The Paris Attack Debate Thread

[The Minsky Moment]

Good point Valmy, but Jonathan Swift was Irish.

[The Brain]

Swift book veterans for truth?

[Grinning_Colossus]

Wouldn't res ipsa locutur be more like leaving detonators lying around?

[Razgovory]

Kind of amazed that the apologism for Islamic radicalism extends so far that people are willing to blame the US Civil War not on people demanding that they have the right to own other people (slavery), but on the ideology that this is a pretty terrible idea (abolition).

Eh why not? The Abolitionists got blamed for it at the time.

Fear of abolition was certainly a major factor in the rebellion.  I have a problem with the idea that abolitionism can breed violence.  Some good things can be violent.  Sometimes a good thing (like freedom), is worth violence.

[crazy canuck]

As I said above, the faith based arbitration allowed under the 1991 Arbitration Act.

Ah, your reference to a stupid law threw me off.  Since when are you against private parties deciding how to resolve their disputes?

[Berkut]

It's a little bizarre for non-Muslims to be so vehement in saying that the Quranic interpretations of a minority faction of certifiable lunatics must be the true and correct ones in the face of millions of actual practicing Muslims who say the opposite.

I think this is a strawman - the issue is not what non-Muslims believe, the issue is what the "certifiable lunatics" believe.

And they believe that they are good and true Muslims.

And I am not sure I am buying this claim that they are some tiny minority - it seems like there are a lots and lots of Muslims who support this kind of violence, even if they are not engaging in it themselves. Indeed, it seems to me like there are lots of Muslims out there who are mostly constrained by their lack of power to impose their religious will on others, rather than being restrained by the lack of ideology stating that said will ought not be forced onto others.

But I have no problem conceding that there are lots and lots of Muslims for whom their religion is no more intrinsically violent than your typical American Christian, and they are perfectly fine neighbors. Most all of them that I have personally experienced, in fact.

OK, so here is a quote from an Imam in Saudia Arabia, Wahabbist I believe:

In a public address delivered by Saudi cleric Muhammad Al-Arifi, which aired on Al-Nas TV on February 21, 2012, the Sheikh said: "There is no doubt that one's devotion to Jihad for the sake of Allah and one's will to shed blood, smash skulls, and chop off body parts for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion constitute an honor for the believer. Just having this notion in your heart is a mark of honor, even if you do not actually wage Jihad." He continues; "If the Muslims implemented the words of Allah: "Fight the infidels near you, and let them find harshness in you," and other Koranic verses, like the Verse of the Sword, which deal with fighting the infidels and conquering their countries, stating that they should join Islam, pay the jizya poll tax, or be fought. . . Had the Muslims implemented this, we would not be in our current state of humiliation."

Now, you can say "Oh, he is one of those crazy ones, so what?"

Here is the thing - his views are NOT some outlier, crazy fringe of the Islamic world. This guy has more people listening to him than the Pope - has something like 15 million twitter followers. He is a star in the Islamic Sunni world.

Again, I do not dispute that some particular person could justify their own violence with other religious texts, and certainly have in the past. And when they do, I will be the first to recognize that as a problem.

But right now, today, the reality is that nobody is even coming close to Jihadists when it comes to religious violence. There is no comparison to the scale here, both in actual violence, and in those who may not engage in violence, but recognize that the fundamental concepts behind it are perfectly valid and to be honored (martyrdom, religious intolerance, death penalities for homosexuals, etc., etc.)

[Martinus]

I am not sure that the argument that if we get rid of Muslims, we would also need to do the same with the Irish and Serbs, is really working as you guys intended. 

[Martinus]

It's a little bizarre for non-Muslims to be so vehement in saying that the Quranic interpretations of a minority faction of certifiable lunatics must be the true and correct ones in the face of millions of actual practicing Muslims who say the opposite.

I think this is a strawman - the issue is not what non-Muslims believe, the issue is what the "certifiable lunatics" believe.

And they believe that they are good and true Muslims.

And I am not sure I am buying this claim that they are some tiny minority - it seems like there are a lots and lots of Muslims who support this kind of violence, even if they are not engaging in it themselves. Indeed, it seems to me like there are lots of Muslims out there who are mostly constrained by their lack of power to impose their religious will on others, rather than being restrained by the lack of ideology stating that said will ought not be forced onto others.

But I have no problem conceding that there are lots and lots of Muslims for whom their religion is no more intrinsically violent than your typical American Christian, and they are perfectly fine neighbors. Most all of them that I have personally experienced, in fact.

OK, so here is a quote from an Imam in Saudia Arabia, Wahabbist I believe:

In a public address delivered by Saudi cleric Muhammad Al-Arifi, which aired on Al-Nas TV on February 21, 2012, the Sheikh said: "There is no doubt that one's devotion to Jihad for the sake of Allah and one's will to shed blood, smash skulls, and chop off body parts for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion constitute an honor for the believer. Just having this notion in your heart is a mark of honor, even if you do not actually wage Jihad." He continues; "If the Muslims implemented the words of Allah: "Fight the infidels near you, and let them find harshness in you," and other Koranic verses, like the Verse of the Sword, which deal with fighting the infidels and conquering their countries, stating that they should join Islam, pay the jizya poll tax, or be fought. . . Had the Muslims implemented this, we would not be in our current state of humiliation."

Now, you can say "Oh, he is one of those crazy ones, so what?"

Here is the thing - his views are NOT some outlier, crazy fringe of the Islamic world. This guy has more people listening to him than the Pope - has something like 15 million twitter followers. He is a star in the Islamic Sunni world.

Again, I do not dispute that some particular person could justify their own violence with other religious texts, and certainly have in the past. And when they do, I will be the first to recognize that as a problem.

But right now, today, the reality is that nobody is even coming close to Jihadists when it comes to religious violence. There is no comparison to the scale here, both in actual violence, and in those who may not engage in violence, but recognize that the fundamental concepts behind it are perfectly valid and to be honored (martyrdom, religious intolerance, death penalities for homosexuals, etc., etc.)

I find it amazing how so many of the so-called liberals are perfectly willing to turn a blind eye to evils perpetrated in the muslim countries, so that they do not appear "islamophobic".

[Admiral Yi]

The punishment for failure to crop a quote shall be stoning.

[DGuller]

The punishment for failure to crop a quote shall be stoning.

Amen!

[Jacob]

The punishment for failure to crop a quote shall be stoning.

Sounds legit.

[crazy canuck]

The punishment for failure to crop a quote shall be stoning.

Amen!

Not that kind of getting stoned

[alfred russel]

I am not sure that the argument that if we get rid of Muslims, we would also need to do the same with the Irish and Serbs, is really working as you guys intended. 

I'm willing to keep the muslims if we can get rid of the irish and serbs. Lets compromise!

[The Minsky Moment]

He does have 13 million twitter followers, placing him behind will.i.am, Paris Hilton, Ryan Seacrest and Ashton Kutcher.  Not sure what to make of that.  He is a Wahhabi, and it appears the vast majority of his followers are Saudi; the second most popular Saudi twitterite (11 million and rising) is a Ahmad Al-Shugairi, an Islamic moderate and reformist.  Even in the heartland of hardliner Salafi Islam, the fundamentalist message is contested.

It's silly to say Al-arifi has more influence than the Pope, it's not even close.  The Pope is the unquestioned religious leader of 1.25 billion Catholics; there are about 50 million Muslims worldwide that identify with Salafism, or about 3%.

[The Brain]

We have to get rid of people who get on subway trains before people have a chance to get off.