NationStates

Khodoristan wrote:

Sulamalik wrote:
Salafism is actually one of, if not the, most benign movements within the whole "fundamentalist" Islam sub sect. Contemporary Salafism was created during the 19th century out of a desire to disengage the Arab Islamic community from Western influences and bring it back to a more "pure" and 'stable" version of Islam. They did this because they felt that Western values like Capitalism prevented Muslims from practising the sort of social justice and charity that Muhammed preached.

Unlike the moderate Muslim Brotherhood, Salafists aren't interested in sweaping Islamism, rather they seek to work within the existing civil system to allow them the freedom to practice their beliefs (read; Islamic Auto insurance, and banking) without usurping the entire structure. Leaders within the movement denounce violence and extremism in the harshest of terms.

A Salafist government in Syria would be one of the best outcomes we could hope for.

Any form of religious government, Salafi, Wahabbi, or otherwise, is a no-go. Salafism does not have a good track record. And Wahabbism? Forget it.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Khodoristan wrote:Of course I know the concept of Übermensch, and to be quite honest, I don't see any precise meaning or concept behind it. It's like Freud's Five Stages of Psychosexual Development. Provocative? Yes. Brilliant? Absolutely. Relevant? Not at all.

The problem is, all of Nietzsche's work revolves around the idea of the ubermensch. The idea of a new meaning to life; the replacement of God in the morality of man, the creator and the destroyer. Without the idea of the ubermensch, by rejecting it, you reduce Nietzsche's work to that which he so vehemently railed against.

In fact, any reading of Nietzsche's work would reveal the idea of the ubermensch, while quite often fluid in detail, is supported and justified for the vast majority of most of his writing. You're taking 20% of his work piecemeal and claiming that's dedication. That's not dedication; that's laziness.

Khodoristan wrote:Nietzsche's work revolves around the Übermensch? That's not entirely accurate. The Gay Science introduced the concept, but that's just history at this point. What matters is that there is no general consensus of what Nietzsche precisely meant by 'super-human', or to what degree this played in his work. So no, I'm not rejecting Übermensch any more than you are accepting it.

Sulamalik wrote:

Khodoristan wrote:
Any form of religious government, Salafi, Wahabbi, or otherwise, is a no-go. Salafism does not have a good track record. And Wahabbism? Forget it.

Wahabbism doesn't exist. You will never find a Muslim who calls themselves as Wahabbist.

And if you'd notice, I said one of the best, not the best.

Obviously, Syria transforming itself into a fully-functioning secular liberal democracy would be the ideal situation, but that's so far out of the realm of the possible I don't see why we should dwell on it. What we should be concerned about is the prevention of Syria descending into sectarian conflict like Iraq, a Salafist government is one of the most realistic ways to keep this sort of violence from happening, and even that's not very likely either.

Khodoristan wrote:

Sulamalik wrote:
Wahabbism doesn't exist. You will never find a Muslim who calls themselves as Wahabbist.

And if you'd notice, I said one of the best, not the best.

Obviously, Syria transforming itself into a fully-functioning secular liberal democracy would be the ideal situation, but that's so far out of the realm of the possible I don't see why we should dwell on it. What we should be concerned about is the prevention of Syria descending into sectarian conflict like Iraq, a Salafist government is one of the most realistic ways to keep this sort of violence from happening, and even that's not very likely either.

Again, Salafis or any other conservative sect of Islam cannot be trusted as is, let alone at the head of government. I am not convinced that an Islamist government is any better than Assad.

Sulamalik wrote:

Khodoristan wrote:
Again, Salafis or any other conservative sect of Islam cannot be trusted as is, let alone at the head of government. I am not convinced that an Islamist government is any better than Assad.

So you're saying that a government like Tunisia's is no better than Assad's Syria?

Khodoristan wrote:

Sulamalik wrote:
So you're saying that a government like Tunisia's is no better than Assad's Syria?

To be honest, yes.

Quebec and Atlantic Canada wrote:

Khodoristan wrote:
To be honest, yes.

Oh now that's just fucking stupid. Yes, the fledgling democracy is totally equivalent to the dictatorship which has a kill tally of ~50,000 and counting, because the former is governed by teh ebil Moslems.

Darvia wrote:I agree that Syria shouldn't use WMDs, but I hope this not another one of this Iraq stuff..

Trotskylvania wrote:

Saint-Thor wrote:5$ the US will use a false flag tactic to get involve.

I'll take that bet. .

Conserative Morality wrote:

Khodoristan wrote:Nietzsche's work revolves around the Übermensch? That's not entirely accurate. The Gay Science introduced the concept, but that's just history at this point. What matters is that there is no general consensus of what Nietzsche precisely meant by 'super-human', or to what degree this played in his work. So no, I'm not rejecting Übermensch any more than you are accepting it.

The basis of the ubermensch is the new morality brought about after the death of God. While the details are often fluid in his work, Nietzsche clearly relied on the idea of both the rejection of religious morality with the metaphorical death of God and the creation of a new moral code or codes brought about in order that nihilism would not rot humanity to it's very core.

San-Silvacian wrote:

Darvia wrote:I agree that Syria shouldn't use WMDs, but I hope this not another one of this Iraq stuff..

Syria actually has a shit load of chemical weapons and maintains them.

Iraq did to. Until 1991 when something sorta went down and Iraq lost all Mustard gas privileges.

Shalekia wrote:Does anyone know that the Syrian rebels are being supported by Al-Qaeda? If we help the rebels, Al-Qaeda will both take some of our weapons and try to be in a governing position in Syria. We all know what Al-Qaeda would try to do with our weapons. Before we do anything, we must analyze who we want to help. I'm against any intervention in any part of the world, but I don't want terrorists to get our support or control a country.

Sulamalik wrote:Wahabbism doesn't exist. You will never find a Muslim who calls themselves as Wahabbist.

Shalekia wrote:Does anyone know that the Syrian rebels are being supported by Al-Qaeda? If we help the rebels, Al-Qaeda will both take some of our weapons and try to be in a governing position in Syria. We all know what Al-Qaeda would try to do with our weapons. Before we do anything, we must analyze who we want to help. I'm against any intervention in any part of the world, but I don't want terrorists to get our support or control a country.

Grand Britannia wrote:

Shalekia wrote:Does anyone know that the Syrian rebels are being supported by Al-Qaeda? If we help the rebels, Al-Qaeda will both take some of our weapons and try to be in a governing position in Syria. We all know what Al-Qaeda would try to do with our weapons. Before we do anything, we must analyze who we want to help. I'm against any intervention in any part of the world, but I don't want terrorists to get our support or control a country.

Our leaders are geniuses. Never question them.

Costa Alegria wrote:

Sulamalik wrote:Wahabbism doesn't exist. You will never find a Muslim who calls themselves as Wahabbist.

You'll never find a fringe Republican who will call themselves a fundamentalist either.