"...And your Lord is never forgetful..."

[dcalling]

More to the point of this thread, yesterday was the 3rd anniversary of the ongoing genocide in Syria.

It is not a genocide, it is a civil war. Initially I was happy Assad is going to be toppled, then come the news a boy was beheaded for making a very light joke of Muhammad (not even in any ways insulting), and the news of the in fighting (or one sided abduction/killing) of Islamist rebels to FSA, then the news of more beheading, and then even the Islamist rebels are killing Islamist rebels.

At this point I doubt any new government can be better than Assad, and this genocide start to look like a genocide against the shia Muslims, as the Sunnis are starting to suicide bombing Hezbollah in Lebanon.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

It is not a genocide, it is a civil war.

Which side is the one with more than 100,000 people dead? The Sunnis. Killed by whom? The Shi'aas who make up less than 15% of the country. Imagine if a minority of any Western country killed that many of the majority in 3 years.

Sounds like a genocide to me.

Initially I was happy Assad is going to be toppled, then come the news a boy was beheaded for making a very light joke of Muhammad (not even in any ways insulting), and the news of the in fighting (or one sided abduction/killing) of Islamist rebels to FSA, then the news of more beheading, and then even the Islamist rebels are killing Islamist rebels.

What about the Nusayris burying a Sunni Muslim alive and telling him to say that his god is Bashar & he'll be let free (he refused and kept saying that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allaah & Muhammad is His Messenger).

What about arresting & mutilating a teenager boy's body & then torturing him to death?

What about using power drills to torture another teenager to death?

(I could keep asking but I'll keep it short)

At this point I doubt any new government can be better than Assad, and this genocide start to look like a genocide against the shia Muslims, as the Sunnis are starting to suicide bombing Hezbollah in Lebanon.

I already said this to you before but:

As for Nusra declaring war on Hezbollah, did you know that's because Hezbollah is fighting alongside the Syrian government against the opposition? So why shouldn't the rebels be fighting against Lebanon and Hezbollah?

Why should Sunnis care about the criminals who are helping the Syrian government in its genocide against the Sunni population? Hezbollah can fight them, but they can't fight Hezbollah?

 

[smaneck]

Which side is the one with more than 100,000 people dead? The Sunnis. Killed by whom? The Shi'aas who make up less than 15% of the country. Imagine if a minority of any Western country killed that many of the majority in 3 years.

Sounds like a genocide to me.

The majority of those killed were combatants. You do realize that the Sunnis have committed atrocities as well?

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

The majority of those killed were combatants. You do realize that the Sunnis have committed atrocities as well?

1.) It's hard to determine how many were combatants or non-combatants.

2.) If they were combatants, they were combatants against....surprise! An armed Shi'aa government that is killing the majority Sunni population, including civilians (and the current dictator's father also killed many of the Sunnis previously).

Do you expect them to take the killing or let their families (including women and children) be tortured, raped, and/or killed?

3.) Of course some from the Sunnis have committed atrocities and it's wrong of them (which doesn't take away the fact that it's a genocide against the Sunnis) but..

"One thing that is always important to note when comparing the mistakes of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) to the atrocities of Assad's military is its structure. The Free Syrian Army is an idea more than it is an actual military. There is no central command, there is no hand book, and there is no official training. The idea of the FSA is to use weapons in defence of yourself and your people and to retake the rights guaranteed to all human beings by default but have been taken away by this regime.

The idea of the Free Syrian Army does not include the mutilation, torture, or cruel & unusual punishment of anybody alive or dead. Anybody can become a part of the Free Syrian Army by picking up arms and subscribing to this ideology. If one is to commit a crime that is not in alignment with the idea of the Free Syrian Army than they have left the realm of the FSA and moved into something different.

On the other hand, Assad's forces are a ‘national' military. They are trained the same, they wear uniforms, they have a central command, they have a command structure. Anything that is committed by these combatants is representative of the entire body"

Search for "Ten things worse than eating a dead man's heart" to read the entire article. Even though this is specifically about FSA's atrocities, it can be extended to any of the opposition that have carried out crimes.

 

[wn123455]

1.) It's hard to determine how many were combatants or non-combatants.

2.) If they were combatants, they were combatants against....surprise! An armed Shi'aa government that is killing the majority Sunni population, including civilians (and the current dictator's father also killed many of the Sunnis previously).

Do you expect them to take the killing or let their families (including women and children) be tortured, raped, and/or killed?

3.) Of course some from the Sunnis have committed atrocities and it's wrong of them (which doesn't take away the fact that it's a genocide against the Sunnis) but..

"One thing that is always important to note when comparing the mistakes of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) to the atrocities of Assad's military is its structure. The Free Syrian Army is an idea more than it is an actual military. There is no central command, there is no hand book, and there is no official training. The idea of the FSA is to use weapons in defence of yourself and your people and to retake the rights guaranteed to all human beings by default but have been taken away by this regime.

The idea of the Free Syrian Army does not include the mutilation, torture, or cruel & unusual punishment of anybody alive or dead. Anybody can become a part of the Free Syrian Army by picking up arms and subscribing to this ideology. If one is to commit a crime that is not in alignment with the idea of the Free Syrian Army than they have left the realm of the FSA and moved into something different.

On the other hand, Assad's forces are a ‘national' military. They are trained the same, they wear uniforms, they have a central command, they have a command structure. Anything that is committed by these combatants is representative of the entire body"

Search for "Ten things worse than eating a dead man's heart" to read the entire article. Even though this is specifically about FSA's atrocities, it can be extended to any of the opposition that have carried out crimes.

Which group of rebels in Syria do you support? If you do not support the rebels in Syria which group of mujaheddin in Syria do you support?

 

[smaneck]

1.) It's hard to determine how many were combatants or non-combatants.

We have a pretty fair idea of the combatants killed. It is the non-combantants we don't have reliable figures on. About 30-35K Syrian military and police have been killed along with another 20K irregular militias who support the government. The opposition has lost 37-57K. These figures include foreign fighters on both sides.

2.) If they were combatants, they were combatants against....surprise! An armed Shi'aa government that is killing the majority Sunni population, including civilians (and the current dictator's father also killed many of the Sunnis previously).

I'm not questioning whether Assad is a dictator, only whether you can rightly call this civil war a genocide against Sunnis. Genocide isn't just the killing of lots of people, it is the systematic killing of an entire ethnic group. Sunnis make up 60% of the country. No way, could Assad even try to wipe them all out.

Do you expect them to take the killing or let their families (including women and children) be tortured, raped, and/or killed?

Nope, I expect them to fight. That's why we have a civil war.

3.) Of course some from the Sunnis have committed atrocities and it's wrong of them (which doesn't take away the fact that it's a genocide against the Sunnis) but..

Sorry, but as much as a dislike Assad his Alawite minority is much more susceptible to genocide than is the Sunni majority. In fact, that is why they are hanging on so hard to power.

"One thing that is always important to note when comparing the mistakes of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) to the atrocities of Assad's military is its structure. The Free Syrian Army is an idea more than it is an actual military. There is no central command, there is no hand book, and there is no official training. The idea of the FSA is to use weapons in defence of yourself and your people and to retake the rights guaranteed to all human beings by default but have been taken away by this regime.

The idea of the Free Syrian Army does not include the mutilation, torture, or cruel & unusual punishment of anybody alive or dead.

I'm looking at actions not ideas. Besides the opposition doesn't consist solely of the Free Syrian Army. The opposition also includes Islamic Front, the al-Qaeda network, Syria's Revolutionary Front, and ISIS. And some of the worst atrocities are associated with these groups.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

I'm not questioning whether Assad is a dictator, only whether you can rightly call this civil war a genocide against Sunnis. Genocide isn't just the killing of lots of people, it is the systematic killing of an entire ethnic group. Sunnis make up 60% of the country. No way, could Assad even try to wipe them all out.

Genocide is the systematic killing of all or part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group.[1] .... Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can't be bothered to find non-wikipedia articles at the moment.

Sorry, but as much as a dislike Assad his Alawite minority is much more susceptible to genocide than is the Sunni majority. In fact, that is why they are hanging on so hard to power.

Except the past few decades have been examples of the Nusayris killing the Sunnis and gaining power through murder. There has been a precedent in old and recent history of the Sunni civilians being killed in the tens of thousands due to the government. The Sunnis (again, the majority) have more to fear from the minority than the other way around. Saying anything else is just an assumption.

I'm looking at actions not ideas.

"On the other hand, Assad's forces are a ‘national' military. They are trained the same, they wear uniforms, they have a central command, they have a command structure. Anything that is committed by these combatants is representative of the entire body.

They are products of the system that they believe in and are willingly a part of. While the evidence of atrocities this military has committed are undeniable and plentiful we have not heard of many (if any) criminal cases against perpetrators of said atrocities.

This in itself is a significant testament to why Assad and his government must be dismantled. "

The killing and atrocities committed are disproportionately committed by the government (who, again, are of the minority religion and generally aren't killing those of their religion) - especially of civilians.

You really can't convince me that the Sunnis are worse than or on equal footing as the government.

 

[smaneck]

Genocide is the systematic killing of all or part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group.[1] .... Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, I know what wiki says, and it was on that basis that I stated that what the Syrian government is doing does not constitute genocide. They are not indiscriminately killing Sunnis because they are Sunnis. They are fighting against rebels, and yes often times committing atrocities in the process. But their goal is to defeat the opposition, not kill Sunnis.

Except the past few decades have been examples of the Nusayris killing the Sunnis and gaining power through murder.

Uh, the Alawites have had the power for the last 40 years. But granted that Assad's father especially committed atrocities to keep it.

There has been a precedent in old and recent history of the Sunni civilians being killed in the tens of thousands due to the government.

I am aware of the massacre of Hama.

The Sunnis (again, the majority) have more to fear from the minority than the other way around. Saying anything else is just an assumption.

They way Sunnis have treated the Christians is not a good sign.

This in itself is a significant testament to why Assad and his government must be dismantled. "

Perhaps. Doesn't make the Assad government guilty of genocide.

You really can't convince me that the Sunnis are worse than the government.

I'm not saying they are. Until they come to power we won't know that. Assad's government has committed great atrocities, there is no question of that, but they have not attempted genocide. And I think there is a real danger of genocide in the case of the Alawites and maybe the Christian community. That's why I would much rather see a negotiated settlement than anything else.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

They are not indiscriminately killing Sunnis because they are Sunni [snip] But their goal is to defeat the opposition, not kill Sunnis.

So that's why so many Sunni women are raped (and plead for birth control pills so they do not get pregnant by their rapists), why so many Sunni children are tortured and killed, why lots of Sunnis were killed by a chemical gas attack, and why the number of Sunni children killed number in the thousands. Because they are not targeting Sunnis specifically and killing indiscriminately.

Uh, the Alawites have had the power for the last 40 years.

....Which was gained through murder.

They way Sunnis have treated the Christians is not a good sign.

What was it the nuns recently swapped for Sunni prisoners said? That they were treated well by Jabhat an-Nusra (and people here would likely call them one of the most "Islamist" groups). And now the nuns are being called traitors and honor-less by state tv, lol!

Perhaps. Doesn't make the Assad government guilty of genocide.

Its crimes make it guilty of genocide.

And I think there is a real danger of genocide in the case of the Alawites and maybe the Christian community. That's why I would much rather see a negotiated settlement than anything else.

There is evidence that the current government is committing an ongoing genocide against the Sunni population. It's not just a real danger, it's reality!

 

[smaneck]

At this point I doubt any new government can be better than Assad, and this genocide start to look like a genocide against the shia Muslims, as the Sunnis are starting to suicide bombing Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Suicide bombing has nothing to do with genocide. The point I was trying to make with Lovebeingamuslimah is that words have meaning. Terrorism, mass murder, genocide, torture, etc. are all bad things, but they aren't all the same thing. Suicide bombing is an act of terrorism if it involves indiscriminately blowing up innocent civilians. If it is aimed at a military target, it is simply a weird way of waging war. But it is not genocide in either case.

I remember during the First Gulf War when Sadam Hussein was lobbing his Scuds everything and mostly missing, and we bombing the heck out of Iraq. The Scud missile finally hit something, a mess hall at a US air base in Saudi Arabia, killing 27 Americans. A chocked up reporter called it a "dastardly act of terrorism." Actually it was no such thing, it was a legitimate attack on a military target. Doesn't make any difference if that target was us!

 

[smaneck]

So that's why so many Sunni women are raped (and plead for birth control pills so they do not get pregnant by their rapists), why so many Sunni children are tortured and killed, why lots of Sunnis were killed by a chemical gas attack, and why the number of Sunni children killed number in the thousands. Because they are not targeting Sunnis specifically and killing indiscriminately.

Assad's use of chemical weapons was clearly an act of terrorism. But terror was his object, not the extermination of Sunnis in Syria.

....Which was gained through murder.

There were so many coups that decade I'm not sure who did what to whom.

What was it the nuns recently swapped for Sunni prisoners said? That they were treated well by Jabhat an-Nusra (and people here would likely call them one of the most "Islamist" groups). And now the nuns are being called traitors and honor-less by state tv, lol!

I'm glad that turned out well, although the nuns should never have taken hostage to begin with. I'm more concerned about what is happening in places like Raqqa.

Its crimes make it guilty of genocide.

No, it makes him guilty of crimes against humanity.

There is evidence that the current government is committing an ongoing genocide against the Sunni population. It's not just a real danger, it's reality!

Well, if you can show me evidence that Sunnis are being targeted just because they are Sunnis and not because they are rebels or living in rebel strongholds, I'll be happy to look at it.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

Assad's use of chemical weapons was clearly an act of terrorism. But terror was his object, not the extermination of Sunnis in Syria.

So why was a Sunni city targeted and not a Christian or Alawite community?

Why does he never target the Alawite villages?

In July 2013, the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria estimated that 100,000 have died in the Syrian war over the past two years, with the number of deaths rising since armed resistance against the Bashar Al-Assad regime began. While one could point to the fact that the opposition is now arguably led by al-Qaida-linked forces, the armed opposition, both pro- and anti-U.S. forces, have largely targeted Syrian soldiers.

By contrast, the regime has killed about half of those who have died, the vast majority of them non-combatant civilians. This is not just a civil war, this is genocide because non-combatants comprising the ethno-religious Sunni majority, are being systematically killed. Genocide is not a numbers game, but a crime of intent. The regime is attempting, through state terror, to eliminate a part of the Sunni population, rather than primarily fighting the armed rebels.
--

Certainly, the chemical weapons attack alone constitutes an act of genocide, as defined by International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia court decisions. The Sunnis have been deliberately targeted and destroyed by the Alawite dictatorship, an offshoot of the Shi’a sect of Islam. As such, a Shi’a oriented minority is mass murdering another group. Destroying a religious group is genocide unless they are combatants. The regime is fighting the rebels to be sure, but, as in most known genocides, killing civilians in much larger numbers.

Syria's Civil War Has Become a Genocide | World Policy Institute


Anyway, believe what you want. I still have the position that this is a genocide. Regardless of what you want to call it, it's evil.

 

[Aristocles X]

dcalling

If God created Adam instead of evolved Adam, it is normal if humans only existed for 6000 years. The earliest record of humans is 5000 years or so

We have ecords of human life earlier than 5000 BC. Besides that according to science humans have existed for 200 000years. If you believe in evolution it does not take away the problem that the bible says humans have only existed for 6000years

don't know why you would consider that is a problem, since Quran (which you would consider to be all true) also states God created all in 6 days (s7:54, create the sun, the moon, the stars) and the earth is created in 2 days, s41:9, and set the mountains in 4 days in the next surat, then in the next he joined heavens and earth or make them come together.

This is a major issue with christians. When they cannot answer they go move on to tu quoque. Yawm in the Quran refers to period and not a literal 24hour day. I see major issues with the translations which caused you problems understanding the verse. He didnt create the earth in 2 days and created mountains, blessed it and so in another 4 days after the 2 days, the 4 days include the 2days of the creation of the earth. During these 4 days the earth was being created. The next verse uses the Arabic word Thumma

Thumma he directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come [into being], willingly or by compulsion." They said, "We have come willingly."

Thumma can mean than right after but it can also mean simultaneously.

Either way while the earth was formed completly in 4 days we can take 2 approaches to the heavens.

The heavens was being formed during the same time as the earth and than after the earth was completed they were "joined" together than God made the heaven into 7 heavens and this in 2 periods.

Or the second approach.

The earth as simultaneously being formed as it was joined with heaven and after these the heavens were formed into 7 heavens and all of this was complete in 6 periods.

This however is nothing similiar to what you have in Genesis.

So in Genesis if you reject literal days you fall into the problem i showed you. And as you admit you cannot give an answer to this you have proved my case about the many problems with the Torah. If you reject the historical error you fall into the scientific.

Please do

You want to talk about the new testament historical errors? Because if so its going to end like this

those are impossible to prove, just let them be,

Than whats the point.

t taken something based on faith is different than worshiping

Some Protestants have limited the scope and taken everything literal in the Bible. They refuse to believe anything outside of the Bible, they even refuse to think. This is one of the thing we mean by worshiping the book.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Why should Assad focus on Christians or Alawites if it's the Sunni rebels who so clearly want to see the Shi'a minority de-throned and obliterated?

Heck, some of those combatants would go so far as to cut off people's heads if they suspected that they belonged to the incorrect muslim sect, an act that LoveBeingetc. dismissed as "friendly fire" (which might be at least somewhat understandable if "friendly fire" involved forcing a comrade to his knees and putting a bullet in his head - even though that's still leagues away from taking a knife and sawing through a person's neck while he kicks and screams).

Don't get me wrong: Assad's a villainous dictator, and as bad as they can get. But that does not necessarily mean that the people who want to replace him are the good guys. The world rarely operates along such neat principles of Hollywood storytelling.

 

[smaneck]

So why was a Sunni city targeted and not a Christian or Alawite community?

Because that is where the rebels had their stronghold.

Why does he never target the Alawite villages?

Because Alawites support him.

But the source you cited here does make a good argument.

Anyway, believe what you want. I still have the position that this is a genocide. Regardless of what you want to call it, it's evil.

That much is indisputably true.

 

[dcalling]

....Yawm in the Quran refers to period and not a literal 24hour day. I see major issues with the translations which caused you problems understanding the verse. He didnt create the earth in 2 days and created mountains, blessed it and so in another 4 days after the 2 days, the 4 days include the 2days of the creation of the earth. During these 4 days the earth was being created. The next verse uses the Arabic word Thumma
.....
Some Protestants have limited the scope and taken everything literal in the Bible. They refuse to believe anything outside of the Bible, they even refuse to think. This is one of the thing we mean by worshiping the book.

Well, my take on this is I try not to interpret Torah/Quran with what science has found so far, can you absolutely know for sure that God didn't create the earth in 2 days or the universe in 3 days etc. God is God, you never know what his capacity is.

So my take on it is, I never claim I know about this subject and I might give some interpretation of things base on what we know, but I will never give a definitive answer. As Muhammad once said, if you disagree with them, they might be right and if you agree they might be wrong

The Bible/Quran are hard books to understand, what easy to know is the commandments by God that we should love our neighbors as ourselves.

 

[Aristocles X]

Well, my take on this is I try not to interpret Torah/Quran with what science has found so far, can you absolutely know for sure that God didn't create the earth in 2 days or the universe in 3 days etc. God is God, you never know what his capacity is.

So my take on it is, I never claim I know about this subject and I might give some interpretation of things base on what we know, but I will never give a definitive answer. As Muhammad once said, if you disagree with them, they might be right and if you agree they might be wrong

The Bible/Quran are hard books to understand, what easy to know is the commandments by God that we should love our neighbors as ourselves.

I do believe we can understand the books of God by looking at his creation. I agree the commandments and laws given by God are made in a way everybody can understand them while there are other verses that are ambiguous and can mean many things.

 

[Aristocles X]

Well, my take on this is I try not to interpret Torah/Quran with what science has found so far, can you absolutely know for sure that God didn't create the earth in 2 days or the universe in 3 days etc. God is God, you never know what his capacity is.

So my take on it is, I never claim I know about this subject and I might give some interpretation of things base on what we know, but I will never give a definitive answer. As Muhammad once said, if you disagree with them, they might be right and if you agree they might be wrong

The Bible/Quran are hard books to understand, what easy to know is the commandments by God that we should love our neighbors as ourselves.

What i do find problamatic is that you you'r self admit you cannot answer these massive errors in you scripture, however you do come out saying what is important is the message. If that is the case why do you take Christianity over Buddhism or Hinduism who have just as if not better sayings on ethics, love, spirituality and so forth or do you admit those are as equally true as you'r own faith?

 

[dcalling]

What i do find problamatic is that you you'r self admit you cannot answer these massive errors in you scripture, however you do come out saying what is important is the message. If that is the case why do you take Christianity over Buddhism or Hinduism who have just as if not better sayings on ethics, love, spirituality and so forth or do you admit those are as equally true as you'r own faith?

Greetings Aristocles.

Nope I didn't admit there are massive errors in the Bible, what I said is if there is no definite answer don't try to force interpret the Bible/Quran in some way.

And it is interesting that when the Bible said God created everything in 6 days, you think it is massive error, while Quran said the earth is created in 2 days and mountains etc in 4 you find all sort of answers for that Just the other day I come across a Muslim site that sort of "look down" on "Modern Muslims" that interpret the days as periods......

 

[Aristocles X]

Greetings Aristocles.

Nope I didn't admit there are massive errors in the Bible, what I said is if there is no definite answer don't try to force interpret the Bible/Quran in some way.

And it is interesting that when the Bible said God created everything in 6 days, you think it is massive error, while Quran said the earth is created in 2 days and mountains etc in 4 you find all sort of answers for that Just the other day I come across a Muslim site that sort of "look down" on "Modern Muslims" that interpret the days as periods......

I do not find all sort of answers. The Quran uses yawm for different time periods. Therfore the Quran and the explanation i gave is valid b the Grammar and the content in the Quran.

In the Bible it has to be literal six days or else more problems will arise. You might admit there are massive errors however the fact that you cannot give an answer show this is an error you cannot account for.

But leave it at this. There is no reason to get into a debate were we will go in circles and waste five pages.