was an interesting time to be in the US Military during the 90's

dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Play your little word games with everyone else, but cut that gak out with me. I'm beyond tired of it.

I am merely trying to understand your position.

What were the objectives that were achieved in Mogadishu?

Edit

I cannot multi quote worth a damn it seems.