The Paris Attack Debate Thread

[Tamas]

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?

True. I think it might be the inherent racism of the Western Left. The apartheid was done by whites, ergo the highest moral standar was applied to them. The left's condescending protective attitude to other ethnicities effectively makes them have smaller standards for them, in other words expect less of them.

It is of course true to the Right as well but at least they are more honest about their condescension.

[Martinus]

What is different here?

And I will now answer myself!

To me, there are two misguided ideas at work here, mainly, one coming from the right and the other from the left.

The first is that fact that the world still has not disabused itself of the bizarre 16th century notion (which probably made sense at the time) that freedom of religion is a special, unique freedom that is not simply a subset of freedom of expression and speech, but goes beyond. Hence comes greater tolerance for idiocies propagated by people in the name of religion than in the name of any other deeply held belief (such as beliefs of racial superiority, class war and the like).

The second is that to a leftist mind, "brown people" are always victims and never oppressors - and even if they seem like they are oppressing someone, it is always become the "white people" keep them ignorant and uneducated. But in this day and age of internet and mass access to information this excuse can no longer stand. And if these people continue to elect - or support - oppressive, illiberal regimes and reject liberal Western values (which, by the way, *are better* - all cultures are not equal or equally beautiful) then they should bear the consequences, just as Germans did in WW2 (even though not every each of them voted for Hitler)

These two things are what makes the response to oppressive Islamic regimes so lukewarm and wishy-washy in the West today.

[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?

True. I think it might be the inherent racism of the Western Left. The apartheid was done by whites, ergo the highest moral standar was applied to them. The left's condescending protective attitude to other ethnicities effectively makes them have smaller standards for them, in other words expect less of them.

It is of course true to the Right as well but at least they are more honest about their condescension.

Yeah, the racism of low expectations. And, as many of the "honest liberals", such as Rushdie or Maher often say, this in fact is hurting the moderate Muslims living in Islam countries - because when they are being imprisoned, flogged or hacked to pieces, there is but a peep squeak coming from the liberal Western elites.

[Tamas]

Just saw this, somewhat applies:

[Berkut]

Comparing this to "Fred Phelps" is just insanity.

When Fred actually manages to convince the state of Kansas to throw some gay people from the top of a tall building as a matter of religious expression and the law, then we can start drawing parallels.

The reality is that within the Christian world, the war of ideas was fought and won by rationality. The Phelps of the world are akin to the few Japanese hanging out in the mountains of Luzon in 1955. The war is long over, they just haven't recognized it yet, but don't really matter.

The war within Islam is ongoing and being fought, violently, right now. RIGHT NOW. Stuff like Paris and WTC are, in fact, really peripheral actions in that war. They purpose they do serve though is to bring attention to the West that this is in fact happening, despite the desperate wish to believe that it is not, and everything is just fine - just a couple crazies, go on consuming, nothing to see here!

[DGuller]

True. I think it might be the inherent racism of the Western Left. The apartheid was done by whites, ergo the highest moral standar was applied to them. The left's condescending protective attitude to other ethnicities effectively makes them have smaller standards for them, in other words expect less of them.

"Soft bigotry of low expectations".  One of the better phrases uttered by George W. Bush.

[Razgovory]

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.

Except we don't.  We had a big debate on whether Stalin really believed in communism or he was just a dangerous cynic.  You found the debate boring (as you do with anything where people don't leap to agree with you).  North Korea is NOT the only place were communism is taken seriously.  They of course do agree with you on the religious matters though, which indicates the idea "we must oppose religion because it denies human science", the opinion you came to in the Inhofe thread is quite dangerous to people.

[Razgovory]

True. I think it might be the inherent racism of the Western Left. The apartheid was done by whites, ergo the highest moral standar was applied to them. The left's condescending protective attitude to other ethnicities effectively makes them have smaller standards for them, in other words expect less of them.

"Soft bigotry of low expectations".  One of the better phrases uttered by George W. Bush.

Fine, we'll hold Tamas and Marty to a higher standard.

[Savonarola]

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?

Yes, to political violence, a central tenant of Marxism requires that the proletariat seize power.  In practical terms that means a revolution is necessary.

As far as the elimination of other types/groups of people; I don't think that's a tenant of communism.  It's just a coincidence that it always happened in communist countries.   

[crazy canuck]

I had Yi's comments in this thread in mind when I was speaking to a Muslim friend of mine last night.  He expressed a great deal of frustration that society seems to put an obligation on moderates like him to publicly explain that the nutbar Muslims do not represent the views of all Muslims and actually represent only the views of a radical minority.  He said he didn't mind doing it at first because he thought it was important to educate the public.  But he and other Muslims have been trying to do that now for years and there are still idiots out there (here is where I had a clear picture of Yi in my mind) who continue to go on about how all Muslims should be painted with the same brush.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

The US has done a pretty good job overall post-Rumsfeld.  We have had the occasional incident of individual shootings but I doubt a "tougher" or more xenophobic approach would have prevented that.  I hope it doesn't change too much.

[viper37]

I had Yi's comments in this thread in mind when I was speaking to a Muslim friend of mine last night.  He expressed a great deal of frustration that society seems to put an obligation on moderates like him to publicly explain that the nutbar Muslims do not represent the views of all Muslims and actually represent only the views of a radical minority.  He said he didn't mind doing it at first because he thought it was important to educate the public.  But he and other Muslims have been trying to do that now for years and there are still idiots out there (here is where I had a clear picture of Yi in my mind) who continue to go on about how all Muslims should be painted with the same brush.

That's the problem right here.

I don't want moderate muslims to explain me the nutbars are a minority.  I already know that.  If a majority of muslims were extremists, I don't think we could walk safely in our streets.

Of course, there will always be racists that insist all/nearly all muslims are a threat to us.  Europe is worst because they have extreme right-wing parties that channel the frustration of entire societies towards jews&muslims.

I am willing to question our society, if we are making enough place for the young muslims to grow as individual part of our greater collective.  I am more than willing to listen to the moderates telling us how the radicals are poisoning their communities.

But what I mostly want, and what they mostly refuse, is to examine themselves.  Why are there so many young muslims and recent converts seduced by the Jihad?  Is there something in their religious teachings that make them more vulnerable to extreme ideologies?  Is there something in their culture that emphasizes vicitimization?

I was reading a French marxist muslim over at the french forum, and as usual, it was a deaf dialogue, but he said something that I have read more than once in Arab medias: while we are not directly blamed for the Crusades and the failure of modernization in Arab countries (rather that modernization did not brought them to the forefront, to the dominant position the West enjoys), these two events have marked the psyche and are transmitted from generation to generation.  Both creates a sentiment of inferiory (an enlightened society beaten by savages during the Crusades) combined with a feeling that traditions are more important than modernism since it gives no tangible results.

Of course, the impetus is on us, the Western world, to change, so that we adapt to muslim&arabic culture.  Something I reject.  Yes, I am a cultural relativist, I believe my western culture of tolerance and freedom is better than islamic culture as we currently see it in most countries.  I don't think we should break the legs of the fastest runner so others have a chance to catch up.
But I'd like to see some solutions (there are, not many, but there are) coming from their community.  Not stating the obvious.  Why is it that such extreme idelogies have an easier hold on their communities than ours?

[The Minsky Moment]

I had Yi's comments in this thread in mind when I was speaking to a Muslim friend of mine last night.  He expressed a great deal of frustration that society seems to put an obligation on moderates like him to publicly explain that the nutbar Muslims do not represent the views of all Muslims and actually represent only the views of a radical minority.  He said he didn't mind doing it at first because he thought it was important to educate the public.  But he and other Muslims have been trying to do that now for years and there are still idiots out there (here is where I had a clear picture of Yi in my mind) who continue to go on about how all Muslims should be painted with the same brush.

And the irony is that the Martinus/Yi* view is exactly the narrative the very worst of the terrorists are trying to push - that they represent and reflect the true nature of the religion. And by validating that view, we undermine the very forces necessary to defeat them, and contribute to the cycle of disaffection that the terrorist feed off of.  Daesh aren't stupid - they know they cannot present any real military threat to the West or even threaten the economy, but because they know it will sow panic and fear and the very kind of knee-jerk anti-Islamic xenophobia we see in this thread and in the GOP primary candidates.  It is grist for their mill.

*Leaving out B for now for reasons will address in the next post.

[crazy canuck]

But what I mostly want, and what they mostly refuse, is to examine themselves.  Why are there so many young muslims and recent converts seduced by the Jihad?  Is there something in their religious teachings that make them more vulnerable to extreme ideologies?  Is there something in their culture that emphasizes vicitimization?

Yi/Viper/Marti rants shown for what they are *Why do so many young Christian men commit violent crime.  Is there something in Christian teaching that pushes them to do it?  Moderate Christians are always on about how Christianity is a religion of love.  Why do they refuse to examine themselves and their culture?*


Guys, you cant hold the majority of a religious belief culpable for the acts of minority extremes.

[crazy canuck]

I had Yi's comments in this thread in mind when I was speaking to a Muslim friend of mine last night.  He expressed a great deal of frustration that society seems to put an obligation on moderates like him to publicly explain that the nutbar Muslims do not represent the views of all Muslims and actually represent only the views of a radical minority.  He said he didn't mind doing it at first because he thought it was important to educate the public.  But he and other Muslims have been trying to do that now for years and there are still idiots out there (here is where I had a clear picture of Yi in my mind) who continue to go on about how all Muslims should be painted with the same brush.

And the irony is that the Martinus/Yi* view is exactly the narrative the very worst of the terrorists are trying to push - that they represent and reflect the true nature of the religion. And by validating that view, we undermine the very forces necessary to defeat them, and contribute to the cycle of disaffection that the terrorist feed off of.  Daesh aren't stupid - they know they cannot present any real military threat to the West or even threaten the economy, but because they know it will sow panic and fear and the very kind of knee-jerk anti-Islamic xenophobia we see in this thread and in the GOP primary candidates.  It is grist for their mill.

*Leaving out B for now for reasons will address in the next post.

I agree completely.