The Paris Attack Debate Thread

[Martinus]

So yeah, while there may be large proportion of radical violent Muslims about right now compared to other perpetrators of violence (and I think that to some extent is a matter of definition and reporting than some pure objective fact), I don't think they differ significantly enough from perpetrators of other flavours of radical violence in other places and at other times to make "it's a feature of Islam" even remotely convincing.

Do you believe there is a problem with the conservative brand of Islam that goes beyond violent radicalism? For example, regarding its treatment of women, gays or approach to apostasy and blasphemy?

[Martinus]

I have a question to Jake, Minsky and Lacroix, by the way - which Western country, in your opinion, has the approach to Islamic terrorism, Muslim minority and immigration from Muslim countries (not saying these issues are linked of course) that is in your view Working As Designed, and if none of them has that, what would you change to make this your ideal approach.

[LaCroix]

ideal world? no borders. acceptable? the US is pretty OK, except for all those governors recently.

[Admiral Yi]

ideal world? no borders. acceptable? the US is pretty OK, except for all those governors recently.

And what does it say about the political and economic factors that Jacob said are more important than religion that even Muslims in the US have engaged in terrorist acts?

[LaCroix]

And what does it say about the political and economic factors that Jacob said are more important than religion that even Muslims in the US have engaged in terrorist acts?

some americans went over and joined the IRA. hell, many funded the IRA. if some delusional kid thinks islam is besieged by america, he might just act. that's a political basis.

[Admiral Yi]

some americans went over and joined the IRA. hell, many funded the IRA. if some delusional kid thinks islam is besieged by america, he might just act. that's a political basis.

The way I interpreted it, Jacob was saying political factors, such as the lack of freedoms in Saudi Arabia, were more useful in explaining the root causes of Muslim terrorism than Islam itself.  That's different than what you are doing, which is reframing Muslim terrorism as a political act.

[LaCroix]

The way I interpreted it, Jacob was saying political factors, such as the lack of freedoms in Saudi Arabia, were more useful in explaining the root causes of Muslim terrorism than Islam itself.  That's different than what you are doing, which is reframing Muslim terrorism as a political act.

i think jacob was saying "it doesn't have to be the religion itself that causes it" while pointing out some examples

[Eddie Teach]

Fred Phelps got over 30% of the vote in a Kansas senate primary.  50,000 votes.

Fred Phelps agitates within the system, he doesn't send children out wearing explosive vests.

[mongers]

What about we replace the word Islam with that of communism and see where the discussion takes us?

In communism is there an tenant that calls for political violence or the elimination of other types/groups of people?

[Berkut]

also, berkut, you know that study also revealed only 6% in lebanon and 5% in turkey? how does that play into your argument that islam, rather than the country's level of civilization/or whatever other factor, is at fault?

Those results are not interesting to me, or germaine to my point since I've said about a thousand times already that I know that many Muslim populations are NOT extremists. So pointing out what we already knew is not really interesting. What apparently we did NOT know is that there are huge numbers of Muslims who fully support and recognize as acts of religious faiths activities that are, by Western standards, morally abhorrent.

[Berkut]

some americans went over and joined the IRA. hell, many funded the IRA. if some delusional kid thinks islam is besieged by america, he might just act. that's a political basis.

The way I interpreted it, Jacob was saying political factors, such as the lack of freedoms in Saudi Arabia, were more useful in explaining the root causes of Muslim terrorism than Islam itself.  That's different than what you are doing, which is reframing Muslim terrorism as a political act.

Indeed, and this is the basic problem I see.

No matter what the specifics, there is some explanation other than their religion, for their actions.

Of course, the specifics are all different, so the explanation in each case is different.

This person did it for political reasons, that one economic, the other because their culture...

All the while we ignore the common element, and the element that everyone involved actively, vociferously, and vehemently claims is that actual reason they are doing what they are doing - because they believe that doing so is demanded by and rewarded by their faith.

[Berkut]

What about we replace the word Islam with that of communism and see where the discussion takes us?

OK, let's do that.

Oh wait, we already do that, and we all agree that in fact Communism, as expressed today in about the only place it is taken seriously (North Korea) is a huge problem for the people in that area, and we spend billions containing it, and that is working pretty well for everyone involved who is NOT living in North Korea.

Next?

You know what we don't do?

We don't insist that the problem really has nothing to do with Communism, but rather a host of other, changing variables while we insist that Communism itself is just fine, and really, no different that capitalism, because all social/economic systems are the same, after all.

Well, actually, some people do in fact do that, we just don't take them seriously.

[Tamas]

Islam is NOT The Reason why the extremist part of the Muslim world are violent and primitive, but it is The Tool by which the extremists grab and above all, hold, power.

And it is an extremely powerful tool, because the options for modern/moderate Muslims to fight these extremists -while also maintaining what is the commonly accepted nature of their religion, ie. not getting caught in socially unaccepted behaviour like suggesting that some parts of holy text should not be taken literally- are very limited.

And we do a huge disservice to their cause and ours if we refuse to see this.

[Tamas]

What about we replace the word Islam with that of communism and see where the discussion takes us?

OK, let's do that.

Oh wait, we already do that, and we all agree that in fact Communism, as expressed today in about the only place it is taken seriously (North Korea) is a huge problem for the people in that area, and we spend billions containing it, and that is working pretty well for everyone involved who is NOT living in North Korea.

Next?

You know what we don't do?

We don't insist that the problem really has nothing to do with Communism, but rather a host of other, changing variables while we insist that Communism itself is just fine, and really, no different that capitalism, because all social/economic systems are the same, after all.

Well, actually, some people do in fact do that, we just don't take them seriously.

Very true

[Martinus]

So yeah, while there may be large proportion of radical violent Muslims about right now compared to other perpetrators of violence (and I think that to some extent is a matter of definition and reporting than some pure objective fact), I don't think they differ significantly enough from perpetrators of other flavours of radical violence in other places and at other times to make "it's a feature of Islam" even remotely convincing.

Do you believe there is a problem with the conservative brand of Islam that goes beyond violent radicalism? For example, regarding its treatment of women, gays or approach to apostasy and blasphemy?

I will reiterate this. The problem with Islam does not end with terrorism. In fact, for any honest leftist/liberal these other issues should be as important if not more important than terrorism.

Islam is used to justify oppression of thousands if not millions of people around the world. We took issue with apartheid even though its adherents were not blowing themselves up in European capitals. What is different here?