The Paris Attack Debate Thread

[jimmy olsen]

I have some problem agreeing with this position.  Almost any belief can motivate some people to violence.

For example, that John Brown used terrorist tactics doesn't reflect poorly on abolitionism, IMO.  (ACW hijack!)

I think there's a difference between a cause (such as abolitionism, independence, civil rights, etc) and a belief system such as a religion.  There will always be proponents of violence to achieve virtually any cause, but it doesn't stem organically from the cause itself.

I think the more important thing to note is that John Brown was a rather singular exception.

If there were hundreds of John Brown attacks happening every year, killing thousands of people, all of whom claimed they were motivated by their desire to free slaves, then in fact it would not be unreasonable to note that this abolition thing seems to drive a lot of violence.

Since that didn't happen, the point is kind of moot.

It caused a civil war that killed 750,000 and lead to the abolition of slavery. It may be the most successful act of terrorism of all time.

No respect for Gavrilo Princip? 

Not sure if I'd count a fourth of Serbia dying as a win as a result of his actions a win?

[Martinus]

i guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. i'm not sure i can prove my argument, and i don't think you can prove your argument.

I can make my prima facie case very easily.  The Koran does call for violence.  Muslims do a shitload of terrorism.

The Koran has been around for over 1500 years.  Yet Islamic terrorism is a very recent phenomenon.

Sorry, Minsky, but this is completely obfuscating the issue, and at least in two ways.

Islamic violence is not a recent phenomenon - violence has been present in Islam since its very beginning. Sure, it has also been present in Christianity and Judaism - but these religions "grew out of it". Islam didn't.

As for Islamic terrorism - terrorism, generally is a very recent phenomenon because terrorism only makes sense as a practice if it stands out from the general standards of the era. And Islam has been pretty active in this field even in the 19th century already (see the Mahdi Uprising, as an example).

[Crazy_Ivan80]

There have been warnings about Molenbeek for a decade now.

a short overview here (ran it through the translator with all weirdness that goes with it. Molenbeek -> jean! )

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fde-bron.org%2Fcontent%2Fde-hete-patat-ligt-effectief-bij-de-ps

Original link in dutch: http://de-bron.org/content/de-hete-patat-ligt-effectief-bij-de-ps

[Valmy]

No respect for Gavrilo Princip? 

Right?

Really Tim?

[Eddie Teach]

Where is that 750,000 figure coming from? I've always seen Civil War deaths listed at 600,000.

[Valmy]

Where is that 750,000 figure coming from? I've always seen Civil War deaths listed at 600,000.

That is because in the past almost all research relied on memoirs and official reports. More modern history techniques are now used and thus the more accurate reporting on casualties.

[Malthus]

Most of the Muslims I know personally were refugees - particularly, from Iran. Mind you they were fleeing because of the Ayatollahs, and they were pretty 'upper class' well-educated urbanites. 

I have no idea what you are taking about 'faith-based tribunals'.  Care to explain?

Many years ago you and I once had a massive argument about them. So I suspect you may know what I'm talking about, but are just playing a game because you don't like the term "faith based tribunals", but I'm referring to faith-based arbitrators under the 1991 Arbitration Act involving Jewish, Catholic and Native American cultural/religious norms being used to decide civil matters.

Such a thing as faith-based arbitration, of course, could never happen in the US. 

http://peacemaker.net/icc/

[Valmy]

Such a thing as faith-based arbitration, of course, could never happen in the US. 

http://peacemaker.net/icc/

This is not an officially sanctioned government arm. This is basically the same as going to counseling.

[mongers]

Islamist terror attack in Bosnia including a suicide blast:

'Islamist' gunman kills two Bosnian soldiers in Sarajevo

19 November 2015

A suspected Islamist gunman has shot dead two Bosnian soldiers before blowing himself up in the capital Sarajevo, officials say.

They say the man attacked the soldiers in a betting shop on Wednesday night and later shot at a city bus, injuring the driver and two passengers.

He then fled and blew himself up in his house when police surrounded the area.

Prime Minister Denis Zvizdic later said at an emergency meeting of his cabinet it was an attack "on the state".

But he refused to be drawn on whether the man, named as Enes Omeragic, was a jihadist militant.

However other officials have told local media that the attacker was linked to a radical Islamist movement.

Boris Grubesic, a spokesman for the state prosecution, told the Associated Press news agency that the attack was being investigated as "an act of terrorism".

In April, a gunman attacked a police station in the eastern town of Zvornik, killing an officer and injuring two others before being shot dead.

Police said the gunman was shouting "Allahu Akbar!" ("God is great!") during the assault.

.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34866890

[DGuller]

Damn, even Sarajevo is not safe from religious violence. 

[Valmy]

Damn, even Sarajevo is not safe from religious violence. 

Not surprising. Most victims of Islamic terrorism are Muslims.

[Malthus]

Such a thing as faith-based arbitration, of course, could never happen in the US. 

http://peacemaker.net/icc/

This is not an officially sanctioned government arm. This is basically the same as going to counseling.

It isn't "like going to counseling", it is more like "signing a contract that uses this method of dispute resolution". I think you are confusing "mediation" with "arbitration" (not difficult to do, as most such organizations offer both). The difference is that the decisions made through the latter process are binding and enforceable by the courts (as, for that matter, are contracts generally, unless there is some problem with them).

The link carefully points out how its organization's decisions have been found legally binding:

http://peacemaker.net/enforceability/

Encore Productions, Inc. v. Promise Keepers, 53 F. Supp2d., 102 (D.Colo. 1999) held:

"Ordinary contract principles determine who is bound by written arbitration provisions. See Fisser v. International Bank, 282 F.2d 231 (2d Cir.1960). Encore and PK executed the Service Contract which contains an enforceable arbitration provision. The arbitration process between these corporations contemplates participation by their principals. By executing the Service Contract on behalf of Encore, Encore's principals consented to participate in an arbitration governed by the Rules of Christian Conciliation.

Furthermore, although Encore is correct that courts cannot employ "religious organizations as an arm of the civil judiciary to perform the function of interpreting and applying state standards," here the parties themselves agreed and consented to arbitration before Christian Conciliation. (Encore's Objection to PK's Motion to Dismiss or Stay Proceedings, p. 7). Although it may not be proper for a district court to refer civil issues to a religious tribunal in the first instance, if the parties agree to do so, it is proper for a district court to enforce their contract. Therefore, Encore is now precluded from challenging the enforcement of this valid agreement. See Elmora Hebrew Center, 593 A.2d at 731.

Encore voluntarily signed a contract containing a written arbitration agreement that clearly and expressly disclosed that arbitration would be submitted to Christian Conciliation. This manifests intent to be bound by Christian Conciliation's decree and a knowing and voluntary waiver of their rights to pursue litigation in a secular district court. See id. And, significantly, in a letter written to counsel for PK on September 10, 1998, well after the date of the Termination agreement, counsel for Encore stated that Encore was "willing to discuss initiating Christian Conciliation as mandated under the contract." (Exhibit 2 to PK's Reply to Encore's Response, emphasis added)." 

The situation is exactly similar to that in Canada.

Otto's problem is to fail to understand that "arbitration" is simply an extension of freedom of contract. As long as the method of arbitration passes some basic measure of procedural fairness, it matters not whether Christian rules, Sharia law, or the Klingon Code is used as inspiration. Where you get into difficulties is when "arbitration" itself is not a good method because of inherent inequalities of bargaining power, like ion family law - which is why specific legislation, in some jurisdictions, excludes that.

[mongers]

Damn, even Sarajevo is not safe from religious violence. 

World  | Thu Nov 19, 2015 8:32am EST Related

Islamic State claims attack on Italian missionary in Bangladesh

Islamic State claimed responsibility on Thursday for the shooting of an Italian missionary in Bangladesh, the fifth attack in recent months the militants said they had carried out in the country.

Islamic State members shot Piero Parolari, a doctor, with a gun and silencer, the group's Bangladesh affiliate said in an Arabic-language statement on a website it uses. The statement also said the group had attacked a member of the Bahai religious community and murdered a politician it identified as Rahma Ali.
...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/19/us-bangladesh-foreigner-killing-claim-idUSKCN0T81U220151119?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter#yrr43bPx4yVqtXkr.97

[Valmy]

It isn't "like going to counseling", it is more like "signing a contract that uses this method of dispute resolution". I think you are confusing "mediation" with "arbitration" (not difficult to do, as most such organizations offer both).

Likewise couldn't this be done in any common law country as freely signed contracts? Why couldn't this be done without a special arbitration law? Otto seems to suggest the text of the law specifically lists the faiths eligible for this kind of arbitration.

[Malthus]

It isn't "like going to counseling", it is more like "signing a contract that uses this method of dispute resolution". I think you are confusing "mediation" with "arbitration" (not difficult to do, as most such organizations offer both).

Likewise couldn't this be done in any common law country as freely signed contracts? Why couldn't this be done without a special arbitration law? Otto seems to suggest the text of the law specifically lists the faiths eligible for this kind of arbitration.

It can be, and if he suggests the law specifically lists faiths, he's wrong.

Here's the text of the Ontario law, which is I presume the one he's referencing (as the "1991" law):

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-1991-c-17/latest/so-1991-c-17.html

Note that the only thing that is peculiar about it, is that it has special rules for "family arbitration", which has to be conducted under the laws of Ontario or a Canadian jurisdiction.