I wrote a short essay on Lone Survivor.
When the Taliban fighters capture Luttrell, they want to execute him because they believe the Qur’an commands them to kill unbelievers.
If you would like to read it, here is the link:
https://christopherjohnlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/05/14/lone-survivor/
I am open to any constructive feedback.
Too much quran. Taliban kills muslims as much as they kill foreign soldiers -even more. They are forcing local people (who are muslims) to give up sons. They have been fighting against muslims since Soviet/Afghan war ended. They kill people in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are criminals, not muslims.
But superpower like USA should obey rules of war. If superpowers (USA, Russia, China) don´t obey the rules, that will be the end of the humankind.
Ps. I´m an atheist.
"Come out to the coast, we'll get together, have a few laughs..."
Obeying the rules of war sounds good on paper, but even as Marcus Lutrell describes in his book, the military's "Rules of Engagement" are a constant point of frustration for the men on the ground, especially when you're dealing with extremists, such as the Taliban.
The fact that U.S. soldiers aren't supposed to shoot the enemy until they themselves are fired upon probably gets a lot of people killed that didn't need to be.
"Where we're going, we won't need eyes to see."
[deleted]
The Taliban murder moderate Muslims because of verses like this in the Quran:
The Quran 9:29 says, "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful."
To them, moderate Muslims are not true Muslims.
https://christopherjohnlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/05/14/lone-survivor/
The phrase 'rules of war' itself is an oxymoron.
Never defend crap with 'It's just a movie'
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds
Dear OP, your article proves that you know nothing about islam and you are quoting out of context all over the place.
1. Differentiating between moderate Muslims and radical Muslims by stating that radicals follow the Quran literally is wrong. The difference is that they actually take "unislamic" actions based on out of context script.
2. Islam created Rules of war, so by not following them, the radicals are actually being unislamic, hence not following the Quran or teachings of prophet Muhammad pbuh.
2.a. Muslims shall not kill anyone with their backs turned
2.b. Muslims can't kill/destroy women, children, trees, unarmed men, churches, etc...
2.c. surrendering men or cities will be treated humanely, or freed based on different criteria. Definitely no beheading.
2.d many more rules that Muslims have to abide with
3. He who kills a soul with no right is as if he killed whole of mankind and will be punished accordingly in the afterlife. This in itself might make most of radical Muslims non-muslims.
I therefore kindly ask you to retract your inaccurate article that entices more hatred to Islam, the religion of mercy as shown by the people who saved the soldier.
In the end, the movie mentions that this was an afghan tradition where guests are protected. This is actually Islamic! If you give shelter to any person, friend or foe, all Muslims should respect that and provide shelter as well.
Dear OP, your article proves that you know nothing about islam and you are quoting out of context all over the place.
1. Differentiating between moderate Muslims and radical Muslims by stating that radicals follow the Quran literally is wrong. The difference is that they actually take "unislamic" actions based on out of context script.
2. Islam created Rules of war, so by not following them, the radicals are actually being unislamic, hence not following the Quran or teachings of prophet Muhammad pbuh.
2.a. Muslims shall not kill anyone with their backs turned
2.b. Muslims can't kill/destroy women, children, trees, unarmed men, churches, etc...
2.c. surrendering men or cities will be treated humanely, or freed based on different criteria. Definitely no beheading.
2.d many more rules that Muslims have to abide with
3. He who kills a soul with no right is as if he killed whole of mankind and will be punished accordingly in the afterlife. This in itself might make most of radical Muslims non-muslims.
I therefore kindly ask you to retract your inaccurate article that entices more hatred to Islam, the religion of mercy as shown by the people who saved the soldier.
In the end, the movie mentions that this was an afghan tradition where guests are protected. This is actually Islamic! If you give shelter to any person, friend or foe, all Muslims should respect that and provide shelter as well.
Thank you for your feedback, and I certainly will revise anything in my essay if it is proven wrong. However, the Qur'an does teach beheading:
"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." http://quran.com/8/12
Islamic terrorists kill unbelievers because they believe it is the will of Allah as stated in the Qur'an.
https://christopherjohnlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/05/14/lone-survivor/
[deleted]
Much better thanks. Still would have hoped that you would add out-of-context explanation on their interpretations.
shareIt doesn't really matter if what they do is 'un-islamic' or if it goes against the Quran. They do indeed to it in the name of Islam. Islamic Extremists aren't merely Muslims doing bad things, they are Muslims doing bad things for the SOLE purpose of religion.
The gut reaction towards Islamic Extremism is fully enticed by the acts themselves. Misconceptions of Islam in general are not what entice similar reactions toward Islam in general, it is the failure of Islam in general to oppose extremists openly. In fact many muslims who do not consider themselves in support of fundamentalism refuse to oppose it.
People will never hold Islam to what it is SUPPOSED to be about. People will Islam to the actions of its people. Extremists carrying out acts of terror may only involve a small minority of the muslim population but, in contrast a significant majority of the muslim population also chooses to do nothing about that minority. Very, very few Islamic Leaders speak out in any defiance whatsoever to counteract fundamentalism. In fact many Islamic Leaders actually speak out in support of fundamentalist goals but quietly remain mum about the tactics, while at the same time trying to seperate Islam from Extremism.
Instead of continually trying to distance itself as a separate entity, Islam should be fighting Extremism. Your posts are a great example. Instead of complaining about injustice against all of Islam you should be calling out the Extremists. Quit whining about Islam getting a bad rap and admit to reality.
You're taking a dump and they call GQ do you pinch it off or finish your business?
Governments in the Islamic world have also suffered against radicalism. Many fight them explicitly with varying success.
There is also a misconception of these radicals by Muslims themselves who don't have the Islamic knowledge to either confirm or deny the false premises of "jihad" (jihad translates into struggle), hence, you might not hear from those in support our in condemnation of such acts. ISIS for example are also falsely trying to create a state in the name of Islam, but Muslims can't really outright go out and say we are against "the Islamic state". Imagine a radical faction calla itself USA, you will not hear people in the US going out to say I am against USA! This is where confusion is created and utilized to forward their demonic agendas.
http://www.arabnews.com/news/708161
in the news today, example of how Islam is fighting terrorism.
I revised my essay in response to your feedback.
https://christopherjohnlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/05/14/lone-survivor/
Misconceptions of Islam in general are not what entice similar reactions toward Islam in general, it is the failure of Islam in general to oppose extremists openly. In fact many muslims who do not consider themselves in support of fundamentalism refuse to oppose it.
in contrast a significant majority of the muslim population also chooses to do nothing about that minority. Very, very few Islamic Leaders speak out in any defiance whatsoever to counteract fundamentalism.
US companies are happy to make billions of dollars off Saudi Arabian and Iraqi oil yet don't give a f.ck or try stop Human Rights abuses and Women Rights.
Do any other oil companies from other nations care either? Do any nations what use Saudi oil to power their economies care?
Do you want the US to 'interfere' in their native culture? Isn't that racist, condescending & culturally imperialistic?
sorry pal, but for the time being, Saudis are necessary for the health of most of our major trading partners, like it or not. Most oil producing nations are populated by A-holes except for maybe Britain, Canada & US.
Are you're suggesting 'regime change' with Saudi Arabia by chance?
(EDIT)
My apologies. That came across rather more 'combative' than I intended.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
Saudis are necessary for the health of most of our major trading partners, like it or not
My apologies. That came across rather more 'combative' than I intended.
Are you're suggesting 'regime change' with Saudi Arabia by chance?
Most oil producing nations are populated by A-holes except for maybe Britain, Canada & US.
]US oil companies leave and possibly the US CentCom draws down military operations in the region.
The funny thing about the Canadian imports is that a significant portion of that is wholly to be refined and shipped back to Canada.
One thing to point out here, US oil companies is a misnomer. Which oil companies are actually from the US? There are very few oil companies left that are wholly owned American Companies. Most of the companies located in the US are subsidiaries of foreign own companies. Only 2 out 6 Big Oil Companies are American. BP and Shell took over nearly half of the US's smaller oil companies including AMOCO.
Your numbers are very misleading. Firstly, they(US Oil Companies) don't own anything. Iraq has autonomous control of its territory and its oil. They license shares of drilling. The companies doing the drilling pay them dearly for their oil. Occidental drills in Zubair and has a lower share than Italy's company. Exxon has a 60 percent share of the Qurna field. Only 2 US Companies out 23 that have shares in all the Iraqi fields. The US drill for approx. 5 Million barrels per day out the 25 million barrels per day that are drilled in Iraq. The US doesn't even drill for the most share. BP and China's nation company do. BP and China's company also have the largest field. The US Companies also put back in about 75% of refined product to OPEC for fine goods. Its a service that is needed because there is almost zero refining capability in the middle east and also a significant lack of refining capability in OPEC. China keeps most of what it drills. The US on the other hand is basically under contract to refine. Bottomline the US in no way profits off Iraqi Oil and it in no way dependent on the Iraqi oil.
If anyone could actually hold the world for ransom on oil products its the US. The refinement quotient is so lopsided in the favor of the US that its a joke. Its a sad fact that most countries with oil have little and sometimes no ability to refine it. Iran is a great example. Iran has almost no ability to refine oil. So it needs to export its oil and then import all of its gas. This is why gas is so expensive in Iran. Europe has the double whammy. It has little oil and little refining ability.
BTW Texaco and Chevron are the same thing. Chevron bought out Texaco many moons ago. Texaco as a brand only applies to gas stations, it doesn't drill for oil. Amoco is owned WHOLLY by BP and in name doesn't exist. Getty doesn't even exist, it was bought out by the Russians and broken up in bankruptcy. Enron doesn't drill for oil and never has. Star Enterprise doesn't drill for oil, it refines oil and it a joint share with Saudi National Oil. Your info is over a decade old and well beyond inaccurate and misunderstood.
The point in this is you really zero on just the US as having oil companies in the middle east. You also buy into this misconception that oil companies are exploiting the middle east. This couldn't be further from the truth. The middle eastern companies are making an absolute killing off their oil. US companies are mostly involved are hired guns for technical expertise. Their shares are mostly for refining that goes back to the host country under contract after refinement. Europe and China are the needy ones in this endevour.
You're taking a dump and they call GQ do you pinch it off or finish your business?
Yeah we get it, you don't like muslims or the Quran. Religion wasn't touched on in the film and it is not the reason the Afghanistanis are killing the Americans. It's because there is a war on with an invading enemy with whom they are fighting for control of territory. In the real world both sides are evidently capable of immoral slaughter whether or not it's written down in a religious text.
shareMr. Willy,
Thank you for reading my essay. However, where did I say that I don't like Muslims? Why would you accuse me of that?
There is no "moral equivalence" between the Taliban and the U.S. military. Unlike the Taliban, the US does not intentionally kill civilians. The goal of the Taliban is to create the world's most pure Islamic state. Everything they do stems from their interpretation of the Quran. They are engaged in a religious war.
"Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moral_equivalence
Okay I left out the word radical. You appear not to like them much because you go out of your way to say instructions for behaving immorally and killing people are written in their religious texts. Its true the US don't kill civilians deliberately, at least not as far as we know, at least if they're not journalists. However the US does kill civilians fairly indiscriminately in numbers the taliban can only dream of but its okay its just collateral damage, they don't actually intend to do it, they were just in the way.
shareDisliking someone's actions should not be conflated with disliking the person who commits those actions.
It is impossible to engage in a war without civilian casualties. However, war can also save present and future lives. The Taliban kill civilians intentionally. There is no "moral equivalence" between the Taliban and the United States military.
https://christopherjohnlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/05/14/lone-survivor/
True. In terms of body counts the US is way ahead. No equivalence. If you think killing civilians for specific objectives is worse than killing them as a matter of convenience for specific objectives, say the bombing of Baghdad, then I don't know, maybe you're on interesting philosophical ground for whatever reason you've chosen to be there. Apparently you're here because this film disappointed you by not blaming the Taliban's actions on them being muslim. By the way it's easy to miss the point of the film that the reason the Wahlberg character is sheltered is due to a traditional moral code, or rule of engagement if you like, but sure it's probably not in the Quran and you seem to want to blame the wars on the Quran.
FYI Here's something you should have seen about killing unarmed civilians from an apache helicopter. Would you like to argue it's unintentional? https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org
FYI Here's something you should have seen about killing unarmed civilians from an apache helicopter. Would you like to argue it's unintentional? https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org
Had a closer look. You're right, they appear to be armed and the eyewitness soldier said there was an RPG at the scene. However the group appeared to be just walking and standing around. When the copter pilots say "they're firing" the video suggests he's lying? Also they don't care that some of the group aren't armed, some have cameras. So they fire on the whole group making sure to neutralise all of them. One survivor is allowed to crawl around without being finished off as long as he doesn't reach for a weapon, not that there's anyone for him to shoot at. Then a van turns up to take him away. Kids are visible inside. The copter guys are gagging for permission to fire. They finally do, killing the guy being saved and the people trying to save him. The kids survive with injuries by sheer luck, not design. Eyewitness soldier says he sees this daily and the rules of engagement are a joke. Kill anyone you feel is threatening.
Draw your own conclusions in this instance I guess.
Christians kill, always have, always will.
share