Rostere

The US needs to maintain an interventionist mindset towards the real players, like China and Russia. This would require Sanders or Trump to modernize into 21st century nuclear deterrence as needed and to keep active in Ukraine. But please just stay away from everything else, that would make the world a safer and better place (and it would save a lot of money and lives as well).

Actually, that scenario is not completely unlikely: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster In fact, it's what will happen if current trends hold.

Mordheim is great fun. It's a bit samey though.

It's pretty funny yes, but is it real or photoshop? Must be an alternate timeline with whack job lunatics on every corner. Good question. I've no idea. Here's another version:

But we don't know just how bad he was before. Presumably Snoke has been feeding his disorders. We also just know he was sent to Luke, and that he did some training, but not exactly what and how he trained. Supposedly Luke must have tried to turn him around, and never showed him true power (it seems stupid to learn an unstable individual how to kill), which must have frustrated Kylo a lot. I don't think you get the point. Evil is both powerful and frightening and petty and simple at the same time. Adolf Hitler was at some point a destitute guy who made incomprehensible rants to homeless people, a failed artist scrounging for Jewish patrons in Vienna, an accomplice in a naive and pathetic coup attempt, a member of an upstart party with laughable ufologist-tier pretentions. Then he became the leader of the most powerful country on the continent. We can't make sense out of Adolf Hitler of we don't see the crazy homeless guy, the failed artist, and his many other aspects when we analyze his personality. Similarly to make sense out of Nazism we must look at the state of the German society at the time. Evil is almost always connected with certain petty and pathetic things such as inferiority complexes, or even motivations which makes us question if evil is really so evil after all. We can't look at just the "frightening" part or we will lose connection with reality. If you do not give the complete nuanced picture of evil, then you are looking at a children's superhero cartoon. Which incidentally I think are harmful to the intellect due to the lobotimized, simplified depiction of conflicts. Petty does not equal simple. Someone can done something very terrible for a very petty reason - that's evil. Of course it is. The Dark Side seduced Kylo Ren, and is at the foundation of Snoke's beliefs it appears. Of course everything was kept very mysterious. If anything, I'd say the Dark Side was shown to be very mysterious in TFA. Kylo Ren is seduced by both the Light and the Dark, but it is only one of them he actually wants to serve. We haven't seen the Dark seducing any characters yet, true. But believe me when I say that Rey will be tempted later on. This is left for later movies. In any case, the Dark Side is even more banal in the OT. We get Vader who essentially has the personality of a robot doing his job, and the Emperor who is a cackling evil wizard stereotype. We have zero idea about why anyone should choose the Dark Side, apart from that it is supposedly powerful. But the good guys always beat the bad guys in the end anyway, so it's clearly not that powerful.

You mean, why their personalities were flat and boring. I love the aesthetics of the Empire. The concept of Darth Vader as a powerful knight-magician on life-support inside his armor is also great, all of this especially in 1977. But Star Wars and its sequels never at any moment felt like particularly "smart" movies as far as plot goes, and once you start thinking about things, they tend to fall apart. Star Wars with worse props, visual effects, sound and music would have ended up on the garbage heap of campy 60s/70s sci-fi. Star Wars is decent in spite of the lack of characterization of villains, not because of it. I don't think it's jarring, I don't think he has a lack of motivation, and I don't think he has a downward power curve. If you mean the ending fight, he is distraught from killing his father - he thought it would give him clarity, but it did not resolve his inner conflict, he is wounded by Chewie's bowcaster (which is seen punching Stormtroopers off their feet earlier) among other things to take into account. He also clearly has a "thing" for Rey and would rather train her than kill her. I think Kylo Ren is a great character because I recognize several of his traits from people I know who have real mental illnesses. Giving the villain such traits suddenly gave Star Wars a much, much darker and more realistic tone than earlier (I think I said earlier that for this reason I immediately associated Kylo Ren with Scorpio from Dirty Harry). If you have no experiences to relate this to yourself, then maybe you just don't understand. For all the reviewers throwing around SJW accusations this goes very contrary to that. While Anakin in the PT was just a dude who made some bad choices and suddenly started to look angry and "evil", Kylo Ren is a fundamentally disturbed and impaired individual. The bittersweet thing is that even if Kylo would abandon the FO he will still be clearly dysfunctional - he can never have a truly happy ending in that sense. Compare this to Vader in the OT (who at least in the first part has no motivation for his deeds other than that he is doing his job), or Anakin in the PT who seemingly could just at any moment go "oops, I made a couple of bad choices there, sorry about that". I've never seen a superhero movie that I liked, and I doubt that will change. Those things are pretty much always below 5/10 for me, I can spend my time watching other movies.

Turkey - specifically Erdogan - has taken has steep dive towards **** in the last few years or so. I didn't think this of Turkey in 2011, but please NATO, kick Turkey out ASAP. EU should end all economic cooperation as well and support a Kurdish state. Then Putin can feel free to handle Erdogan any way he wishes to. In related news Obama commented on world leaders in a comedic show with Jerry Seinfeld. Specifically, he mentions certain leaders who have held positions of power for a very long time. Not hard to connect that to Erdogan (~15 years), Putin (~8+4(+4) years), Netanyahu (~3+7 years) among others.

WTF? To be honest, at this point I can't tell if you are just trolling. In the OT, we know absolutely nothing about the motives of Darth Vader. If there is one criticism that can be thrown at the OT, it is that the villains have virtually nothing with regards to motivation. They are just the "evil Empire" who goes about doing their evil stuff like all evil empires do. It's kind of telling the GL felt compelled to make an entire prequel trilogy to explain Vader and the Empire. IMO the failure which seems hard and unlikely to correct is Captain Phasma. We were told she was going to be a badass, but for most of her screen time she is being captured without resistance. Perhaps they took "Boba Fett of the new trilogy" a little bit too literally... Snoke is also a failure of sorts, he is just a bit too exposed to be mysterious, his appearance is frankly a bit lame (did they recycle some generic LotR orc or what? That was not what I expected when I heard they had hired Andy Serkis...) and plot-wise he is basically only seen repeatedly receiving the failures of his subordinates. I would have liked to see him a lot more active and less reactive. I can still see how they can turn this around, but I think TFA was a bad introduction for the character. I definitely think Snoke has better control and better understanding of the situation than what it appears (especially with regards to Rey and Kylo - as we will probably see later on). IMO they have consciously avoided the trope of the villain who conveniently explains his entire plan, but without this what we see is just a hollow punching bag listening to Kylo Ren and Hux explain their failures. They should just have cut all those scenes altogether, or minimized and mystified Snoke's appearance as much as possible. I like TFA because it gave me quite a bit to think and to theorize about. Pretty much all of the previous Star Wars movies have largely failed in this regard, albeit for completely different reasons. My greatest fear is that they fill in what is left for us to fill in at this point with ****. It's interesting that I expected TFA to be 5/10, got positively surprised, but I'm still fearing that the sequel will be 5/10 for these reasons. I hope the director is not prone to blatant exposition and banal storylines. (°_o) Yeah, definitely trolling... But this being nonsensical depends on what you are comparing with. Do you remember this: It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire. "The evil Galactic Empire"? Really? You are being a hypocrite of you think the OT was good, but TFA is bad in this regard. The Empire in the OT (especially Darth Vader and Palpatine) is pretty much the pinnacle of flat and banal villains, personality-wise. BTW, if the village of Lor San Tekka was indeed a cult of the light side of the force, it makes quite a lot of sense for Ren Kylo to see them as an abomination. Clearly he know Lor San Tekka well, which you can gather from their dialogue. This is not the FO shooting up a random village. This is the equivalent of Falangists shooting up a fervent Marxist study group or something. I can definitely see this happening. In the very first scene of ANH we see Vader killing a captured Rebel soldier on a whim, while other soldiers are seen escorted as prisoners. If that is not equally arbitrary, then I don't know what is.

I don't know about you, but I don't think there's any difference here between TFA and the previous six movies. I don't remember thinking once that any of the villains in those movies "instilled true fear" or had a significant capability for "tyrannical power" that the First Order doesn't. If anything the FO has more capability of tyrannical power than the Empire (through Starkiller Base) which is quite a bit of a fail, since they are meant to be more of an upstart faction.

Not sure Stalin did it to the extent that the First Order did supposedly, what with them taken from birth and indoctrinated (apparently Finn is special or skipped classes). First Order seem just as soulless as the Empire, even when silently fisting the air. I guess I was expecting a less frenzied screeching speech, if I had to expect a speech, something a bit more cold. I don't need to feel some emotional impact by it, just don't need to get a sense of someone trying too hard. The guy playing Hux wasn't all that bad, the snarky bits with him and Ren acting like **** grad students aside. But maybe the character of Hux IS actually a comparatively young, ambitious general who IS trying is hardest at being a Space Nazi? In this series, the bad guys will have character development just as the good guys. They aren't just static background objects. I find a lot of people think that it's bad that it is so similar to ANH, but then proceed to pan the part which are different (and which pretty much must be different for plot reasons). People complain that Kylo Ren doesn't appear as powerful as Darth Vader, and that Hux is not as cold and seasoned as Tarkin. Well, guess what, the Empire got schlonged after RotJ, and the FO is now only beginning to pick up the pieces, they probably take what they can get. It would have been interesting to have seen a speech by Alexander, yes. Yes, when I watched the movie my GF also turned to me and smiled and shook her head when they did this salute thing at the end. I also thought it was silly in part, but that's also how real-life politics is. Donald Trump is silly. Adolf Hitler is silly. Benito Mussolini is silly. You have to have a stone face if you did not laugh at the Ancona speech I linked to earlier. Benito Mussolini is funnier dictator than Charlie Chaplin without even trying, and that's the point. Ultimately the character of Hux is a human being, and since his stated character flaw is that he is young and unseasoned, I thought he portrayed that sufficiently good in the movie for me. I think he captured the essence of a Fascist dictator in his speech perfectly, of course that includes some silliness and awkwardness. Seems like a better speech if you really wanted to convince someone, sure. But could you see any actual Fascist dictator making that speech? On the bad side, I would say it's a tad too movie-ish and pretentious.

ISIS is not a threat to anyone except for its immediate neighbours. If we keep this in mind, then it would make absolute sense for anyone who wants to lower the threshold for casus belli in the ME to support ISIS. The more atrocities we see, the more positively Western audiences will react towards any sort of conflict with any Muslim organization or nation. Anyone who supports ISIS and thinks that they can actually achieve anything is either retarded (or religious) or is intentionally setting up a sort of Islamist aquarium for the rest of the world to study with revulsion. That's absolutely not at all the same thing as saying that somebody actually did this. But if you don't believe that this type of reasoning is known in politics, read the PNAC paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses" from 2000 - a long text about how to increase American defense spending and make wars abroad which at one point states that well, all of this is of course impossible to achieve "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor". We might never know if the burning of the Reichstag was really a genuine Communist plot, the deed of a lone madman or done at the urging and with the aid of Nazi agents posing as Communists. Or if the extreme laxity with which the Bush regime treated reports of Al Qaeda planning 9/11 was intentional, subconscious or just the way things were back then. But the important thing to remember is to keep your head cool at such occasions. We do know that Hitler gleefully took this opportunity to make the German people sign away all their freedom, just as GWB conveniently started invading countries with no relation to 9/11. The common theme is that the public can be whipped into hysteria over threats that the rulers can then use to justify their schemes which would otherwise be impossible to sell. The democratic rise of Nazism and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan both seem absurd in hindsight, we need to keep the same cool-headedness now in anticipation of whatever wars and oppression will be marketed next. People say that Trump is a recruiting ad for ISIS, I'd say that is far more accurate to say that ISIS is a recruiting ad for Trump, or Stephen Harper (whose neocon allegiances would make even GWB blush), or similar.

But what do you feel when you look at this speech? I mean, if we claim that it's not "convincing" we must compare it to the real deal. I can't make comparison as I don't understand Italian. And yet reactions from audience make Mussolini's speech have bigger emotional reaction in me than Hux's speech (which I understand) which gives some indication how poorly Hux's speech scene worked for me. But any way we don't need to compare it to real deal, because it is movie that is set to scifi universe that don't exist in real life and it does not portray historic figures, events, etc.. So it can't excuse performance that don't impact viewer by appealing historic examples. Meaning it is moment in movie that itself need to justify its existence and in my opinion it fails and by doing so it makes movie duller experience. Okay. But if you do understand German, then you could take any of Hitler's speeches instead. My point is that I don't expect you to feel roused by Hitler's or Mussolini's speeches even if you did understand them. I certainly don't. So I think the criticism against Hux's speech that you didn't feel an "emotional impact" is practically moot. He needed to portray a certain type of speech accurately, which he did in my opinion. There is something seriously wrong when the director tries his hardest to portray Space Nazis, and then people say that they don't feel any emotional impact from the speeches giving us an insight into their psychology. Guess what, luckily most of the audience don't feel any "emotional impact" from speeches by Actual Nazis either. And that's what you would expect. Now you could argue that the entire concept of the First Order and the Empire is just too blatantly just Space Nazis, but that would be a much deeper criticism of the entire Star Wars mythos.

But what do you feel when you look at this speech? I mean, if we claim that it's not "convincing" we must compare it to the real deal. In my opinion, many speeches by actual authoritarian politicians make them feel like "wannabe evils that don't really know what they believe in" apart from the aesthetic of a personal cult and general bellicosity. It is implied, and IMO it is also Kylo Ren. But that only says he has gotten training from Luke - we don't know if he received any lightsaber training specifically. In my opinion, the lightsaber Kylo Ren has does not look like if he built it under the guidance of Luke. I think it is very clear that Rey has some kind of mysterious past, or some other reason for being able to use the Force so quickly. And it is blatantly obvious that you are supposed to think "Hmm... I wonder why she had such an affinity/hidden talent".

Did you expect to be convinced by the speech? Can you give an example of what the speech should have been like? Yeah, but you could also make the argument that Hitler and Stalin had no need to further inflame the passions of their brainwashed armies as well. Yet they held speeches. Why? I don't get it. Did you expect to be convinced by the speech? To me it's just as convincing, and embarrassing, as its real-world counterparts. Okay. So what are good examples? I am very interested in the time period and have read Hitler's speeches, contemporary books based on interviews with him and so on. He does not strike me as being significantly better - or worse - than other notable speakers of the era (but we have to remember that this was the dawn of mass media such as the radio, loudspeakers and so on, so speeches suddenly became more important than earlier in general - this should not be confused with the quality of the speaker himself). I agree that the portrayal of the FO could have been more subtle, currently, they are ticking basically every box on my "literally Nazis" checklist. I chuckled when I watched the movie because I thought it was a accurate portrayal of extremist aesthetics. But let us also remember that Hux is only a General among many, I think his character stands apart from earlier Imperial officers - Hux is young and ambitious, a scion of a prominent family, but without practical experience. He's the King Joffrey or Draco Malfoy of the First Order, which we haven't really seen before. The fact that such a person can attain the rank of General either speaks of him having great theoretical knowledge, or it gives the First Order an aristocratic vibe, probably both. In another not-so subtle move, the leader of the Republic at the time of the attack of the First Order is called "Lanever Villecham".

I thought Hux' speech was good since it seemed pretty representative of its real-world counterpart. I mean look at "silly haters" giving speeches such as this and this. Do you think they sound unrealistically screeching? I am willing to bet anything that JJ gave directions for Domhnall Gleeson to imitate them. (I agree that the speeches I linked to seem full of "silly hate". But that's pretty much the way things are in reality with certain ideologies...) I don't know, man. If the good guys had all been white males, and the bad guys a woman, a black dude and a latinoish pilot, would that have been racist? I don't think so...

But most of the things I mentioned are in the movie. But even if they weren't, these are the first things which come to mind. I am kind of tired of people who need everything explained to them. It would be very boring if all movies were just a huge blah-blah-blah of exposition, leaving no room for interpretation. Only movies made for an infantile mind need to explain absolutely everything. IMO the best movies are those who leave important plot points open for interpretation. In particular the original Star Wars movie leaves pretty much everything to the viewer's speculation. It doesn't matter if things are not explained in the sequel, or rather, I hope they are not explained in a huge mess of flashbacks and contrived dialogue filled to the brim with exposition. It's kind of funny, I came to the TFA screening with expectations of a 5/10 movie (I actually saw JJ's Star Trek reboot so...), but got something more like 8.5/10, but even with that in mind I fear the sequel will be a 5/10 because they might attempt to answer too many questions. If you do that without creating the same amount of mystique you will end up with something like the prequels (although the PT has lots of faults in addition to this of course). Look at the state of Britain's military just before the outbreak of WW2. Now imagine that the remnants of the Empire made a peace resulting in disarmament with the Republic similar to how the Allied powers thought the Versailles peace would turn out. It's not unrealistic that the Republic disarmed even though they were the winners since that has happened again and again IRL. This should be pretty clear from the movie. You're reasoning about this the wrong way. Han Solo was always a rogue. The question should rather be how he managed to settle down for some time. There is also not "still" a resistance. And as far as I know, the word "resistance" was never used for the rebels in the OT so I don't know where you get that idea from. The Resistance is something which has gained increasing support in later times. The Resistance fights the First Order in spite of the galactic peace treaty, which is why the First Order calls them traitors I guess. Clearly they draw their support from within the Republic, which they hope to also officially enlist in their struggle. IMO this is one of the points where they could seriously fail when later trying to create an explanation. If construction of planet-sized super-weapons is trivial enough to be achieved by the North Korea-like FO, then why doesn't everyone do it? Hopefully it turns out to be a project started by the Empire of old, or an even more ancient relic. Yeah, this was a silly action sequence, but I hear movies must have these, or the less inclined among the audience will fall asleep. You think this is stupid? With regards to idiot geologists, incidentally the world happens to be full of idiots. Just read about this for an example of real-world explorers earning Darwin awards at alarming rates. You would be surprised at how little scientific knowledge helps with judgment. I don't get what more stupid with "alien cobras" and "zombies" than with the original alien. That c-section was hardly spontaneous - did you even watch the movie? I don't think you get it. Anakin is not meant to care about his mother from this point onwards. Any type of action which would even implicitly concede an attachment from Anakin's side to his family would just serve to enable his wordly attachments. If you think this seems cruel, compare with what happens to the parents of the Dalai Lama. If they would have taken her to somewhere safer, somewhere closer where he could make sure she was safe she would also basically have a target painted on her back for anyone who might have an interest in destabilizing Anakin. That way, it would seem better she is a nobody on a backwater planet. Which incidentally is almost the same reasoning behind placing Luke on Tatooine.

I feel you have kind of missed the point completely. Did you even watch the movie or have you just read reviews? Of course you are meant to think firstly that Rey is powerful, you are meant to think that her past seems fishy and she might already have received training. It's established very early in the movie that she is a capable fighter, on the other hand we do not know if Kylo Ren has received any training at fighting with a lightsabre at all. In fact, him using never before seen force powers but still not being an unbeatable fighter would perhaps hint towards the nature of his master. Clearly this is extremely dangerous - Han Solo which is implied as being the best pilot around consider this approach almost suicidal. This is like saying "well, if the Nazis could drop paratroopers on Crete, why didn't they just drop paratroopers on London?". This is funny you know - I see that we disagree on the quality of TFA. I have often thought starting from several years ago that the more often a review mentions the word "plot hole", the more retarded the reviewer is, and the better the movie. I have yet to see any exceptions to this, and as I joke I have thought that I would try to intentionally find reviews mentioning "plot holes" in order to find movies to watch. I mean, think of the people who upon watching Blade Runner go "It's a plot hole that they don't say if Deckard is a replicant or not", nevermind a movie such as "Stalker" which will just go almost completely over their heads. 2001 and Prometheus are also movies which seem to short-circuit some people. I'm not defending Episode I here, but isn't it pretty clear that she can't go with them since Jedi can't have any wordly attachments? I mean, this is how real-world monastic orders operate so I would find the opposite to be silly TBH. I am 99% sure that Kylo Ren and Snoke will turn on each other in the next movie. But I think it is most likely that neither will kill the other (at least until the last movie). I think Snoke will attack Kylo Ren and not the other way around, though. I was mildly disappointed with the soundtrack, but this stood out for me. IMO there is a significant possibility that Williams does not get to score all the movies in the current trilogy. What do you mean? What did you expect? Since we have only seen Snoke as a hologram, he might be something different than what we've been shown thus far (like a Rakatan for example).

I thought this was obvious.

I think it was a good idea to have a villain who isn't completely evil, but he shouldn't have had a helmet from the start. It makes him look like a tryhard. And he shouldn't be so embarrassingly verbose about his inner struggle, it should have just been acted out, implied - and not as an abstract conflict of light and dark, but rather his love for his family vs his (totally unexplained and unfounded) desire to be like vader (what is vader to him?). It would have spared us sentences like "I feel the pull of the light". I love the effect Dawson Casting has had on cinema. Frat boys! Domnhall Gleeson and Adam Driver are both in their thirties. Yes and no. They might be in their thirties but the dynamic they had was like that of two old frat bros who are now running the snowboard shop that they worked at during college. I realize that JJ was trying for a Tarkin/Vader dynamic, but part of the reason that worked was because you could believe Peter Cushing could command an entire armada. The guy they got for the "General" could have been replaced with Channing Tatum (technically 3 years older than the guy they got) with almost no effect. The guy literally commands an entire planet plus an extensive military force. If you want me to take him more seriously, he needs to look and act like he's had a longer career (unless you go out of your way to explain why he's in charge, which they didn't). No, I don't think JJ was trying for a Vader/Tarkin relation between the two. There is some amount of friction between them and in that sense it is more like Vader/Jerjerrod. Anyway I don't think we should impose an interpretation that everything in TFA is like something in the OT, because more often than not elements of TFA are opposites in some sense of the OT. Kylo is meant to look young and inexperienced, the entire point of his character is that he IS a try-hard who desperately wants to become as powerful as Vader, but is also afraid that he can't do it. I think it feels very fresh to have a villain which is so clearly fueled by an inferiority complex - they have clearly thought long and well about what it takes for a person to do the things he does, although this can of course be ruined by flashbacks in later movies. Clearly Kylo has the power and authority to do some pretty evil stuff, but he is also very pathetic in some sense, especially when he does not have his mask on (both Poe, Han and Rey call him out on this in the movie). Essentially, the real-world counterparts to Kylo are people like Varg Vikernes, Eric Harris/Dylan Klebold and Anders Breivik - Kylo is very much designed to be a character which makes sense IRL, which makes him infinitely darker than any previous Star Wars villains who pretty much are evil because the script said so. I'm just hoping that they will continue on this line and ignore any SJ complaints about Kylo Ren painting a bad picture of the mentally ill. Snoke is clearly overhyping Kylo's importance and setting him up for some kind of betrayal. Even Han says as much, and he may have more information than the viewer. My guess is that Kylo will either die a pathetic death being used by Snoke, or be redeemed, or both. You could argue that Hux is unrealistically young to be the leader of a big military movement, but I think you mistaken with regards to what they are trying to show with the First Order. The First Order are pretty much the scraps of the Imperium, specifically those scraps who were ideologically motivated enough to covertly fight on, not necessarily at all their finest generals (who in any case might be professionals who are not ideologically motivated). The First Order has not seen much action and so meritocracy has not played it's part yet. It is specifically stated that Hux has little or no practical military experience and that he earned his place through blood ties, which at least fits very well with my conception of the First Order being an ad-hoc organization of Imperial remnants where the pecking order is decided by who brought the most resources for the cause. For me personally, the aristocratic Hux sort of darkly mirrors the aristocratic Leia in the OT. And if anything, it was also ****ing retarded that a 18-year old girl was a senior diplomat.

Putin endorses Trump.

This is true both for today's Christians and today's Muslims. But of course nobody thinks themselves a liar. This is not anything which happens deliberately, as you write. People will unconsciously think better of things they have decided to embrace - compare also the mother who fails to scold her favourite child for misbehaviour. Nobody could ever rationalize believing in a religion which also does not give any support to your political views. "Yeah, I'm a complete takfiri, I know that's completely against my religion, but I think it's the right thing to do anyway". How many right-wingers think Jesus was a Socialist and vice versa? Not all religious people project all their opinions onto their religion, but many do and none that I know of rationalizes the opposite. Any disagreements between Muslims and the Western world today is best thought of as being based on: Real political and historical grievances. Identity politics/nationalistic bull**** or similar. Seeing how Muslims were more tolerant than Christians during certain parts of history, I think it's pretty clear that tolerance and degree of secularism are more dependent on historical circumstance than the actual tenets of the religion. Islam is harder to reform because it is more specific in its commandments, while Christianity is very, very vague because Jesus was never in any position of power where jurisprudence would have become important and his teachings were only compiled a significant time after his death. You could argue that this is a problem, but then you could look at Judaism. There we also have specific commandments regarding how to treat slaves et.c. (see here). God commands at various times rape, murder and genocide (see here for an example). The God of the Old Testament is evil to the degree of for example commanding his "chosen people" to attack and genocide the Canaanites and take their land for no reason. Yet these teaching are not at all at the centre of how modern, secular Jews behave. Why is that? If you ask a modern rabbi they will instead refer you to other teachings and later interpretations which would seem to speak against slavery and various crimes against humanity. Similarly, certain commandments in the Quran might seem like intractable problems today, but rest assured you can find other passages which can be interpreted as contradicting them in certain situations. I'm sure it won't take long to find examples where the notion of papal infallibility would imply that the Catholic God is unspeakably evil, but that is all swept under the carpet today. I'm sure that Muslims can similarly ignore the parts in the Quran which are incompatible with modern civilization. It's only fair we give their particular brand of pretend beliefs time to evolve and mature (since much of the Muslim world has been the butthole of humanity the last 400 years or so, they are coming from a different point than where we are at now), and not judge them harder than our Christian progenitors of the ignorant past. Good religious people are good because they have twisted their religious interpretation to something positive. Bad religious people are bad because they pick the worst from their sacred texts. All modern religions are large enough to include both good and bad interpretations. That's pretty much what there is to be said.