Jump to content
Ghid

Jobs for Jihadists

Recommended Posts

The President of the United States wants to offer jobs to Jihadists. Will they listen?

 

We might ask Abu Mohamed al-Maqdisi, a Jordanian cleric and a supporter of Global Jihad. He taught Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who led Al Qaeda in Iraq. Jordan jailed Maqdisi in 2009

and released him in 2104. 

 

Maqdisi has worked to negotiate the release of civilian captives held by the Islamic State, and he has sought to dissuade the Islamic State from kidnapping and murdering aid workers and civilians, such as Alan Henning, Peter Kassig, and the Jordanian pilot Lt. Muath Kassasbeh.

 

Islamic State supporters mock Maqdisi on Twitter, and they share of pictures of corpses and bound men being thrown to their deaths from buildings.

 

The President of the United States wants to offer jobs to Jihadists. If the Islamic State Jihadists will not listen to Maqdisi, will they listen to anybody?

 

:)

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jihadists are good are bad? I wouldn't know because i dont keep up with ISIS related stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jihadists are good are bad? I wouldn't know because i dont keep up with ISIS related stuff.

 

Jihad means struggle. My name, Ghid, is said to come from Jihad because I was the girl who struggled with health issues.

 

Everyone has a Jihad, a struggle. For Muslims, it might be a struggle for obedience to God. For Buddhists it might be to find the end of suffering. For Christians, it could be a struggle for a truthful confession to God.

 

For the Islamic States Jihadists, Jihad means bringing the Wahhabist view of Islam to the whole world, one bloody head at a time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jihad means struggle. My name, Ghid, is said to come from Jihad because I was the girl who struggled with health issues.

 

Everyone has a Jihad, a struggle. For Muslims, it might be a struggle for obedience to God. For Buddhists it might be to find the end of suffering. For Christians, it could be a struggle for a truthful confession to God.

 

For the Islamic States Jihadists, Jihad means bringing the Wahhabist view of Islam to the whole world, one bloody head at a time. 

Jihad means a war or struggle against non-believers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jihad means a war or struggle against non-believers. 

 

Yes, but in common speech jihad is like crusade, which might also refer to an inner spiritual struggle.

 

Here in Anaheim we have what unofficially are called Crusades for Christ at Angel Stadium. Seems to me we could call them Jihads for Jesus. The alteration suggests a Baptist Minister with a Bible in one hand and his other hand rising in a crescendo saying, "JEE hod for JEE sus."  It would mean the same thing.

 

I doubt that I could ever be a Bible Thumping, Devil Hating, Soul Winning Baptist, but I love going to Baptist church services. Maybe not as much a Jewish Christian services. They both have a lot of fun. They make Catholic mass seem a little bland.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The President is not wrong. A lack of proper, meaningful careers and materialism (in the positive sense) is a driver of jihadism in the Middle East. Is this debatable? I thought it was common knowledge that jihadis tend to come from the margins of society, the poorest neighborhoods. If people are worried about holding down a meaningful job, it is difficult to spend dreaming of a symbolic imaginary

 

Likewise, I think a second driver of fanatical jihadism is the sexual repression of female sexuality in the Middle East. Since female sexuality is generally negated, it leads to the repression of male sexual energy, which becomes bottled up and finds dangerous outlets in violent extremism. 

 

So, more jobs in the middle east and sexual liberation is probably a key to stopping extremism. Nobody who is worried about a successful nine-to-five and having pleasurable sex wants to give it all up and live in a cave, fighting for the glory of an imaginary God.

Edited by Wesker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jihad means struggle. My name, Ghid, is said to come from Jihad because I was the girl who struggled with health issues.

 

Everyone has a Jihad, a struggle. For Muslims, it might be a struggle for obedience to God. For Buddhists it might be to find the end of suffering. For Christians, it could be a struggle for a truthful confession to God.

 

For the Islamic States Jihadists, Jihad means bringing the Wahhabist view of Islam to the whole world, one bloody head at a time.

Jihad means a war or struggle against non-believers.

Thanks! I didn't know what they where. I keep hearing them on the news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

I think you're wrong Wesker.  Money does not make a person less evil, neither does education.  Wealth just makes you a more wealthy devil, and education a more clever devil.

 

These are people that want purpose in life, and assurance of the after life.  This is a spiritual issue, not a physical one.  It appeals to even wealthy westerners who travel to fight alongside ISIS.

 

Also, sexual liberation has not satisfied anyone's lust, let's be real.  Our porn industries only grow, our divorce rate only grows, sexual slavery only grows.  The Elizabethans were smart in this very singular sense - they recognized how out of control our lusts had become, and sought to submit them to propriety.  The sexual revolution was not really a revolution, but a reformation.  It was a conservative backlash to what had become the liberating spirit of the time.  A throw back to paganism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're wrong Wesker.  Money does not make a person less evil, neither does education.  Wealth just makes you a more wealthy devil, and education a more clever devil.

 

In your heart of hearts, perhaps money does not make one less evil. Yet, the way that said evil is expressed can certainly be less evil in actuality. I still defend the Enlightenment project that Western civilization based on philosophy (education) and modernization/industrialism (money) has accomplished something truly special. You hold to this silly notion of individualism that is manifestly untrue. People in developed, prosperous countries are generally more docile and less violent than people in countries that are not. Even though Steven Pinker's thesis in Better Angels of Our Nature is terribly crafted, I think there is some good truth to it. We no longer tolerate the beating of wives in our modernist society, which is something untrue for much of the world. The primary variable as to why we no longer do appears to be political and economic modernism coupled with the Enlightenment. 

 

 

These are people that want purpose in life, and assurance of the after life.  This is a spiritual issue, not a physical one.  It appeals to even wealthy westerners who travel to fight alongside ISIS.

 
It is partly a spiritual issue, but the material and the spiritual are internally related aspects of the total man. The material reality of modernist societies makes man spiritually softer. Human beings in industrial societies have a natural aversion to violence that was not know throughout human history. Due to the increased division of labor, most people do not need to slaughter their own chickens for food, and therefore become materially sensitized to violence. It is tomfoolery to say that these structural changes have no effects on human beings. 
 

Also, sexual liberation has not satisfied anyone's lust, let's be real.  Our porn industries only grow, our divorce rate only grows, sexual slavery only grows.  The Elizabethans were smart in this very singular sense - they recognized how out of control our lusts had become, and sought to submit them to propriety.  The sexual revolution was not really a revolution, but a reformation.  It was a conservative backlash to what had become the liberating spirit of the time.  A throw back to paganism.

 

The point was not that sexual drives would be wholly satisfied or anything of that sort, but that in the presence of a more sexually free society, sexual satisfaction would become a higher aim of life in the public consciousness. Instead of minimizing and demonizing sexuality, sexuality would become a meaningful aspiration.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The President is not wrong. A lack of proper, meaningful careers and materialism (in the positive sense) is a driver of jihadism in the Middle East. Is this debatable? I thought it was common knowledge that jihadis tend to come from the margins of society, the poorest neighborhoods. If people are worried about holding down a meaningful job, it is difficult to spend dreaming of a symbolic imaginary

 

Likewise, I think a second driver of fanatical jihadism is the sexual repression of female sexuality in the Middle East. Since female sexuality is generally negated, it leads to the repression of male sexual energy, which becomes bottled up and finds dangerous outlets in violent extremism. 

 

So, more jobs in the middle east and sexual liberation is probably a key to stopping extremism. Nobody who is worried about a successful nine-to-five and having pleasurable sex wants to give it all up and live in a cave, fighting for the glory of an imaginary God.

 

Well, I do have a sense that ignorance drives much of the hate and discontent. Jessica Sterne has said that Jihadist ignorance surprises her. I've seen video of 15 year old boys mugging for the camera while they explain that they want to slice the throats of Jews. So, maybe education, career or otherwise might help.
 
However comma, last year in my Freshman Seminar course, we had to monitor the twitter accounts of the World Bank and several other NGO’s, so I know that jobs for the jobless, not only jihadists has been an ongoing concern with bench marks and goals and claims of improvement. 
 
So President Obama and Jobs for Jihadists are latecomers to the table. And I don’t know the Presidents heart, but the situation does seem to me like the President wants to deflect attention from the more immediate problem.
 
And another however comma, Bernie Madoff was a stockbroker. Che Guevara was doctor, and Muhammad Atta was training to be an architect. That suggests to me that education and jobs won’t deter evil and jihadists. 
 
Che Guevara, a name from back in the dark ages, why do I know that name? Would you believe that students at my school wear his picture on tee shirts?
 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another however comma, Bernie Madoff was a stockbroker. Che Guevara was doctor, and Muhammad Atta was training to be an architect. That suggests to me that education and jobs won’t deter evil and jihadists. 

 
Che Guevara, a name from back in the dark ages, why do I know that name? Would you believe that students at my school wear his picture on tee shirts?
 

:)

 

 

I am not exactly going to paint Che Guevara as the devil since I am a Communist. In many ways Che was a true revolutionary, fighting for the liberation of the poor masses in Latin America. I am sure he had done many evil things in his revolutionary war. Does this necessarily make him worse than someone like Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan who funded right-wing death squads in Central America? Or less just than President Obama who orders drones to murder innocent families in Pakistan and Afghanistan? I would be lying if I did not say I do not have a certain affection for Che and the ideals he fought for. 

Edited by Wesker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×