Reasonable Muslims at some point have to realize that there is too much about their religion that is fucked up, say to world that some things Mohammed said were retarded, that some of the Koran is bullshit, and either chuck it altogether or pick out some parts that are worth saving and invent a new religion.
They won't. What's our response?
A few hundred years ago Christianity was pretty brutal too. What with their inquisitions and tortures and burning people alive and all that. Christians moved past that. What was the vehicle of that change? What can help Muslims progress from where they are to where they need to be to be an acceptable part of modern society?
The enlightenment was largely what moved the West from being this prone to religious violence. The Muslim world has gone through reformations and it's resulted in movements like Wahhabism.
Quote from: Jaron on November 13, 2015, 08:07:24 PM
A few hundred years ago Christianity was pretty brutal too. What with their inquisitions and tortures and burning people alive and all that. Christians moved past that. What was the vehicle of that change? What can help Muslims progress from where they are to where they need to be to be an acceptable part of modern society?
The Spanish Inquisition...........wait.........no..................the Church of England.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2015, 08:06:33 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 13, 2015, 08:00:23 PM
We have almost no new information about Islam after these attacks. Why should we change the way we act regarding Islam?
I guess my question is what's our move? Before 9/11 the U.S.'s involvement in the Middle East, at least in terms of troops on the ground, wasn't very high. We had a presence in Saudi Arabia, obviously Turkey is a NATO country, and we supported Israel. This was enough to get 9/11. After 9/11 we've killed literally hundreds of thousands of Muslim jihadists, that has clearly not worked.
Do we simply accept that we'll always suffer terrorist attacks, because terrorists can easily take advantage of our free and open societies?
Do we retrench even more than pre-9/11? Meaning no support for Israel, not a single boot on the ground anywhere in the Middle East? I'm not sure that would matter--how many soldiers does France have in the Middle East? They're being targeted by their own Muslim immigrants. Do we stop letting Muslims move into our countries? Or do we just accept there's nothing we can do?
I genuinely have no answers, but I think if you look around various Western countries, I think we've seen a pretty wide spectrum of behaviors. You've had America's militant response on one end of the spectrum, to countries like Sweden or Norway which have taken a much different approach. Pretty much the entire spectrum of countries have also been the targets of terrorist attacks by Muslims.
I've quoted this from the other thread.
Otto you've got that wrong, I'd guess the large majority of those killed were Iraq conscripts, officer class soldiers and Sunni/Shia Iraqi nationalists, the first two groups who had actively and passively keeping a 'lid' on or at least preventing the rise of radicalism in the Iraqi population. It wasn't nice, but the men with moustaches kept the bearded men at bay.
To be serious.
The problem is that it is not just a tiny minority of muslims, but nor is it a majority, the specific problem we face is a substantial minority.........................which is difficult.
I've yet to see a workable answer. When a country like Sweden has seen attempted terrorist attacks (the Iraqi who tried to kill people--but failed, who bombed Stockholm being an example) the "dovish" response clearly doesn't make this stuff not happen. I mean of the various countries in Europe, France has certainly been involved in some campaigns against Islamic terrorists, but it isn't a big supporter of Israel, it doesn't have any boots on the ground in the Middle East, its first airstrikes against ISIS were just in September of this year--and they'd already suffered the Charlie Hebdo attacks and other acts of Islamic terror before that. Plus, I don't even buy into these attacks being necessarily related to our (the West's) behavior in the Middle East anymore. That may have inspired 9/11, but I think we're entering a stage now where it's the domestic Muslims who simply dislike the Western societies they've found themselves in who are going to be the ones carrying out attacks on us. Not the ones mad we're killing Jihadi John, but the ones who don't like a society where women have equal rights to men, or where I'm allowed to draw a picture of Muhammad without being put to death.
In some ways that scares me more than the al-Qaeda attacks on the United States--that was an attack largely as a response to the American geopolitical behavior in the Middle East. I'm not saying I'm okay with 9/11, obviously, but I'm saying we can always make decisions about our Foreign Policy pretty easily. We can decide if it's worth it to be involved in the Middle East or not, for example.
But when you have growing domestic Muslim populations, and a percentage are enthralled by jihadist social media, videos etc, and then a portion of those are willing to kill--that's a problem. Those people are there now, they aren't leaving, they aren't going anywhere. They don't disappear just because we stop bombing ISIS.
As an American I don't feel a lot of personal fear, to be honest America is so big, with its population still well into the positive growth territory, and we also have a long history of " leave people's religion alone" in terms of government that I actually think our Muslim population just isn't a big problem. We're so far from the Middle East we'll never see the influx of Muslims Europe is, and we are also much bigger than any European country and can more easily absorb the small numbers we get. Some of these tiny European countries, with aging and declining secular/native European populations who are seeing huge amounts of Muslim immigration and then seeing those immigrants maintain astronomical reproduction rates--that would really scare me as a European. These aren't Mexicans (who America honestly has been living with ever since the Louisiana Purchase days) looking for work. In a free society that reflects the will of its people, what happens to secular, liberal Europe when a country's population is 30% Muslim, 40? 50?
I don't have answers or ideas, I don't know that there are any easy answers.
The one thing I will say is this--jihadist recruitment should not be protected speech, Lincoln didn't let Confederate recruiters operate with impunity in the Northern States. We need to force social media and streaming providers to 100% ban any jihadist recruitment activities from their platforms. We need our national police forces to shut down independent sites that run this stuff, and we need strong criminal laws prohibiting advocating going on jihad or etc. Recruiting for the enemy has never been protected activity in the United States. I don't know about in Europe--but it shouldn't be if it is.
The first and obvious response to this is "but you can't regulate the entire internet." Of course you can't, but you can regulate the huge forums and social media services that jihadists are recruiting on. ISIS has literally spoken with prospective jihadists over Facebook. That can't be happening. What happens when you clamp down is this shit goes underground. I have no illusions you can get it off the internet, but I also think of the hundreds of thousands of disaffected teenage Muslims living in the West the number who have a Facebook account is way higher than the number who know how to download and run the Tor browser. We can't stop child pornography from being distributed on the internet, but we have certainly made it more difficult to distribute it openly. That's what needs to happen with jihadist recruitment efforts, there are going to be a large percentage of people that will not be engaging with this extremism to the same degree if it involves having to slink around unknown corners of the internet, install specialty software and etc. Again--some will always be willing to take those steps, but not all, and any reduction in open recruitment to jihadism is a good thing.
Quote from: mongers on November 13, 2015, 08:14:13 PMI've quoted this from the other thread.
Otto you've got that wrong, I'd guess the large majority of those killed were Iraq conscripts, officer class soldiers and Sunni/Shia Iraqi nationalists, the first two groups who had actively and passively keeping a 'lid' on or at least preventing the rise of radicalism in the Iraqi population. It wasn't nice, but the men with moustaches kept the bearded men at bay.
Eh, Baghdadi was an Iraqi officer prior to the invasion. So these aren't binary states, there are officer class soldiers who are also terrorists today. And is your point that no, we haven't yet begun to kill tons of jihadists, so we need to try killing some more? I agree with you that a lot of those killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan weren't Islamic jihadists but were just disaffected insurgents brokering for power. But have you ever really read the various casualty reports in America's conflicts in the Middle East? We have killed thousands and thousands of terrorist targets with drone strikes, tens of thousands of Taliban (who are certainly jihadists, if not as international in ambition as al-Qaeda or ISIS), I mean I wouldn't be surprised if we've already killed 5,000+ members of ISIS just in bombing campaigns. There were several major terrorist groups (actually affiliated with al-Qaeda) who we killed in scores and scores at a time in Iraq, it wasn't all disaffected Baathists, and some of those people were terrorists by the time we got around to killing them.
Well don't look at me. I ain't defending anyone this week. Fucking tired of it. If someone wants to pick up the slack, go ahead. I don't give a shit.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 13, 2015, 08:43:49 PM
Well don't look at me. I ain't defending anyone this week. Fucking tired of it. If someone wants to pick up the slack, go ahead. I don't give a shit.
Just pretend IS are like a bunch of Mafiaosa, controlling a territory and a number of money making rackets, accepting no open opposition and ruling by terror. :P
Guys while I agree that Islamic-inspired terrorists are the #1 suspect, we don't actually know who has done this terrible attack, or why. Let's wait for facts before we start debating what to do next.
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2015, 08:53:35 PM
Guys while I agree that Islamic-inspired terrorists are the #1 suspect, we don't actually know who has done this terrible attack, or why. Let's wait for facts before we start debating what to do next.
You're not in court where there is a burden of proof--there have been confirmed, by mainstream, reliable media, reports of Alahu Akbar being screamed during the attacks. This weird post of yours will go down in history as the dumbest thing you've ever said.
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2015, 08:53:35 PM
Guys while I agree that Islamic-inspired terrorists are the #1 suspect, we don't actually know who has done this terrible attack, or why. Let's wait for facts before we start debating what to do next.
French Secret service confirmed they arrested a suspect returning from Syria in August, he had a plan to attack music venue, not unlike today's massacre.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2015, 08:56:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2015, 08:53:35 PM
Guys while I agree that Islamic-inspired terrorists are the #1 suspect, we don't actually know who has done this terrible attack, or why. Let's wait for facts before we start debating what to do next.
You're not in court where there is a burden of proof--there have been confirmed, by mainstream, reliable media, reports of Alahu Akbar being screamed during the attacks. This weird post of yours will go down in history as the dumbest thing you've ever said.
:yes:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2015, 08:56:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2015, 08:53:35 PM
Guys while I agree that Islamic-inspired terrorists are the #1 suspect, we don't actually know who has done this terrible attack, or why. Let's wait for facts before we start debating what to do next.
You're not in court where there is a burden of proof--there have been confirmed, by mainstream, reliable media, reports of Alahu Akbar being screamed during the attacks. This weird post of yours will go down in history as the dumbest thing you've ever said.
Doubtful - I say a lot of dumb things.
But we're not in the court phase yet - we're at the investigation phase. And a good investigator keeps all options open until their is substantial evidence. Tunnel vision is the enemy of a good investigation.
What changes if they are not Muslim psychos?
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2015, 09:00:58 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2015, 08:56:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2015, 08:53:35 PM
Guys while I agree that Islamic-inspired terrorists are the #1 suspect, we don't actually know who has done this terrible attack, or why. Let's wait for facts before we start debating what to do next.
You're not in court where there is a burden of proof--there have been confirmed, by mainstream, reliable media, reports of Alahu Akbar being screamed during the attacks. This weird post of yours will go down in history as the dumbest thing you've ever said.
Doubtful - I say a lot of dumb things.
But we're not in the court phase yet - we're at the investigation phase. And a good investigator keeps all options open until their is substantial evidence. Tunnel vision is the enemy of a good investigation.
Would you be happy with a preliminary "God did it" ?
QuoteIn a dark turn, apparent supporters of ISIL on Twitter were also using the hashtag #باريس_تشتعل (Paris burns) to spread the news. The hashtag is the same that appeared during the bloody January terror attack in Paris on satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo's offices and on a Paris grocery store.
I just don't get this--Twitter should be turning over records on every account that tweets this hashtag, and/or banning accounts--working with the intelligence services to decide on the right course of action. Again--recruitment, incitement to terrorism etc should not be seen as protected speech. I do not understand why ISIS is permitted to use the largest social media platforms with impunity.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2015, 09:02:29 PM
What changes if they are not Muslim psychos?
I guess they could be states rights actiivists from Dixie or maybe disgruntled former Michelin star restaurant reviewers.
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2015, 09:00:58 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2015, 08:56:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2015, 08:53:35 PM
Guys while I agree that Islamic-inspired terrorists are the #1 suspect, we don't actually know who has done this terrible attack, or why. Let's wait for facts before we start debating what to do next.
You're not in court where there is a burden of proof--there have been confirmed, by mainstream, reliable media, reports of Alahu Akbar being screamed during the attacks. This weird post of yours will go down in history as the dumbest thing you've ever said.
Doubtful - I say a lot of dumb things.
But we're not in the court phase yet - we're at the investigation phase. And a good investigator keeps all options open until their is substantial evidence. Tunnel vision is the enemy of a good investigation.
That's a good point. How about all of us here recuse ourselves from the investigations, can we then employ common sense in these discussion?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2015, 08:08:25 PM
The enlightenment was largely what moved the West from being this prone to religious violence. The Muslim world has gone through reformations and it's resulted in movements like Wahhabism.
the arab world was crushed and colonized and has been getting back on its feat only recently.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2015, 08:08:25 PM
The enlightenment was largely what moved the West from being this prone to religious violence. The Muslim world has gone through reformations and it's resulted in movements like Wahhabism.
Actually Muslim writers have been warning for a long time now that the Muslim world is now going through the equivalent of a Reformation struggle and that is essentially what we are witnessing.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 13, 2015, 09:49:29 PM
Actually Muslim writers have been warning for a long time now that the Muslim world is now going through the equivalent of a Reformation struggle and that is essentially what we are witnessing.
Toss in a post-colonial realignment that's been postponed for far too long, and then things get real spicy-like.
:yeahright:
I saw in the news this week that in Indonesia an Imam was calling for the ouster and killing of Christians, to burn churches. Some churches were burnt and Christians attacked. That's new for Indonesia as they've been seen as an example of peaceful coexistence.
And the Germans can speak better to this. Hearing in the news similar type calls there for Muslims to rise up, that as Muslims have more kids they'll overtake Germans, and all that sort of thing and a lot worse, pretty nasty and radical stuff. Saying that Germany will be part of the Caliphate. Lots of attacks on Germans by Muslim youths.
On Greece's island of Lesbos Syrians and others coming ashore are rampaging, pillaging, raping, causing serious problems for the Greeks there.
I could so totally go for some Syrian lesbians right now.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2015, 09:02:29 PM
What changes if they are not Muslim psychos?
Probably a lot. If it's connected to guys coming from ISIS then it could result in military action. Hitting Russia in one week and the French is not a the way to ensure a long and uneventful life. If it turns out that it was the work of the Riddler there probably will be no military action.
So this Paris attack and others such as slaughtering a Jordanian pilot on video, killing Egyptian Copts on video, plus the downing of the Russian airliner, would seem to charge up opposition and you'd think ISIS wouldn't want to keep making so many enemies and bring down so much resistance on their heads. But that's looking at it from another point of view and not theirs. So what is ISIS looking to gain by goading various nations, western and Islamic, into being a lot more active in striking back? Yeah, an ideology isn't easy to break with military action but military force could take out ISIS territory and remove their fledgling Caliphate. Puts them back to square one. That can work against them as it did in Anbar province where Iraqi Sunnis became so fed up with their Al-Qaeda friends and worked with the US/coalition and new Iraqi army during the surge to oust AQ. That was so successful with Iraqi Muslims fighting them that AQ leaders sent out messages to followers to not send any more fighters, that they were done in Iraq. ISIS would know that they can be seriously hurt in their physical lands and be badly set back. So why are they so intent on keeping stirring up the hornet's nest?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2015, 09:04:28 PM
QuoteIn a dark turn, apparent supporters of ISIL on Twitter were also using the hashtag #باريس_تشتعل (Paris burns) to spread the news. The hashtag is the same that appeared during the bloody January terror attack in Paris on satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo's offices and on a Paris grocery store.
I just don't get this--Twitter should be turning over records on every account that tweets this hashtag, and/or banning accounts--working with the intelligence services to decide on the right course of action. Again--recruitment, incitement to terrorism etc should not be seen as protected speech. I do not understand why ISIS is permitted to use the largest social media platforms with impunity.
I saw somewhere that they actually do ban the accounts. It just takes so little effort to for ISIS to just create new accounts almost immediately.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 13, 2015, 10:01:30 PM
Toss in a post-colonial realignment that's been postponed for far too long, and then things get real spicy-like.
Leave me out of this :angry:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2015, 08:24:50 PM
some of those people were terrorists by the time we got around to killing them.
Well, I'm pretty sure none of them turned to terrorism after we killed them.
Egyptian President Al-Sissi delivered a great speech earlier this year. He talked about Muslims banding together to halt the push of radical Islam, how it was so wrong, that sort of thing. A real important speech coming from a major Muslim national leader. But it seems as if that speech was made in a vacuum and not much really done by others to follow up. Maybe US and European leaders should have picked up on that speech and expanded on it, emphasized it, and supported/encouraged other Muslim leaders in the Mid East to take the same attitude. That kind of thing and keeping it up would seem to help galvanize nations and people, at least as powerful talking points.
Quote from: dps on November 13, 2015, 10:50:53 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2015, 08:24:50 PM
some of those people were terrorists by the time we got around to killing them.
Well, I'm pretty sure none of them turned to terrorism after we killed them.
:hmm: Depends on how honest you are about collateral damage.
The most likely response is that there will be some heightened security measures for some time. But I don't expect to see a sea change in immigration / assimilation policies in Western Europe. Whether it be out of common human decency, naivety, demographics realities, oikophobia, human rights concerns, recognition that most Muslims are decent people, simple inertia, or some combination of these things, I doubt this attack will change too much in the long run.
Quote from: Jaron on November 13, 2015, 08:07:24 PM
A few hundred years ago Christianity was pretty brutal too. What with their inquisitions and tortures and burning people alive and all that. Christians moved past that. What was the vehicle of that change? What can help Muslims progress from where they are to where they need to be to be an acceptable part of modern society?
A) Christians moved passed that because most intellectuals, deist or Christian, accepted the Enlightenment and the idea that came with it that religion ought to be emasculated, a tool for keeping social order and not a contender for divided loyalty between the state and their personal faith. Hence why, in France, priests were made to swear (by force if necessary) to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, and why Napoleon had the Concordate consentend to and signed by the Pope. The same should be done with Imams (and really any and all priests of recognized religions) : They accept a "civil" constitution that preach respect and obedience to the rule of law, plus toleration of the land's law and customs and other people's belief, in exchange for being personally paid and receiving financial support from the state, or they have no permit to preact, their property on their cult is forfeit, and non-citizen "priests" are deported. Even that is more lenient than the fate that was reserved to non-swearing priests (read a date with the Lousiette).
B) It took bloody civil wars (even during the revolution with the Vendée) and Christians killing each other in droves for centuries before Christians, as a whole, finally accepted that tolerating other people's beliefs might be better than constant and brutal chaos all the time. Even the Dechristianization in France during the Revolution was rather brutal. Carrier, Hébert and Fouché really didn't fuck around with abstract liberal concepts of "respecting the liberty of Christians" and "sacrificing liberty for security leads to the loss of both" when their society was in mortal danger.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 13, 2015, 09:49:29 PM
Actually Muslim writers have been warning for a long time now that the Muslim world is now going through the equivalent of a Reformation struggle and that is essentially what we are witnessing.
Would Wahhabism and Salafism be the Muslim version of Anabaptists? :hmm:
Quote from: Drakken on November 14, 2015, 12:56:27 AM
Quote from: Jaron on November 13, 2015, 08:07:24 PM
A few hundred years ago Christianity was pretty brutal too. What with their inquisitions and tortures and burning people alive and all that. Christians moved past that. What was the vehicle of that change? What can help Muslims progress from where they are to where they need to be to be an acceptable part of modern society?
A) Christians moved passed that because most intellectuals, deist or Christian, accepted the Enlightenment and the idea that came with it that religion ought to be emasculated, a tool for keeping social order and not a contender for divided loyalty between the state and their personal faith. Hence why, in France, priests were made to swear (by force if necessary) to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, and why Napoleon had the Concordate consentend to and signed by the Pope. The same should be done with Imams (and really any and all priests of recognized religions) : They accept a "civil" constitution that preach respect and obedience to the rule of law, plus toleration of the land's law and customs and other people's belief, in exchange for being personally paid and receiving financial support from the state, or they have no permit to preact, their property on their cult is forfeit, and non-citizen "priests" are deported. Even that is more lenient than the fate that was reserved to non-swearing priests (read a date with the Lousiette).
B) It took bloody civil wars (even during the revolution with the Vendée) and Christians killing each other in droves for centuries before Christians, as a whole, finally accepted that tolerating other people's beliefs might be better than constant and brutal chaos all the time. Even the Dechristianization in France during the Revolution was rather brutal. Carrier, Hébert and Fouché really didn't fuck around with abstract liberal concepts of "respecting the liberty of Christians" and "sacrificing liberty for security leads to the loss of both" when their society was in mortal danger.
Can't wait until the Islamic world catches up to the WWI/II part.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 14, 2015, 01:18:05 AM
Can't wait until the Islamic world catches up to the WWI/II part.
You'll probably be dead.
Quote from: KRonn on November 13, 2015, 10:30:43 PM
So this Paris attack and others such as slaughtering a Jordanian pilot on video, killing Egyptian Copts on video, plus the downing of the Russian airliner, would seem to charge up opposition and you'd think ISIS wouldn't want to keep making so many enemies and bring down so much resistance on their heads. But that's looking at it from another point of view and not theirs. So what is ISIS looking to gain by goading various nations, western and Islamic, into being a lot more active in striking back?
ISIS feeds itself through conflict. It's what drives expansion and attacks like the ones you mentioned make them look strong and tough, and likely attracts (or at least creates sympathy) from weak willed Muslims who think they've been dealt a shitty card, or lack a sense of belonging.
Secondly, I do believe that they do it to stoke the flames, to provoke a backlash against Muslims that will drive more of them into their arms.
Quote from: Syt on November 14, 2015, 02:14:33 AM
Quote from: KRonn on November 13, 2015, 10:30:43 PM
ISIS feeds itself through conflict. It's what drives expansion and attacks like the ones you mentioned make them look strong and tough, and likely attracts (or at least creates sympathy) from weak willed Muslims who think they've been dealt a shitty card, or lack a sense of belonging.
they have been dealt a shitty card. The card's name is Islam.
Quote from: Drakken on November 14, 2015, 12:56:27 AM
A) Christians moved passed that because most intellectuals, deist or Christian, accepted the Enlightenment and the idea that came with it that religion ought to be emasculated, a tool for keeping social order and not a contender for divided loyalty between the state and their personal faith. Hence why, in France, priests were made to swear (by force if necessary) to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, and why Napoleon had the Concordate consentend to and signed by the Pope. The same should be done with Imams (and really any and all priests of recognized religions) : They accept a "civil" constitution that preach respect and obedience to the rule of law, plus toleration of the land's law and customs and other people's belief, in exchange for being personally paid and receiving financial support from the state, or they have no permit to preact, their property on their cult is forfeit, and non-citizen "priests" are deported. Even that is more lenient than the fate that was reserved to non-swearing priests (read a date with the Lousiette).
B) It took bloody civil wars (even during the revolution with the Vendée) and Christians killing each other in droves for centuries before Christians, as a whole, finally accepted that tolerating other people's beliefs might be better than constant and brutal chaos all the time. Even the Dechristianization in France during the Revolution was rather brutal. Carrier, Hébert and Fouché really didn't fuck around with abstract liberal concepts of "respecting the liberty of Christians" and "sacrificing liberty for security leads to the loss of both" when their society was in mortal danger.
You may be right, but I think you're overlooking one significant difference: the basic text of Christians was anti-violence, so anyone arguing in favor of anti-violence from a Christian perspective had unimpeachable credibility.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2015, 02:38:57 AMYou may be right, but I think you're overlooking one significant difference: the basic text of Christians was anti-violence, so anyone arguing in favor of anti-violence from a Christian perspective had unimpeachable credibility.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2015, 08:08:25 PM
The enlightenment was largely what moved the West from being this prone to religious violence. The Muslim world has gone through reformations and it's resulted in movements like Wahhabism.
I think the mistake is somehow conflating reformation and the enlightenment in the West - reformation did not bring peace or tolerance - it brought often an even greater persecution and violence.
And enlightenment declared war on religion - any religion - with a zeal that makes look Richard Dawkins tame. This is what happened - religion, at least on the European continent, was declawed and castrated by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic era.
So that's your answer, Jaron.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2015, 02:44:13 AMI guess you showed me. :cheers:
yeah, that was rude of me. but really, i just spent more time than i'd like in that earlier thread a few weeks ago trying to argue how that point is bunk.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2015, 08:21:48 PM
I've yet to see a workable answer. When a country like Sweden has seen attempted terrorist attacks (the Iraqi who tried to kill people--but failed, who bombed Stockholm being an example) the "dovish" response clearly doesn't make this stuff not happen. I mean of the various countries in Europe, France has certainly been involved in some campaigns against Islamic terrorists, but it isn't a big supporter of Israel, it doesn't have any boots on the ground in the Middle East, its first airstrikes against ISIS were just in September of this year--and they'd already suffered the Charlie Hebdo attacks and other acts of Islamic terror before that. Plus, I don't even buy into these attacks being necessarily related to our (the West's) behavior in the Middle East anymore. That may have inspired 9/11, but I think we're entering a stage now where it's the domestic Muslims who simply dislike the Western societies they've found themselves in who are going to be the ones carrying out attacks on us. Not the ones mad we're killing Jihadi John, but the ones who don't like a society where women have equal rights to men, or where I'm allowed to draw a picture of Muhammad without being put to death.
In some ways that scares me more than the al-Qaeda attacks on the United States--that was an attack largely as a response to the American geopolitical behavior in the Middle East. I'm not saying I'm okay with 9/11, obviously, but I'm saying we can always make decisions about our Foreign Policy pretty easily. We can decide if it's worth it to be involved in the Middle East or not, for example.
But when you have growing domestic Muslim populations, and a percentage are enthralled by jihadist social media, videos etc, and then a portion of those are willing to kill--that's a problem. Those people are there now, they aren't leaving, they aren't going anywhere. They don't disappear just because we stop bombing ISIS.
As an American I don't feel a lot of personal fear, to be honest America is so big, with its population still well into the positive growth territory, and we also have a long history of " leave people's religion alone" in terms of government that I actually think our Muslim population just isn't a big problem. We're so far from the Middle East we'll never see the influx of Muslims Europe is, and we are also much bigger than any European country and can more easily absorb the small numbers we get. Some of these tiny European countries, with aging and declining secular/native European populations who are seeing huge amounts of Muslim immigration and then seeing those immigrants maintain astronomical reproduction rates--that would really scare me as a European. These aren't Mexicans (who America honestly has been living with ever since the Louisiana Purchase days) looking for work. In a free society that reflects the will of its people, what happens to secular, liberal Europe when a country's population is 30% Muslim, 40? 50?
I don't have answers or ideas, I don't know that there are any easy answers.
The one thing I will say is this--jihadist recruitment should not be protected speech, Lincoln didn't let Confederate recruiters operate with impunity in the Northern States. We need to force social media and streaming providers to 100% ban any jihadist recruitment activities from their platforms. We need our national police forces to shut down independent sites that run this stuff, and we need strong criminal laws prohibiting advocating going on jihad or etc. Recruiting for the enemy has never been protected activity in the United States. I don't know about in Europe--but it shouldn't be if it is.
The first and obvious response to this is "but you can't regulate the entire internet." Of course you can't, but you can regulate the huge forums and social media services that jihadists are recruiting on. ISIS has literally spoken with prospective jihadists over Facebook. That can't be happening. What happens when you clamp down is this shit goes underground. I have no illusions you can get it off the internet, but I also think of the hundreds of thousands of disaffected teenage Muslims living in the West the number who have a Facebook account is way higher than the number who know how to download and run the Tor browser. We can't stop child pornography from being distributed on the internet, but we have certainly made it more difficult to distribute it openly. That's what needs to happen with jihadist recruitment efforts, there are going to be a large percentage of people that will not be engaging with this extremism to the same degree if it involves having to slink around unknown corners of the internet, install specialty software and etc. Again--some will always be willing to take those steps, but not all, and any reduction in open recruitment to jihadism is a good thing.
I don't think Western Europe treats jihadist recruitment as protected speech - quite the contrary. To me, the problem is Saudi funding for wahhabist clerics in Europe. I think we should crack down on those first - send undercover cops to larger mosques and muslim schools in the countries like France or the UK (if someone thinks this is racial profiling, fuck you) - and brutally, with extreme prejudice, deal those who call to violence or attack our fundamental laws. Make these places self police - if they invite a hate-preaching cleric, they get closed down - after the first offense, for 3 to 6 months, after the second offense permanently.
But also deal in the same manner with right wing criminals who attack immigrants or preach violence against them.
I posted an article by Zizek few months ago - he had a good idea and it still stands, imo. We need to start enforcing the principles of Western liberal democracy that grew out of the Enlightenment and refuse to tolerate its enemies.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 13, 2015, 10:20:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2015, 09:02:29 PM
What changes if they are not Muslim psychos?
Probably a lot. If it's connected to guys coming from ISIS then it could result in military action. Hitting Russia in one week and the French is not a the way to ensure a long and uneventful life. If it turns out that it was the work of the Riddler there probably will be no military action.
Besides, if it is orchestrated by ISIS, I would say it qualifies as an Article 5 event.
Quote from: KRonn on November 13, 2015, 10:30:43 PM
So this Paris attack and others such as slaughtering a Jordanian pilot on video, killing Egyptian Copts on video, plus the downing of the Russian airliner, would seem to charge up opposition and you'd think ISIS wouldn't want to keep making so many enemies and bring down so much resistance on their heads. But that's looking at it from another point of view and not theirs. So what is ISIS looking to gain by goading various nations, western and Islamic, into being a lot more active in striking back? Yeah, an ideology isn't easy to break with military action but military force could take out ISIS territory and remove their fledgling Caliphate. Puts them back to square one. That can work against them as it did in Anbar province where Iraqi Sunnis became so fed up with their Al-Qaeda friends and worked with the US/coalition and new Iraqi army during the surge to oust AQ. That was so successful with Iraqi Muslims fighting them that AQ leaders sent out messages to followers to not send any more fighters, that they were done in Iraq. ISIS would know that they can be seriously hurt in their physical lands and be badly set back. So why are they so intent on keeping stirring up the hornet's nest?
Well, they are not exactly rational to begin with, but I guess they are counting on no response or weak response and employing a type of salami tactics. What they gain is, essentially, radicalization of their followers, which helps in recruitment.
By the way, when they burned the Jordanian pilot, there was a big talk of Jordanian army essentially wiping ISIS off the planet, with the king leading the charge and whatnot. What happened to that?
Here's a link to the full article by Zizek (http://www.lrb.co.uk/2015/09/09/slavoj-zizek/the-non-existence-of-norway), and below are his four points, with which I, broadly speaking, agree, especially no. 2:
QuoteFirst, in the present moment, Europe must reassert its commitment to provide for the dignified treatment of the refugees. There should be no compromise here: large migrations are our future, and the only alternative to such a commitment is renewed barbarism (what some call a 'clash of civilisations').
Second, as a necessary consequence of this commitment, Europe should impose clear rules and regulations. Control of the stream of refugees should be enforced through an administrative network encompassing all of the members of the European Union (to prevent local barbarisms like those of the authorities in Hungary or Slovakia). Refugees should be assured of their safety, but it should also be made clear to them that they must accept the destination allocated to them by European authorities, and that they will have to respect the laws and social norms of European states: no tolerance of religious, sexist or ethnic violence; no right to impose on others one's own religion or way of life; respect for every individual's freedom to abandon his or her communal customs, etc. If a woman chooses to cover her face, her choice must be respected; if she chooses not to cover her face, her freedom not to do so must be guaranteed. Such rules privilege the Western European way of life, but that is the price to be paid for European hospitality. These rules should be clearly stated and enforced, by repressive measures – against foreign fundamentalists as well as against our own racists – where necessary.
Third, a new kind of international military and economic intervention will have to be invented – a kind of intervention that avoids the neocolonial traps of the recent past. The cases of Iraq, Syria and Libya demonstrate how the wrong sort of intervention (in Iraq and Libya) as well as non-intervention (in Syria, where, beneath the appearance of non-intervention, external powers such as Russia and Saudi Arabia are deeply involved) end up in the same deadlock.
Fourth, most important and most difficult of all, there is a need for radical economic change which would abolish the conditions that create refugees. Without a transformation in the workings of global capitalism, non-European refugees will soon be joined by migrants from Greece and other countries within the Union. When I was young, such an organised attempt at regulation was called communism. Maybe we should reinvent it. Maybe this is, in the long term, the only solution.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2015, 08:21:48 PM
Some of these tiny European countries, with aging and declining secular/native European populations who are seeing huge amounts of Muslim immigration and then seeing those immigrants maintain astronomical reproduction rates--that would really scare me as a European. [...] In a free society that reflects the will of its people, what happens to secular, liberal Europe when a country's population is 30% Muslim, 40? 50?
I can't speak for other countries, but in Germany second generation migrants have a fertility rate barely above non-migrants, both way below replacement. There is also a net emigration of e.g. Turks, our biggest group of notional Muslims. And in the last census only 1.9% self-identified as Muslims, not the 5-7% you read about elsewhere. Based on this and anecdotal evidence from the people with a supposed Muslim background that I know, my impression is that fears of "Eurabia" are vastly exaggerated.
QuoteThe one thing I will say is this--jihadist recruitment should not be protected speech, Lincoln didn't let Confederate recruiters operate with impunity in the Northern States. We need to force social media and streaming providers to 100% ban any jihadist recruitment activities from their platforms.
The German government has big problems to get Facebook to ban hate speech (both Nazi and Islamist). They are very unhelpful there. Germany has very limited recourse over Facebook as it is opersting beyond Germany's jurisdiction. But at least they quickly delete pictures that show a naked boob. :rolleyes:
Jihadi speech is certainly not protected speech in Spain. But yeah, there's trouble to get the big social networks to collaborate.
At least I hope they are more diligent when feeding that info to the NSA.
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2015, 03:22:58 AM
Here's a link to the full article by Zizek (http://www.lrb.co.uk/2015/09/09/slavoj-zizek/the-non-existence-of-norway), and below are his four points, with which I, broadly speaking, agree, especially no. 2:
You broadly speaking agree with the reinvention of communism? :huh:
It's Zizek. He likes hyperbole but probably means the global Tobin tax.
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2015, 03:04:04 AM
We need to start enforcing the principles of Western liberal democracy that grew out of the Enlightenment and refuse to tolerate its enemies.
This would be racist.
Reading posts on Facebook, it all sadly falls into one of two camps of idiocy.
On the one hand you have right wingers - who also in Poland happen to be Catholic fundamentalists more often than not - who basically equate all immigrants and refugees with islamic terrorists, without realising that their own contempt for liberal Western values is what makes them quite similar to islamists
On the other hand you have left wingers - who refuse to acknowledge there is any link between terrorism and Islam in the first place.
It's all very frustrating... :frusty:
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2015, 05:08:54 AM
Reading posts on Facebook, it all sadly falls into one of two camps of idiocy.
On the one hand you have right wingers - who also in Poland happen to be Catholic fundamentalists more often than not - who basically equate all immigrants and refugees with islamic terrorists, without realising that their own contempt for liberal Western values is what makes them quite similar to islamists
On the other hand you have left wingers - who refuse to acknowledge there is any link between terrorism and Islam in the first place.
It's all very frustrating... :frusty:
It is indeed. Worst line of my feed: "stop blaming a religion because of 8 crazy idiots".
The Danish foreign minister already used the attack for political campaigning in the upcoming EU judicial membership vote. I have never seen so much backlash against a politician as over this though, Twitter hates him.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2015, 08:04:35 PM
Reasonable Muslims at some point have to realize that there is too much about their religion that is fucked up, say to world that some things Mohammed said were retarded, that some of the Koran is bullshit, and either chuck it altogether or pick out some parts that are worth saving and invent a new religion.
They pretty much do don't they?
Not in that same way but certainly in a "these violent picks aren't real Muslims. Their interpretation is dumb" way.
Quote from: Tyr on November 14, 2015, 06:07:44 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2015, 08:04:35 PM
Reasonable Muslims at some point have to realize that there is too much about their religion that is fucked up, say to world that some things Mohammed said were retarded, that some of the Koran is bullshit, and either chuck it altogether or pick out some parts that are worth saving and invent a new religion.
They pretty much do don't they?
Not in that same way but certainly in a "these violent picks aren't real Muslims. Their interpretation is dumb" way.
Is that enough? Isn't it time to call for a reformation?
The way see it there's nothing to reform. It's the extremists who are the ones trying to launch a reformation.
Which...considering protestantism is all about going back to the biblical text, contains the strictest and most literal Christians, does kind of make sense.
Yeah, it is not time for reformation (ISIS is the muslim Calvinism already) but secularisation.
Which, as others pointed out, in the Christian West required brutal force. And, coming to think of it, this is what Hussein, Qaddafi, Mubarak and the Turkish army used to be doing...
The Church of Sweden went from dogmatic old-skoolism to today's watered down don't-even-believe-in-our-own-God organization without any major upheavals. Obviously Sweden didn't exist in a vacuum but it's not like force is always necessary to break the power of religions or churches. It may well be in Islam of course, they do come across as less open to reason.
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2015, 06:32:06 AM
Yeah, it is not time for reformation (ISIS is the muslim Calvinism already) but secularisation.
Which, as others pointed out, in the Christian West required brutal force. And, coming to think of it, this is what Hussein, Qaddafi, Mubarak and the Turkish army used to be doing...
Agreed secularism is the way to go. And this works a lot better with the generic old fashioned faith as it has always been rather than with some fancy religious revival reform movement.
It is sad however in that such positive changes will always have reactionaries. A big reason for Islamic extremism, this knee jerk reactionary movement, is the growing secularism of other muslims. 'Home grown extremists' in particular tend to come from very secular backgrounds from whence they go through some sort of quest for identity and latch on to a pseudo-intellectual back to basics emo-tastic brand of Islam
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2015, 06:32:06 AM
Yeah, it is not time for reformation (ISIS is the muslim Calvinism already) but secularisation.
Which, as others pointed out, in the Christian West required brutal force. And, coming to think of it, this is what Hussein, Qaddafi, Mubarak and the Turkish army used to be doing...
That's not fair to Calvinism.
ISIS is Muslim. From the time of the Khwarajis you've had fanatical break off sects who want to kill everyone. That's how the religion started in the first place.
Quote from: The Brain on November 14, 2015, 06:53:31 AM
The Church of Sweden went from dogmatic old-skoolism to today's watered down don't-even-believe-in-our-own-God organization without any major upheavals. Obviously Sweden didn't exist in a vacuum but it's not like force is always necessary to break the power of religions or churches. It may well be in Islam of course, they do come across as less open to reason.
Well, but it did come from losing a number of wars.
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2015, 07:04:05 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 14, 2015, 06:53:31 AM
The Church of Sweden went from dogmatic old-skoolism to today's watered down don't-even-believe-in-our-own-God organization without any major upheavals. Obviously Sweden didn't exist in a vacuum but it's not like force is always necessary to break the power of religions or churches. It may well be in Islam of course, they do come across as less open to reason.
Well, but it did come from losing a number of wars.
wut
Quote from: The Brain on November 14, 2015, 07:04:59 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2015, 07:04:05 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 14, 2015, 06:53:31 AM
The Church of Sweden went from dogmatic old-skoolism to today's watered down don't-even-believe-in-our-own-God organization without any major upheavals. Obviously Sweden didn't exist in a vacuum but it's not like force is always necessary to break the power of religions or churches. It may well be in Islam of course, they do come across as less open to reason.
Well, but it did come from losing a number of wars.
wut
Sweden did lose a number of wars before it mellowed out.
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2015, 07:15:17 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 14, 2015, 07:04:59 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2015, 07:04:05 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 14, 2015, 06:53:31 AM
The Church of Sweden went from dogmatic old-skoolism to today's watered down don't-even-believe-in-our-own-God organization without any major upheavals. Obviously Sweden didn't exist in a vacuum but it's not like force is always necessary to break the power of religions or churches. It may well be in Islam of course, they do come across as less open to reason.
Well, but it did come from losing a number of wars.
wut
Sweden did lose a number of wars before it mellowed out.
What's the connection?
Secularisation in Sweden was a 20th century thing right?
Sweden is also pretty insignificant. It has the population of about 3-4 large cities.
Quote from: Drakken on November 14, 2015, 12:56:27 AM
A) Christians moved passed that because most intellectuals, deist or Christian, accepted the Enlightenment and the idea that came with it that religion ought to be emasculated, a tool for keeping social order and not a contender for divided loyalty between the state and their personal faith. Hence why, in France, priests were made to swear (by force if necessary) to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, and why Napoleon had the Concordate consentend to and signed by the Pope. The same should be done with Imams (and really any and all priests of recognized religions) : They accept a "civil" constitution that preach respect and obedience to the rule of law, plus toleration of the land's law and customs and other people's belief, in exchange for being personally paid and receiving financial support from the state, or they have no permit to preact, their property on their cult is forfeit, and non-citizen "priests" are deported. Even that is more lenient than the fate that was reserved to non-swearing priests (read a date with the Lousiette).
B) It took bloody civil wars (even during the revolution with the Vendée) and Christians killing each other in droves for centuries before Christians, as a whole, finally accepted that tolerating other people's beliefs might be better than constant and brutal chaos all the time. Even the Dechristianization in France during the Revolution was rather brutal. Carrier, Hébert and Fouché really didn't fuck around with abstract liberal concepts of "respecting the liberty of Christians" and "sacrificing liberty for security leads to the loss of both" when their society was in mortal danger.
Your idea only works for religions organized along feudal lines. There is no pope for protestants, orthodox, jews, muslims, hindus, buddhists, etc. Congregations of these faiths are independent, so collective punishment just makes the problem you are trying to solve worse.
There may be modern paralels to Catholic France of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic era, but there aren't many.
Quote from: grumbler on November 14, 2015, 08:25:51 AM
Quote from: Drakken on November 14, 2015, 12:56:27 AM
A) Christians moved passed that because most intellectuals, deist or Christian, accepted the Enlightenment and the idea that came with it that religion ought to be emasculated, a tool for keeping social order and not a contender for divided loyalty between the state and their personal faith. Hence why, in France, priests were made to swear (by force if necessary) to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, and why Napoleon had the Concordate consentend to and signed by the Pope. The same should be done with Imams (and really any and all priests of recognized religions) : They accept a "civil" constitution that preach respect and obedience to the rule of law, plus toleration of the land's law and customs and other people's belief, in exchange for being personally paid and receiving financial support from the state, or they have no permit to preact, their property on their cult is forfeit, and non-citizen "priests" are deported. Even that is more lenient than the fate that was reserved to non-swearing priests (read a date with the Lousiette).
B) It took bloody civil wars (even during the revolution with the Vendée) and Christians killing each other in droves for centuries before Christians, as a whole, finally accepted that tolerating other people's beliefs might be better than constant and brutal chaos all the time. Even the Dechristianization in France during the Revolution was rather brutal. Carrier, Hébert and Fouché really didn't fuck around with abstract liberal concepts of "respecting the liberty of Christians" and "sacrificing liberty for security leads to the loss of both" when their society was in mortal danger.
Your idea only works for religions organized along feudal lines. There is no pope for protestants, orthodox, jews, muslims, hindus, buddhists, etc. Congregations of these faiths are independent, so collective punishment just makes the problem you are trying to solve worse.
There may be modern paralels to Catholic France of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic era, but there aren't many.
But there are even fewer to reformation, and those that are, are not positive.
Quote from: Liep on November 14, 2015, 05:52:02 AM
It is indeed. Worst line of my feed: "stop blaming a religion because of 8 crazy idiots".
The worst of mine was the idea that we should "stop blaming secularism because of 8 crazy idiots"
We need to ban religion and secularism both.
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2015, 08:29:19 AM
But there are even fewer to reformation, and those that are, are not positive.
And there are fewer yet to the Challanger disaster, and those are even less positive.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2015, 02:38:57 AM
Quote from: Drakken on November 14, 2015, 12:56:27 AM
A) Christians moved passed that because most intellectuals, deist or Christian, accepted the Enlightenment and the idea that came with it that religion ought to be emasculated, a tool for keeping social order and not a contender for divided loyalty between the state and their personal faith. Hence why, in France, priests were made to swear (by force if necessary) to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, and why Napoleon had the Concordate consentend to and signed by the Pope. The same should be done with Imams (and really any and all priests of recognized religions) : They accept a "civil" constitution that preach respect and obedience to the rule of law, plus toleration of the land's law and customs and other people's belief, in exchange for being personally paid and receiving financial support from the state, or they have no permit to preact, their property on their cult is forfeit, and non-citizen "priests" are deported. Even that is more lenient than the fate that was reserved to non-swearing priests (read a date with the Lousiette).
B) It took bloody civil wars (even during the revolution with the Vendée) and Christians killing each other in droves for centuries before Christians, as a whole, finally accepted that tolerating other people's beliefs might be better than constant and brutal chaos all the time. Even the Dechristianization in France during the Revolution was rather brutal. Carrier, Hébert and Fouché really didn't fuck around with abstract liberal concepts of "respecting the liberty of Christians" and "sacrificing liberty for security leads to the loss of both" when their society was in mortal danger.
You may be right, but I think you're overlooking one significant difference: the basic text of Christians was anti-violence, so anyone arguing in favor of anti-violence from a Christian perspective had unimpeachable credibility.
Oh great, another generalization excusing all the violent parts of the Bible and all the violence of Christianity so that Muslims can be targeted for their religion.
So, at this point, what are the odds of a NATO-ISIS ground war?
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on November 14, 2015, 10:25:05 AM
So, at this point, what are the odds of a NATO-ISIS ground war?
Not high enough to suit me.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on November 14, 2015, 10:25:05 AM
So, at this point, what are the odds of a NATO-ISIS ground war?
On a 100 scale? 20-25, imo.
Sadly, Russia is still in the way.
I would anticipate heavy pressure on Turkey in the coming weeks. Exploration of military options leads inevitably to scenarios involving supply through Turkey and cooperation with the Kurdish militia forces. That would require significant change in Turkish policy. France could invoke the NATO charter thus requiring Turkey's cooperation and assistance as a matter of treaty (if not reality). Perhaps Erdogan will be more flexible having won his election but I would anticipate friction.
Another obvious line of thought involves broader intel cooperation and more collection efforts; so I would expect renewed debate within Europe about the Snowden question.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 14, 2015, 10:39:17 AM
I would anticipate heavy pressure on Turkey in the coming weeks. Exploration of military options leads inevitably to scenarios involving supply through Turkey and cooperation with the Kurdish militia forces. That would require significant change in Turkish policy. France could invoke the NATO charter thus requiring Turkey's cooperation and assistance as a matter of treaty (if not reality). Perhaps Erdogan will be more flexible having won his election but I would anticipate friction.
Another obvious line of thought involves broader intel cooperation and more collection efforts; so I would expect renewed debate within Europe about the Snowden question.
The problem with Turkey is their intelligence services have been caught red-handed sending weapons to ISIS, how do you make sure all of the Turkish state and Erdogen get in line with a firm NATO anti-ISIS response?
Without an end to Muslim immigration into France and Europe, Hollande's "pitiless war" isn't a serious proposition. Hell, Mutti Merkel wants to halt Germany's death-spiral demographics by fast-track Islamization.
Oh, and 16% of French citizens support ISIS.
http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-poll-finds-266795 (http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-poll-finds-266795)
Hence I anticipate friction.
One would hope at this point the Turks see that the blowback risks have become unmanageable and back away from going full Pakistan
TGV accident with several dead, the French are not getting a break :(
https://t.co/N2zBn19BwY
Quote from: Legbiter on November 14, 2015, 10:45:40 AM
Without an end to Muslim immigration into France and Europe, Hollande's "pitiless war" isn't a serious proposition. Hell, Mutti Merkel wants to halt Germany's death-spiral demographics by fast-track Islamization.
You are aware that the refugees flee from the people that committed these acts? :huh:
Quote from: Zanza on November 14, 2015, 10:52:43 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on November 14, 2015, 10:45:40 AM
Without an end to Muslim immigration into France and Europe, Hollande's "pitiless war" isn't a serious proposition. Hell, Mutti Merkel wants to halt Germany's death-spiral demographics by fast-track Islamization.
You are aware that the refugees flee from the people that committed these acts? :huh:
This is cute but silly.
Syria had 50% youth unemployment before the war. I don't know how many refugees have had work in 3 years. They've lived brutal religious conflict instead. And they're going to see all the wealth and culture of Europe but be unable to attain to it or participate in it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 14, 2015, 10:46:26 AM
Hence I anticipate friction.
One would hope at this point the Turks see that the blowback risks have become unmanageable and back away from going full Pakistan
Yes one would hope.
My fear is the Turkish states absolute opposition to all things tinged with Kurdistan means a series of irrational responses is more likely; proto-Pakistan?
Don't leave us hanging. Spell it out. What is your conclusion from these observations?
Quote from: Maladict on November 14, 2015, 10:48:45 AM
TGV accident with several dead, the French are not getting a break :(
https://t.co/N2zBn19BwY
That's a trial TGV for the new high-speed line extending from Lorraine (Baudrécourt) to Strasbourg I guess. Looked a bit like an ICE (German TGV). 5 dead "only" since this was not a normal train operating. Could have been lot worse, I guess that's why there are trials before opening a new line but still. :(
Quote from: Legbiter on November 14, 2015, 10:45:40 AM
Without an end to Muslim immigration into France and Europe, Hollande's "pitiless war" isn't a serious proposition. Hell, Mutti Merkel wants to halt Germany's death-spiral demographics by fast-track Islamization.
Oh, and 16% of French citizens support ISIS.
http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-poll-finds-266795 (http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-poll-finds-266795)
this is like watching the NRA in the aftermath of a school shooting (edit - not just you, legbiter, just the really weak arguments in general blaming all this on islam). you know that article is from over a year ago, right
Quote from: LaCroix on November 14, 2015, 11:32:18 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on November 14, 2015, 10:45:40 AM
Without an end to Muslim immigration into France and Europe, Hollande's "pitiless war" isn't a serious proposition. Hell, Mutti Merkel wants to halt Germany's death-spiral demographics by fast-track Islamization.
Oh, and 16% of French citizens support ISIS.
http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-poll-finds-266795 (http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-poll-finds-266795)
this is like watching the NRA in the aftermath of a school shooting (edit - not just you, legbiter, just the really weak arguments in general blaming all this on islam). you know that article is from over a year ago, right
It's a Roscharch test to reveal what people actually believe. Serves us well to remember who we are debating with over here.
Quote from: The Larch on November 14, 2015, 12:06:39 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 14, 2015, 11:32:18 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on November 14, 2015, 10:45:40 AM
Without an end to Muslim immigration into France and Europe, Hollande's "pitiless war" isn't a serious proposition. Hell, Mutti Merkel wants to halt Germany's death-spiral demographics by fast-track Islamization.
Oh, and 16% of French citizens support ISIS.
http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-poll-finds-266795 (http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-poll-finds-266795)
this is like watching the NRA in the aftermath of a school shooting (edit - not just you, legbiter, just the really weak arguments in general blaming all this on islam). you know that article is from over a year ago, right
It's a Roscharch test to reveal what people actually believe. Serves us well to remember who we are debating with over here.
:yes:
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 14, 2015, 12:25:54 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 14, 2015, 12:06:39 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 14, 2015, 11:32:18 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on November 14, 2015, 10:45:40 AM
Without an end to Muslim immigration into France and Europe, Hollande's "pitiless war" isn't a serious proposition. Hell, Mutti Merkel wants to halt Germany's death-spiral demographics by fast-track Islamization.
Oh, and 16% of French citizens support ISIS.
http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-poll-finds-266795 (http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-poll-finds-266795)
this is like watching the NRA in the aftermath of a school shooting (edit - not just you, legbiter, just the really weak arguments in general blaming all this on islam). you know that article is from over a year ago, right
It's a Roscharch test to reveal what people actually believe. Serves us well to remember who we are debating with over here.
:yes:
indeed
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 14, 2015, 02:34:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 14, 2015, 12:25:54 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 14, 2015, 12:06:39 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 14, 2015, 11:32:18 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on November 14, 2015, 10:45:40 AM
Without an end to Muslim immigration into France and Europe, Hollande's "pitiless war" isn't a serious proposition. Hell, Mutti Merkel wants to halt Germany's death-spiral demographics by fast-track Islamization.
Oh, and 16% of French citizens support ISIS.
http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-poll-finds-266795 (http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-poll-finds-266795)
this is like watching the NRA in the aftermath of a school shooting (edit - not just you, legbiter, just the really weak arguments in general blaming all this on islam). you know that article is from over a year ago, right
It's a Roscharch test to reveal what people actually believe. Serves us well to remember who we are debating with over here.
:yes:
indeed
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frummuser.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fdenial.jpg&hash=85304e6c2b1ffd1761bc5b56f5b399e3cd0ddde2)
Quote from: Zanza on November 14, 2015, 10:52:43 AM
You are aware that the refugees flee from the people that committed these acts? :huh:
*Sigh*
Zanza, your child-like mind seems to be totally unable to comprehend, lest alone properly react, to what the muslim migration really means to Europe. You just believe without questioning any garbage spouted at you, accepting it as the truth.
Here, the Greek Public Order minister, Yannis Koutsomitis, confirms in his twitter that one of the attackers, found with a Syrian passport, had been registered as a refugee when he landed in the Greek Island of Leros:
https://twitter.com/YanniKouts/status/665555110467084289 (https://twitter.com/YanniKouts/status/665555110467084289)
While you read that with your wide-eyed childish eyes, I will also add that we're still waiting for the "deportations" from Germany that you said were would be starting several weeks ago.
Guess we'll just have to sit and wait for decades, because the German authorities have neither the will nor the power to enforce any judicial decision on the migrants, no matter how much they are ruled by the proper instances that they are no refugees. Yet, like any child, you deeply believe that "the grown-ups" (or, in your case, the authorities) will do something wise and that all of this will somehow magically go away and you will be back to living a nice life.
Poor deluded fool... I really pity you. :cry:
:lol:
But yes, I do trust that our authorities will eventually act and probably right. If I came from a dysfunctional state like Portugal I would probably feel like you.
:lol:
"You believe any garbage presented to you"-> proceeds to rattle off any garbage presented to him.
Quote from: Zanza on November 14, 2015, 02:57:06 PM
:lol:
But yes, I do trust that our authorities will eventually act and probably right. If I came from a dysfunctional state like Portugal I would probably feel like you.
Yes you do. Because you have the mind of a child.
And you will keep be surprised when these things happen again. And AGAIN. And AGAIN.
Until it happens to YOU, or to someone you hold dear.
Hey, don't worry. Your authorities will probably do something. Maybe this time world leaders will stage a march over a LONGER avenue with even STERNER faces.
That will show those terrorists who means business.
Yes, Portugal has bad governments. It also has a more backward population, which has not been emasculated like yours has. Which is why, unlike Spain, terrorism does not happen here - if any such attack were to happen, the Muslim community in Portugal would physically cease to exist within the week. And they know it very well, so they behave.
Quote from: Tyr
"You believe any garbage presented to you"-> proceeds to rattle off any garbage presented to him.
Proceeds to put on the statement from the Greek minister and pointed out the lack of (promised) action by the German authorities. Both of which are facts.
Tyr sees it as "any garbage". :rolleyes:
No point speaking with idiots - proven long ago to be able to dismiss actual facts, let alone be able to have a discussion on any issue.
Humblebrag about your backwardedness? :lol:
By the way, I won't be surprised when this happens again. I guess that is inevitable in our liberal societies.
But I don't think that genocide - i.e. what you expect and I guess welcome as a supposed reaction in Portugal - is a solution to this situation. I guess my childlike mind is just too soft.
Gotta love those "anti-racist" Gutmenschen.
I think the "rational liberal" response should be to:
1. Help the refugees, within reason.
2. Acknowledge that whilst most muslims are not terrorists, islam does breed more terrorism than any other contemporary religion or ideology.
3. Dedicate resources to policing and investigating muslim communities (despite cries of racial profiling).
4. Crack down heavily on any illiberal crimes and behaviour - both from islamophobic thugs (mandatory prison sentences for attacks on immigrants) and from fundamentalist muslims (mandatory deportations for stuff like domestic violence or "sharia patrols" etc.).
5. Crack down on foreign funding coming from nondemocratic muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia.
Feel free to be a Schlechtmensch instead, duque...
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 14, 2015, 09:27:49 AM
Oh great, another generalization excusing all the violent parts of the Bible and all the violence of Christianity so that Muslims can be targeted for their religion.
Yi wants to target people for their religion? Further I don't think he was excusing anything.
Yeah, I don't think the argument "Bible says this vs. Quran says this" really gets us anywhere. The fact it Islam is overrepresented these days as a hotbed for violent extremism. That does not mean it should be banned - but it means that looking closer at its adherents is not racial profiling but simply sensible allocation of limited resources available to national security. Just as having a higher premium for motor insurance for younger people is not discrimination.
Quote from: Zanza on November 14, 2015, 04:26:37 PM
Feel free to be a Schlechtmensch instead, duque...
Being lectured by a self-loathing, self-proclaimed anti-racist known for derogatory comments against Portuguese people after reading non-PC comments by a couple of Portuguese: priceless!
Quote from: Tyr on November 14, 2015, 06:07:44 AM
They pretty much do don't they?
Not in that same way but certainly in a "these violent picks aren't real Muslims. Their interpretation is dumb" way.
That's what we have right now.
Yep. Muslims, at least the ones I like, have been saying beautiful things and condemning the extremists long before anybody ever flew a plane into the World Trade Center. The extremists don't like them and will not listen. As far they are concerned peaceful Muslims are just tools of the infidel.
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2015, 04:42:03 PM
Yeah, I don't think the argument "Bible says this vs. Quran says this" really gets us anywhere. The fact it Islam is overrepresented these days as a hotbed for violent extremism. That does not mean it should be banned - but it means that looking closer at its adherents is not racial profiling but simply sensible allocation of limited resources available to national security. Just as having a higher premium for motor insurance for younger people is not discrimination.
Except it does become racial profiling as carried out by the general populace.
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 05:23:00 PM
Except it does become racial profiling as carried out by the general populace.
Well that is going to happen anyway. They are from a different culture and have a habit of making bad headlines. Like how much gun toting southern rednecks are hated and feared by everybody on the coasts.
I don't think we have to adjust our national security resource allocations in order to try to stop that from happening. I think those are pretty independent things.
We should also be keeping an eye on angry lonely white guys as well.
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2015, 05:35:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 05:23:00 PM
Except it does become racial profiling as carried out by the general populace.
Well that is going to happen anyway. They are from a different culture and have a habit of making bad headlines. Like how much gun toting southern rednecks are hated and feared by everybody on the coasts.
I don't think we have to adjust our national security resource allocations in order to try to stop that from happening. I think those are pretty independent things.
We should also be keeping an eye on angry lonely white guys as well.
But it doesn't stop there. It spreads to lots of other brown skinned people who have the 'right' look.
Also, I think it is misguided to say that gov't policy has no effect on people's attitudes. The government deems 'those people' a threat and that has no effect on how people feel about them?
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 14, 2015, 04:42:34 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 14, 2015, 04:26:37 PM
Feel free to be a Schlechtmensch instead, duque...
Being lectured by a self-loathing, self-proclaimed anti-racist known for derogatory comments against Portuguese people after reading non-PC comments by a couple of Portuguese: priceless!
Known for derogatory comments against Portuguese? Eh, I am pretty certain that I have virtually never posted anything about Portugal because I actually don't have an opinion (just did a forum search and it turned out 20 posts in total - most from EUIV). I reacted to Martin now as he specifically picked me for being a naive German, but that's about it. I admit that I should have kept it to him and not referred to his home though. :Embarrass:
That said, you seem to have a surprisingly strong opinion about me. No idea how I earned that, but I guess you are right. I am a self-proclaimed anti-racist, not self-loathingly but proudly so. :)
This gun-toting redneck hasn't been able to carry since late September because I had to get a new license on account of moving and the state keeps accidentally sending it to the wrong County sheriff. :wacko:
Quote from: Zanza on November 14, 2015, 05:53:32 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 14, 2015, 04:42:34 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 14, 2015, 04:26:37 PM
Feel free to be a Schlechtmensch instead, duque...
Being lectured by a self-loathing, self-proclaimed anti-racist known for derogatory comments against Portuguese people after reading non-PC comments by a couple of Portuguese: priceless!
Known for derogatory comments against Portuguese? Eh, I am pretty certain that I have virtually never posted anything about Portugal because I actually don't have an opinion (just did a forum search and it turned out 20 posts in total - most from EUIV). I reacted to Martin now as he specifically picked me for being a naive German, but that's about it. I admit that I should have kept it to him and not referred to his home though. :Embarrass:
That said, you seem to have a surprisingly strong opinion about me. No idea how I earned that, but I guess you are right. I am a self-proclaimed anti-racist, not self-loathingly but proudly so. :)
Funny you still think of self-loathing as if it were 19th century Jew-style. :) Things change your know. ;)
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 05:52:20 PM
But it doesn't stop there. It spreads to lots of other brown skinned people who have the 'right' look.
Also, I think it is misguided to say that gov't policy has no effect on people's attitudes. The government deems 'those people' a threat and that has no effect on how people feel about them?
It was already there.
I think it is misguided that the government cannot make informed choices on where its resources are best used for fear of stirring up the bigots. The bigots are going to bigot. I am not interested in choosing a losing security strategy to accommodate them. When young angry lonely white guys post violent fury on social media that needs to attract law enforcement's attention. I am not going to be upset they are not similarly monitoring old Latina ladies.
You lost me there. I have no idea what you want to say to me.
Quote from: Caliga on November 14, 2015, 05:54:14 PM
This gun-toting redneck hasn't been able to carry since late September because I had to get a new license on account of moving and the state keeps accidentally sending it to the wrong County sheriff. :wacko:
Somebody in New England is smiling at this development.
There is much to be said about the different variants of Islam and their role in the radicalisation, recruitment and mobilisation of terrorist networks. But on the other hand, it wasn't so long ago that distinctly non-Islamist, nationalist groups were the big transnational terrorist threat. Which leads me to suspect that focusing on Islam as the key variable may miss out some important social, economic and political factors. To name one, the pervasive tradition of political violence in Middle Eastern and North African politics. When even in the twenty-first century, the government's answer to demands for reform eight times out of ten are barrels bombs or mass death sentences, it is depressingly unsurprising that angry young men turn to violence. A huge part of the appeal of ISIS in the Sunni areas of Iraq and Syria is the "fuck you" it sends to the real and perceived oppressors, namely other Arabs and minorities, and the West.
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2015, 06:02:43 PM
It was already there.
I think it is misguided that the government cannot make informed choices on where its resources are best used for fear of stirring up the bigots. The bigots are going to bigot. I am not interested in choosing a losing security strategy to accommodate them.
Ah so being bigoted is just a binary? You either are or are not? No varying degrees of bigotry?
Anyway, I think the idea isn't that the government can't or shouldn't pursue such policies but it should do so with caution. Exactly like what happens with racial profiling.
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2015, 06:02:43 PMWhen young angry lonely white guys post violent fury on social media that needs to attract law enforcement's attention. I am not going to be upset they are not similarly monitoring old Latina ladies.
That strikes me as bizarre. Shouldn't you be monitoring those who 'post violent fury on social media' even if there skin isn't white? What difference does that make?
The Islamic extremists want to kill us.
The far right want to destroy the very core of who we are.
We can't let them take advantage of this.
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 06:22:27 PM
Ah so being bigoted is just a binary? You either are or are not? No varying degrees of bigotry?
Anyway, I think the idea isn't that the government can't or shouldn't pursue such policies but it should do so with caution. Exactly like what happens with racial profiling.
The kind of person who would decide all brown people are terrorists is rather a binary equation.
Anyway I can agree with the second part. Caution is reasonable.
Quote
That strikes me as bizarre. Shouldn't you be monitoring those who 'post violent fury on social media' even if there skin isn't white? What difference does that make?
It makes a great deal of difference. Many people say angry things online. But when a person who fits the profile of 90% of the people who take those angry things and turn them into mass shootings do so I think that justifies some extra vigilance.
Easy Zanza, if you want your posts to be taken seriously once in a while, much more so if you want to play the Politisch Korrekt game, do not indulge in crass oversimplified generalisations out of ignorance when you actually want to appear as culturally sensitive. This goes for all Gutmenschen btw. :)
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2015, 06:32:12 PM
The kind of person who would decide all brown people are terrorists is rather a binary equation.
But it isn't just that. There's the degrees of being afraid of a brown person, or someone wearing a turban, even if you aren't at the stage of all brown people are terrorists. Hell, there is even just the basic stance of being negatively predisposed against brown people.
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2015, 06:32:12 PM
It makes a great deal of difference. Many people say angry things online. But when a person who fits the profile of 90% of the people who take those angry things and turn them into mass shootings do so I think that justifies some extra vigilance.
Surely whether or not a threat is credible hangs more on just one's skin color?
Has the cumulative outrage on the net to other peoples reaction to attacks, already overtaken the outrage at the attacks themselves?
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 06:35:58 PM
Surely whether or not a threat is credible hangs more on just one's skin color?
No angry lonely and politically extreme are more important. Likewise I don't think we should be monitoring every single Islamic monday morning lady's tea group but ones who fit the profile.
Anyway was this quoted in this thread? Sounds like ISIS kind of thinking:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTx-RdXWcAE5CcU.jpg)
I think he is on to something here.
Quote from: mongers on November 14, 2015, 06:39:26 PM
Has the cumulative outrage on the net to other peoples reaction to attacks, already overtaken the outrage at the attacks themselves?
It is the culture war it is what we do. Saying mean things is far worse than doing mean things, because mean things said appear on our social media streams.
Why can't we all just get along and agree that Portugal is a failed state :P
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2015, 06:41:42 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 14, 2015, 06:39:26 PM
Has the cumulative outrage on the net to other peoples reaction to attacks, already overtaken the outrage at the attacks themselves?
It is the culture war it is what we do. Saying mean things is far worse than doing mean things, because mean things said appear on our social media streams.
Oh I get that.
But maybe a few of the extremists out there have been 'radicalised' by the polarisation of on-line debates/discussions ?
What have we had so far in these two threads about the attacks;
Garbon-Liep
Duque-Zanza
Valmy-Garbon
The tones of which are oddly virulent, given the broadly similar shared cultural values most of us have on Languish.
Languish at least still has arguments.
On other parts of the net it is just a matter of echo-chamber signalling and agreement.............or any disagreement is over minute points of protocol :hmm:
I'm concerned that humanity may genuinely be too stupid to use the internet without getting incredibly angry about minor differences. perhaps that is why we have not made contact with alien civilisations........once they invent the internet they only last 50 years or so before collapsing.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 14, 2015, 06:59:40 PM
Languish at least still has arguments.
On other parts of the net it is just a matter of echo-chamber signalling and agreement.............or any disagreement is over minute points of protocol :hmm:
I'm concerned that humanity may genuinely be too stupid to use the internet without getting incredibly angry about minor differences. perhaps that is why we have not made contact with alien civilisations........once they invent the internet they only last 50 years or so before collapsing.
Yeah, I've thought along those lines more than once Tricky, the hyper intelligent race in 'Forbidden Planet' who invent a machine for mass telepathic communication and die out within days comes to mind.
Fancy a beer instead? :bowler:
Quote from: mongers on November 14, 2015, 06:52:22 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2015, 06:41:42 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 14, 2015, 06:39:26 PM
Has the cumulative outrage on the net to other peoples reaction to attacks, already overtaken the outrage at the attacks themselves?
It is the culture war it is what we do. Saying mean things is far worse than doing mean things, because mean things said appear on our social media streams.
Oh I get that.
But maybe a few of the extremists out there have been 'radicalised' by the polarisation of on-line debates/discussions ?
What have we had so far in these two threads about the attacks;
Garbon-Liep
Duque-Zanza
Valmy-Garbon
The tones of which are oddly virulent, given the broadly similar shared cultural values most of us have on Languish.
Why are you so negative? Raz actually behaved well today.
The babel-fish also comes to mind.
I'll have a pint of Fuller's ESB thanks :bowler:
Who is incredibly angry? :huh:
Quote from: mongers on November 14, 2015, 06:52:22 PM
But maybe a few of the extremists out there have been 'radicalised' by the polarisation of on-line debates/discussions ?
What have we had so far in these two threads about the attacks;
Garbon-Liep
?
A discussion about how much offense various cultures should or shouldn't take from a lash out against religion is hardly a cultural war. :P
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2015, 06:40:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 06:35:58 PM
Surely whether or not a threat is credible hangs more on just one's skin color?
No angry lonely and politically extreme are more important. Likewise I don't think we should be monitoring every single Islamic monday morning lady's tea group but ones who fit the profile.
Angry lonely tea groups? :P
I don't understand the ISIS thinking of wanting to keep pushing the West until we are prodded into taking a firm stance against them. It doesn't appear to be a war they are equipped to win.
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 07:25:12 PM
I don't understand the ISIS thinking of wanting to keep pushing the West until we are prodded into taking a firm stance against them. It doesn't appear to be a war they are equipped to win.
They are a minority within the muslim world, but if the West goes OTT then maybe the ISIS view can gain mass acceptance within that world.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 14, 2015, 07:28:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 07:25:12 PM
I don't understand the ISIS thinking of wanting to keep pushing the West until we are prodded into taking a firm stance against them. It doesn't appear to be a war they are equipped to win.
They are a minority within the muslim world, but if the West goes OTT then maybe the ISIS view can gain mass acceptance within that world.
If that was the goal, wouldn't it make more sense to I don't know not be so antagonistic to the local Muslim populations where they are operating? Just hoping everyone will forget their brutality in the face of destruction caused by the West?
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 07:25:12 PM
I don't understand the ISIS thinking of wanting to keep pushing the West until we are prodded into taking a firm stance against them. It doesn't appear to be a war they are equipped to win.
i think it's just angry backlash without much thought. "you mess with us and we'll strike back, no matter who it is."
Quote from: LaCroix on November 14, 2015, 07:38:14 PM
i think it's just angry backlash without much thought. "you mess with us and we'll strike back, no matter who it is."
I think it is an effort to comply with Allah's will, to make war on those not already in the House of Submission.
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 07:31:58 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 14, 2015, 07:28:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 07:25:12 PM
I don't understand the ISIS thinking of wanting to keep pushing the West until we are prodded into taking a firm stance against them. It doesn't appear to be a war they are equipped to win.
They are a minority within the muslim world, but if the West goes OTT then maybe the ISIS view can gain mass acceptance within that world.
If that was the goal, wouldn't it make more sense to I don't know not be so antagonistic to the local Muslim populations where they are operating? Just hoping everyone will forget their brutality in the face of destruction caused by the West?
Their prophesies literally say that they will be on the brink of defeat against the West when Allah will swoop down and save them. I'm willing to go along with the first part and take my chances on the second.
Quote from: Legbiter on November 14, 2015, 10:45:40 AM
Oh, and 16% of French citizens support ISIS.
http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-poll-finds-266795 (http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-poll-finds-266795)
The Big Lie is still alive and well, it seems.
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 07:22:28 PM
Who is incredibly angry? :huh:
Yeah I did not think garbon and I were even slightly rude to each other. It was a nice discussion.
Quote from: grumbler on November 14, 2015, 08:21:59 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on November 14, 2015, 10:45:40 AM
Oh, and 16% of French citizens support ISIS.
http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-poll-finds-266795 (http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-poll-finds-266795)
The Big Lie is still alive and well, it seems.
LOL that is hilarious.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 14, 2015, 07:48:43 PM
Their prophesies literally say that they will be on the brink of defeat against the West when Allah will swoop down and save them. I'm willing to go along with the first part and take my chances on the second.
Actually Jesus is going to. Man will that be a shocker.
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 07:25:12 PM
I don't understand the ISIS thinking of wanting to keep pushing the West until we are prodded into taking a firm stance against them. It doesn't appear to be a war they are equipped to win.
Well, their land grab in Syria/Iraq was a very nice coup on their part...but I have a feeling they'll be just as happy as a typical underground terrorist whack-a-mole group operating at large in the ME and Europe.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 14, 2015, 08:29:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 07:25:12 PM
I don't understand the ISIS thinking of wanting to keep pushing the West until we are prodded into taking a firm stance against them. It doesn't appear to be a war they are equipped to win.
Well, their land grab in Syria/Iraq was a very nice coup on their part...but I have a feeling they'll be just as happy as a typical underground terrorist whack-a-mole group operating at large in the ME and Europe.
No they could never operate that way. Their existence depends on territory to control.
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2015, 08:56:01 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 14, 2015, 08:29:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 07:25:12 PM
I don't understand the ISIS thinking of wanting to keep pushing the West until we are prodded into taking a firm stance against them. It doesn't appear to be a war they are equipped to win.
Well, their land grab in Syria/Iraq was a very nice coup on their part...but I have a feeling they'll be just as happy as a typical underground terrorist whack-a-mole group operating at large in the ME and Europe.
No they could never operate that way. Their existence depends on territory to control.
I think you're wrong...but I'm not going to be all Languish about it. :P
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 14, 2015, 09:11:27 PM
I think you're wrong...but I'm not going to be all Languish about it. :P
Well here is hoping we have a chance to test your theory.
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2015, 08:56:01 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 14, 2015, 08:29:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 07:25:12 PM
I don't understand the ISIS thinking of wanting to keep pushing the West until we are prodded into taking a firm stance against them. It doesn't appear to be a war they are equipped to win.
Well, their land grab in Syria/Iraq was a very nice coup on their part...but I have a feeling they'll be just as happy as a typical underground terrorist whack-a-mole group operating at large in the ME and Europe.
No they could never operate that way. Their existence depends on territory to control.
You are correct. They can't out al-Qaeda al-Qaeda, they have to be the Islamic State or they are nothing. That's both the key to their success, and their great weakness.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 14, 2015, 07:48:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 07:31:58 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 14, 2015, 07:28:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 07:25:12 PM
I don't understand the ISIS thinking of wanting to keep pushing the West until we are prodded into taking a firm stance against them. It doesn't appear to be a war they are equipped to win.
They are a minority within the muslim world, but if the West goes OTT then maybe the ISIS view can gain mass acceptance within that world.
If that was the goal, wouldn't it make more sense to I don't know not be so antagonistic to the local Muslim populations where they are operating? Just hoping everyone will forget their brutality in the face of destruction caused by the West?
Their prophesies literally say that they will be on the brink of defeat against the West when Allah will swoop down and save them. I'm willing to go along with the first part and take my chances on the second.
If you replace Allah with God then it fits with a lot of fundamentalist North American apocalyptic nonsense too ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 14, 2015, 11:10:47 PM
If you replace Allah with God then it fits with a lot of fundamentalist North American apocalyptic nonsense too ;)
Moral equivalence FTW!!!
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 14, 2015, 11:10:47 PM
If you replace Allah with God then it fits with a lot of fundamentalist North American apocalyptic nonsense too ;)
Yeah and we generally hold those people in contempt and say they are dangerous. Not sure what your point is.
Quote from: derspiess on November 14, 2015, 11:18:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 14, 2015, 11:10:47 PM
If you replace Allah with God then it fits with a lot of fundamentalist North American apocalyptic nonsense too ;)
Moral equivalence FTW!!!
I think CC is under some sort of bizarre delusion this is a fanatically Christian board that loves to sing praises to Jesus. It is not like we have had numerous virulent anti-Christian threads over the years or anything.
It is YI & Spellus's fault.
Lord God omnipotent,
Reigneth forever.
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 06:35:58 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2015, 06:32:12 PM
The kind of person who would decide all brown people are terrorists is rather a binary equation.
But it isn't just that. There's the degrees of being afraid of a brown person, or someone wearing a turban, even if you aren't at the stage of all brown people are terrorists. Hell, there is even just the basic stance of being negatively predisposed against brown people.
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2015, 06:32:12 PM
It makes a great deal of difference. Many people say angry things online. But when a person who fits the profile of 90% of the people who take those angry things and turn them into mass shootings do so I think that justifies some extra vigilance.
Surely whether or not a threat is credible hangs more on just one's skin color?
I think the key is proper implementation and proper profiling.
Treating every Muslim as a potential threat/high risk is both discriminatory and useless - since you still end up with a group that is too large to properly monitor.
However, it is undeniably the case that there are certain profiles/combinations of traits (e.g. young lower middle class, religious, second generation immigrant), where if you add "Muslim" to a mix it significantly increases the security risk such person poses. In such cases, we should be free to "single out" such Muslim sub-groups for closer surveillance/monitoring and not have to equally closely monitor, say, young lower middle class religious second generation immigrant Christians (for fear of not appearing bigoted).
I hope you agree.
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2015, 06:40:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 06:35:58 PM
Surely whether or not a threat is credible hangs more on just one's skin color?
No angry lonely and politically extreme are more important. Likewise I don't think we should be monitoring every single Islamic monday morning lady's tea group but ones who fit the profile.
Anyway was this quoted in this thread? Sounds like ISIS kind of thinking:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTx-RdXWcAE5CcU.jpg)
I think he is on to something here.
I think he is on to something there, but (based on some posts on Facebook) I think there is also a risk of treating what he is saying as the only thing that should inform our response.
I think we should respond in a manner that is most efficient, rational and ruthless in eliminating the threat these extremists pose to us. Whether, by doing so, we give ISIS more potential recruits should be a consideration - but it should not be the *sole* consideration. We should definitely not settle for doing nothing only because doing something could "play into the terrorists' hands".
Edit: Besides, you should also bear in mind that our own populaces are also prone to emotions that need to be channelled somehow. After this kind of atrocity, failure to respond with force because "this would be what terrorists wants" would lead to further radicalisation of our own people. In other words, we are not all fully evolved into balls of light yet.
You should always strike back hard at the ones responsible, THEN you can sit down and think about carrots etc.
Could it be they are willing their prophecy to get a move on?
I have to agree with this guy. As long as we let the Gulf States slide on their funding and support of jihadist movements, these kinds of attacks will not end.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a39727/paris-attacks-middle-eastern-oligarchies/
QuoteThere Is Only One Way to Defeat ISIS
We must hold accountable our Middle Eastern "allies"—the states and bankers and political elites—who persist in funding mass murder.
By Charles P. Pierce
Nov 14, 2015 @ 1:57 PM
There was a strange stillness in the news on Saturday morning, a Saturday morning that came earlier in Paris than it did in Des Moines, a city in Iowa, one of the United States of America. The body count had stabilized. The new information came at a slow, stately pace, as though life were rearranging itself out of quiet respect for the dead. The new information came at a slow and stately pace and it arranged itself in the way that you suspected it would arrange itself when the first accounts of the mass murder began to spread out over the wired world. There has been the predictable howling from predictable people. (Judith Miller? Really? This is an opinion the world needed to hear?) There has been the straining to wedge the events of Friday night into the Procrustean nonsense of an American presidential campaign. There will be a debate among the three Democratic candidates for president in Des Moines on Saturday night. I suspect that the moderators had to toss out a whole raft of questions they already had prepared. Everything else is a distraction. It is the stately, stillness of the news itself that matters.
The attacks were a brilliantly coordinated act of war. They were a brilliantly coordinated act of pure terrorism, beyond rhyme but not beyond reason. They struck at the most cosmopolitan parts of the most cosmopolitan city in the world. They struck out at assorted sectors of western popular culture. They struck out at sports, at pop music, and at simple casual dining. They struck out at an ordinary Friday night's entertainment. The attacks were a brilliantly coordinated statement of political and social purpose, its intent clear and unmistakable. The attacks were a brilliantly coordinated act of fanatical ideological and theological Puritanism, brewed up in the dark precincts of another of mankind's monotheisms. They were not the first of these. (The closest parallel to what happened in Paris is what happened in Mumbai in 2008. In fact, Mumbai went on alert almost immediately after the news broke.) They, alas, are likely not going to be the last.
The stillness of the news is a place of refuge and of reason on yet another day in which both of these qualities are predictably in short supply. It is a place beyond unfocused rage, and beyond abandoned wrath, and beyond unleashed bigotry and hate. It is a place where Friday night's savagery is recognized and memorialized, but it is not put to easy use for trivial purposes. The stillness of the news, if you seek it out, is a place where you can think, sadly and clearly, about what should happen next.
These are a few things that will not solve the terrible and tangled web of causation and violence in which the attacks of Friday night were spawned. A 242-ship Navy will not stop one motivated murderous fanatic from emptying the clip of an AK-47 into the windows of a crowded restaurant. The F-35 fighter plane will not stop a group of motivated murderous fanatics from detonating bombs at a soccer match. A missile-defense shield in Poland will not stop a platoon of motivated murderous fanatics from opening up in a jammed concert hall, or taking hostages, or taking themselves out with suicide belts when the police break down the doors. American soldiers dying in the sands of Syria or Iraq will not stop the events like what happened in Paris from happening again because American soldiers dying in the sands of Syria or Iraq will be dying there in combat against only the most obvious physical manifestation of a deeper complex of ancient causes and ancient effects made worse by the reach of the modern technology of bloodshed and murder. Nobody's death is ever sacrifice enough for that.
Abandoning the Enlightenment values that produced democracy will not plumb the depths of the vestigial authoritarian impulse that resides in us all, the wish for kings, the desire for order, to be governed, and not to govern. Flexing and posturing and empty venting will not cure the deep sickness in the human spirit that leads people to slaughter the innocent in the middle of a weekend's laughter. The expression of bigotry and hatred will not solve the deep desperation in the human heart that leads people to kill their fellow human beings and then blow themselves up as a final act of murderous vengeance against those they perceive to be their enemies, seen and unseen, real and imagined. Tough talk in the context of what happened in Paris is as empty as a bell rung at the bottom of a well.
Francois Hollande, the French president who was at the soccer game that was attacked, has promised that France will wage "pitiless war" against the forces that conceived and executed the attacks. Most wars are pitiless, but not all of them are fought with the combination of toughness and intelligence that this one will require. This was a lesson that the United States did not learn in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001. There are things that nations can do in response that are not done out of xenophobic rage and a visceral demand for revenge. There are things that nations can do in response that do not involve scapegoating the powerless and detaining the innocent. There is no real point in focusing a response on the people whose religion makes us nervous. States should retaliate against states.
It is long past time for the oligarchies of the Gulf states to stop paying protection to the men in the suicide belts. Their societies are stunted and parasitic. The main job of the elites there is to find enough foreign workers to ensla...er...indenture to do all the real work. The example of Qatar and the interesting business plan through which that country is building the facilities for the 2022 World Cup is instructive here. Roughly the same labor-management relationship exists for the people who clean the hotel rooms and who serve the drinks. In Qatar, for people who come from elsewhere to work, passports have been known to disappear into thin air. These are the societies that profit from terrible and tangled web of causation and violence that played out on the streets of Paris. These are the people who buy their safety with the blood of innocents far away
It's not like this is any kind of secret. In 2010, thanks to WikiLeaks, we learned that the State Department, under the direction of then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, knew full well where the money for foreign terrorism came from. It came from countries and not from a faith. It came from sovereign states and not from an organized religion. It came from politicians and dictators, not from clerics, at least not directly. It was paid to maintain a political and social order, not to promulgate a religious revival or to launch a religious war. Religion was the fuel, the ammonium nitrate and the diesel fuel. Authoritarian oligarchy built the bomb. As long as people are dying in Paris, nobody important is dying in Doha or Riyadh.
QuoteSaudi Arabia is the world's largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba – but the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money, according to Hillary Clinton. "More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups," says a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state. Her memo urged US diplomats to redouble their efforts to stop Gulf money reaching extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. "Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide," she said. Three other Arab countries are listed as sources of militant money: Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. The cables highlight an often ignored factor in the Pakistani and Afghan conflicts: that the violence is partly bankrolled by rich, conservative donors across the Arabian Sea whose governments do little to stop them. The problem is particularly acute in Saudi Arabia, where militants soliciting funds slip into the country disguised as holy pilgrims, set up front companies to launder funds and receive money from government-sanctioned charities.
It's time for this to stop. It's time to be pitiless against the bankers and against the people who invest in murder to assure their own survival in power. Assets from these states should be frozen, all over the west. Money trails should be followed, wherever they lead. People should go to jail, in every country in the world. It should be done state-to-state. Stop funding the murder of our citizens and you can have your money back. Maybe. If we're satisfied that you'll stop doing it. And, it goes without saying, but we'll say it anyway – not another bullet will be sold to you, let alone advanced warplanes, until this act gets cleaned up to our satisfaction. If that endangers your political position back home, that's your problem, not ours. You are no longer trusted allies. Complain, and your diplomats will be going home. Complain more loudly, and your diplomats will be investigated and, if necessary, detained. Retaliate, and you do not want to know what will happen, but it will done with cold, reasoned and, yes, pitiless calculation. It will not be a blind punch. You will not see it coming. It will not be an attack on your faith. It will be an attack on how you conduct your business as sovereign states in a world full of sovereign states.
And the still, stately progress of the news from Paris continues. There are arrests today in Brussels, of alleged co-conspirators. The body count has stabilized. New information comes at its own pace, as if out of respect for the dead. In the stillness of the news itself, there is refuge and reason and a kind of wounded, ragged peace, as whatever rolled up from the depths of the sickness of the human heart rolls back again, like the tide and, like the tide, one day will return.
Yup, the argument is both moral and rational.
Quote from: grumbler on November 14, 2015, 09:20:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2015, 08:56:01 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 14, 2015, 08:29:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2015, 07:25:12 PM
I don't understand the ISIS thinking of wanting to keep pushing the West until we are prodded into taking a firm stance against them. It doesn't appear to be a war they are equipped to win.
Well, their land grab in Syria/Iraq was a very nice coup on their part...but I have a feeling they'll be just as happy as a typical underground terrorist whack-a-mole group operating at large in the ME and Europe.
No they could never operate that way. Their existence depends on territory to control.
You are correct. They can't out al-Qaeda al-Qaeda, they have to be the Islamic State or they are nothing. That's both the key to their success, and their great weakness.
Yeah, that's how it seems to me - which is one of the problems of actually whipping the West into a real frenzy. They'll find it difficult to maintain their state in the face of that.
I agree that working to cut off the Gulf money sloshing around is an important part of the solution. For too long in particular Saudi has been allowed to export its problems of radicalisation to the rest of the world.
What are the chances of the British government doing something about it, seeing how it has been probably most shameless in palling around with the Saudis?
So the biggest party behind our right wing government has just said this on national tv: "We need to bomb civilians in the fight against IS, that includes women and children."
:blink:
Quote from: Syt on November 15, 2015, 08:30:10 AM
:blink:
You see, "the women are part of the system that hides the barbarians."
In a newspaper he said: "We're too gentleman-y, we never bomb where there are women and children. We can no longer accept that."
Worked for FDR.
Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2015, 05:44:05 AM
Yeah, that's how it seems to me - which is one of the problems of actually whipping the West into a real frenzy. They'll find it difficult to maintain their state in the face of that.
Rationally, you are correct. But these are not rational people. They believe in divine intervention.
I think IF this attack was sanctioned by whatever high command ISIS has,, it is not about some grand long term scheme of conquering everything - it is about gaining brownie points with their present and potential supporters.
It is, in essence, the same as if a Western politician kisses a baby on camera, or promises to create jobs.
Quote from: Martinus on November 15, 2015, 06:29:52 AM
What are the chances of the British government doing something about it, seeing how it has been probably most shameless in palling around with the Saudis?
If there's one thing you can rely on the tories for its not doing the right thing.
Quote from: KRonn on November 13, 2015, 11:04:10 PM
Egyptian President Al-Sissi delivered a great speech earlier this year. He talked about Muslims banding together to halt the push of radical Islam, how it was so wrong, that sort of thing. A real important speech coming from a major Muslim national leader. But it seems as if that speech was made in a vacuum and not much really done by others to follow up. Maybe US and European leaders should have picked up on that speech and expanded on it, emphasized it, and supported/encouraged other Muslim leaders in the Mid East to take the same attitude. That kind of thing and keeping it up would seem to help galvanize nations and people, at least as powerful talking points.
Part of the issue there is he's a military dictator, and I think there's a long history in the West of not paying attention to the speeches of military leaders like that. It's assumed since he doesn't rule based on Democratic consent he doesn't have anything worthwhile to add to the discourse.
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2015, 06:32:06 AM
Yeah, it is not time for reformation (ISIS is the muslim Calvinism already) but secularisation.
Which, as others pointed out, in the Christian West required brutal force. And, coming to think of it, this is what Hussein, Qaddafi, Mubarak and the Turkish army used to be doing...
I don't think that's entirely accurate. Britain didn't really follow this path. There was discrimination against Catholics by the establishment for generations, and it also resulted in relatively minor uprisings by the Jacobites, but by and large Britain never had to violently suppress religion to become a secular state. Neither did the United States.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 15, 2015, 10:46:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2015, 06:32:06 AM
Yeah, it is not time for reformation (ISIS is the muslim Calvinism already) but secularisation.
Which, as others pointed out, in the Christian West required brutal force. And, coming to think of it, this is what Hussein, Qaddafi, Mubarak and the Turkish army used to be doing...
I don't think that's entirely accurate. Britain didn't really follow this path. There was discrimination against Catholics by the establishment for generations, and it also resulted in relatively minor uprisings by the Jacobites, but by and large Britain never had to violently suppress religion to become a secular state. Neither did the United States.
I disagree - Britain suppressed all churches not directly controlled by the state quite heavily, and much earlier than continental Europe did.
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2015, 04:18:40 PM
I think the "rational liberal" response should be to:
1. Help the refugees, within reason.
2. Acknowledge that whilst most muslims are not terrorists, islam does breed more terrorism than any other contemporary religion or ideology.
3. Dedicate resources to policing and investigating muslim communities (despite cries of racial profiling).
4. Crack down heavily on any illiberal crimes and behaviour - both from islamophobic thugs (mandatory prison sentences for attacks on immigrants) and from fundamentalist muslims (mandatory deportations for stuff like domestic violence or "sharia patrols" etc.).
5. Crack down on foreign funding coming from nondemocratic muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia.
This may be one of the few times I've been in complete agreement with Marti. These are all reasonable approaches. I'd probably add a 6, though--heightened promotion of moderate Muslim interest groups and government partnerships with them. The United States government has been working with groups like CAIR and OIC for years to promote more healthy relationships with domestic Muslims.
Quote from: Martinus on November 15, 2015, 10:49:32 AMI disagree - Britain suppressed all churches not directly controlled by the state quite heavily, and much earlier than continental Europe did.
But they never suppressed religion itself, as the French Revolution did. And it wasn't that long after it went after the non-State Churches that both non-Anglican Protestant Churches and Catholics were "suffered" with disdain, but not violence, by the state.
And yeah, ISIS won't go underground. Al-Baghdadi was already part of al-Qaeda (in Iraq), and the reason he split his group away from the AQ umbrella is because he fundamentally disagrees with the strategy of being a terrorist group that spends all its time hiding and plotting "spectacular" attacks. He believes control of territory is essential, naming himself Caliph is part of that belief system.
I think the recent wave of attacks against established Western powers is being done to shore up support. Their offensive has been stalled for a year now, and they've had parts of their territory taken away as well (sometimes they recapture it, but sometimes not.) Baghdadi's vision will fall apart if something doesn't change. The only reason jihadists are leaving AQ affiliated groups like al-Nusra front and other jihadist groups that aren't aligned with AQ for ISIS is because ISIS is successful. Not being successful will eventually cause it to collapse and fragment back into independent jihadist groups, and al-Baghdadi doesn't want that. I believe the game plan is by "poking the bear" of the West, they reenforce their legitimacy. His hope is that this will sustain them until such time as they can consolidate their territory and start to make more territorial gains in Iraq and Syria again. I believe they view our commitment to helping the Kurds and Iraqi Army against them isn't a fight we're committed to long term and eventually we'll go away. Once we're gone, they'll start winning again.
I don't think he wants NATO troops on the ground--he was in the Iraqi Army and I doubt he's dumb enough to think that ends anyway other than disaster for him. Instead he's wagering that terrorist attacks like this won't change the status quo--we're already bombing him, but bombing can't destroy ISIS. It takes ground troops to do that, unless we're willing to commit ground troops then nothing is fundamentally changed for him or ISIS. It's still just the waiting game, and by poking the bear he's solidifies support. Any jihadists who are starting to think "man, ISIS is looking weak, it's not taking territory any more and they're just hunkered down getting bombed all the time" will now instead be thinking about the bombing of the Russian plane or the attack on Paris.
I suspect these attacks have been planned for months, so I don't think it was specifically timed in response to the news of Jihadi John dying and Sinjar being lost, but from an ISIS perspective look at how fortuitous this is. The news aren't talking about the loss of Sinjar or the death of the ISIS mouthpiece anymore, they're talking about the Paris attacks. Maybe just lucky, but maybe they were clever--perhaps the order was to wait until some setbacks in the Middle East then execute the attacks as quickly as possible (but they'd obviously be predicated on a concert being at the Bataclan and a soccer match going on at the same time, but I suspect that's not a super rare occurrence.)
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2015, 08:53:35 PM
Guys while I agree that Islamic-inspired terrorists are the #1 suspect, we don't actually know who has done this terrible attack, or why. Let's wait for facts before we start debating what to do next.
Okay, so now it does look like Islamic, probably even IS-inspired terrorists are responsible. Would it really have been that terrible to wait until Sunday to start discussing what France/the West's response should be?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 15, 2015, 11:02:48 AM
Maybe just lucky, but maybe they were clever--perhaps the order was to wait until some setbacks in the Middle East then execute the attacks as quickly as possible (but they'd obviously be predicated on a concert being at the Bataclan and a soccer match going on at the same time, but I suspect that's not a super rare occurrence.)
Maybe they just looked at what was happening in town that day? I mean there would be several viable targets every day.
It just doesn't look that well planned to me. Three suicide bombers at the stadium managed to kill one civilian?
I know one of them was caught and had his hand forced, but not the others.
I don't see Wahhabism as a reformation, instead it lies firmly in the long tradition of textual purity that Islam has had since very early days. There have been many series of "back to the book" movements in Islam, and it often has focused, like Wahhabism, on removal of non-pure outside thought.
In my opinion, a reformation in Islamic terms would be rooted in a movement to syncretise the thoughts of the West with "pure" Islam. Much like what the Scholastics did, the ability to incorporate obvious pre-canon thought into the overall processes of religious thought would be one of the first steps. Then, later back to basics movements would not take place in a vacuum missing the tradition of rationalist/naturalist thought.
Just my 2 cents.
Quote from: Martinus on November 15, 2015, 06:29:52 AM
What are the chances of the British government doing something about it, seeing how it has been probably most shameless in palling around with the Saudis?
There's more to the Western relationship with Saudi Arabia than a few Guardian headlines, you know.
I am so angry with the response to this from most of those on the liberal left. The right wingers are proposing solutions that are illiberal, sometimes borderline racist, discriminatory, true.
But the left is not doing anything constructive other than contesting these. Sure the solutions proposed by the right are wrong, fine - but the left is not proposing anything instead of it. It's all in your head, Islam is a religion of peace, these attacks have nothing to do with Islam. Or better yet, it gets into pointless discussions why we care for France but not for Syria and Iraq. The public sees this for the bullshit it is and goes to vote for the right.
It is so fucking frustrating.
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2015, 11:24:23 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2015, 08:53:35 PM
Guys while I agree that Islamic-inspired terrorists are the #1 suspect, we don't actually know who has done this terrible attack, or why. Let's wait for facts before we start debating what to do next.
Okay, so now it does look like Islamic, probably even IS-inspired terrorists are responsible. Would it really have been that terrible to wait until Sunday to start discussing what France/the West's response should be?
I mean, different people process and react to events in different ways. For some, that means leaping immediately into policy decisions/political implications.
Now, apparently there are some cretins complaining that some story from April about an attack on a Kenyan university (which actually was reported) did not get as much coverage as the Paris attacks.
I am beginning to see why so many people in Scandinavia became so ambiguous on immigration and race issues - if the left behaves so retardedly, no wonder there is a backlash.
Yes, the biggest check on success of liberal thought is success of liberal thought.
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2015, 11:24:23 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2015, 08:53:35 PM
Guys while I agree that Islamic-inspired terrorists are the #1 suspect, we don't actually know who has done this terrible attack, or why. Let's wait for facts before we start debating what to do next.
Okay, so now it does look like Islamic, probably even IS-inspired terrorists are responsible. Would it really have been that terrible to wait until Sunday to start discussing what France/the West's response should be?
Yes.
And no, it served no purpose to wait except being politically correct. Languish has a whole does not care.
Raqqa is still not a smoldering ruin :mad:
QuoteA Democratic Party candidate for the Minnesota House is quitting the race over comments he posted on social media about ISIS.
Dan Kimmel of Burnsville tweeted and posted on Facebook Saturday night, "ISIS isn't necessarily evil. It is made up of people doing what they think is best for their community. Violence is not the answer, though."
This morning, Kimmel issued a statement saying he is folding up his campaign tent.
Oh ffs. :bleeding:
That's obviously a one off remark. There is nothing to conclude from this except he made a very dumb statement. He wouldn't be folding up his tent if what he said wasn't insane even by liberal standards.
Quote from: Jaron on November 15, 2015, 03:06:32 PM
That's obviously a one off remark. There is nothing to conclude from this except he made a very dumb statement. He wouldn't be folding up his tent if what he said wasn't insane even by liberal standards.
I know, but how fucking out of touch do you have to be to make a statement like this.
Quote from: Martinus on November 15, 2015, 03:08:05 PM
Quote from: Jaron on November 15, 2015, 03:06:32 PM
That's obviously a one off remark. There is nothing to conclude from this except he made a very dumb statement. He wouldn't be folding up his tent if what he said wasn't insane even by liberal standards.
I know, but how fucking out of touch do you have to be to make a statement like this.
Pretty out of touch. I'm not sure what was going through his mind.
Quote from: Martinus on November 15, 2015, 03:08:05 PM
Quote from: Jaron on November 15, 2015, 03:06:32 PM
That's obviously a one off remark. There is nothing to conclude from this except he made a very dumb statement. He wouldn't be folding up his tent if what he said wasn't insane even by liberal standards.
I know, but how fucking out of touch do you have to be to make a statement like this.
There have been four years of out of touch nonsense spewed on Syria, some of which even became policy. Why get angry over this particular remark?
Quote from: Maladict on November 15, 2015, 11:28:27 AM
It just doesn't look that well planned to me. Three suicide bombers at the stadium managed to kill one civilian?
I know one of them was caught and had his hand forced, but not the others.
they were likely told to explode themselves at a specific hour and they acted at the specific hour, even if they had not reached their intended target.
I read that one of them detonated himself in a small street near the stadium, away from everything.
Obama and Putin filmed talking closely* aided by just two interpreters/aids in the open plan cafe/bar at the G20 meeting.
Is this the nearest the two have seen face to face with each other in several years?
* both on edges of green low cut armchairs with a small coffee table in between so about 3-4ft separating their heads.
edit:
image here:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2015%2F11%2F15%2F16%2F2E79555300000578-3319295-image-m-15_1447606515917.jpg&hash=2fd420d8b3aeb31613dd874ff30de9dd69b8d47f)
I would've thought Putin's English was good enough to do without the interpreters. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 15, 2015, 04:33:28 PM
I would've thought Putin's English was good enough to do without the interpreters. :hmm:
It's supposed to be Ok, but I think he tends to speak Russian so there's a sort of level playing field in discussions.
On checking the woman is Obama's national security advisor, no idea on who the other Russian male is.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 15, 2015, 04:33:28 PM
I would've thought Putin's English was good enough to do without the interpreters. :hmm:
For some stupid diplomatic protocol reason, foreign leaders typically always speak in their own language when in public, no matter what level of mastery in the other's language they have.
Seems to be a lot of people trying to belittle this attack. Going on about the incident in beirut and the university attack from months ago in Kenya. :frusty:
Quote from: DGuller on November 15, 2015, 05:31:35 PM
For some stupid diplomatic protocol reason, foreign leaders typically always speak in their own language when in public, no matter what level of mastery in the other's language they have.
Sure. I was thinking they were having a private discussion for some reason.
Quote from: Tyr on November 15, 2015, 06:05:14 PM
Seems to be a lot of people trying to belittle this attack. Going on about the incident in beirut and the university attack from months ago in Kenya. :frusty:
The "you should feel bad about feeling bad about this attack, because you didn't feel bad enough about previous ones" crowd is getting on my tits.
Quote from: celedhring on November 15, 2015, 06:20:06 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 15, 2015, 06:05:14 PM
Seems to be a lot of people trying to belittle this attack. Going on about the incident in beirut and the university attack from months ago in Kenya. :frusty:
The "you should feel bad about feeling bad about this attack, because you didn't feel bad enough about previous ones" crowd is getting on my tits.
It is outrageous and offensive that you are not outraged enough about this incident to satisfy Tyr, and it is belittling to the most recent victims to even remember that there were previous victims.
You must stand ready, however, to forget this attack ever happened, should there be another attack somewhere else. If you aren't fast enough in forgetting this attack at that point, Tyr will be frustrated and mad at you for belittling the new victims.
Quote from: celedhring on November 15, 2015, 06:20:06 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 15, 2015, 06:05:14 PM
Seems to be a lot of people trying to belittle this attack. Going on about the incident in beirut and the university attack from months ago in Kenya. :frusty:
The "you should feel bad about feeling bad about this attack, because you didn't feel bad enough about previous ones" crowd is getting on my tits.
It seems that everybody has somebody like that in his circle of acquaintances or even worse, friends.
There's even one friend of mine pretty much saying France deserved it for pursuing a war of aggression and bombing civilians in Syria :bleeding:
Quote from: grumbler on November 15, 2015, 06:47:50 PM
Quote from: celedhring on November 15, 2015, 06:20:06 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 15, 2015, 06:05:14 PM
Seems to be a lot of people trying to belittle this attack. Going on about the incident in beirut and the university attack from months ago in Kenya. :frusty:
The "you should feel bad about feeling bad about this attack, because you didn't feel bad enough about previous ones" crowd is getting on my tits.
It is outrageous and offensive that you are not outraged enough about this incident to satisfy Tyr, and it is belittling to the most recent victims to even remember that there were previous victims.
You must stand ready, however, to forget this attack ever happened, should there be another attack somewhere else. If you aren't fast enough in forgetting this attack at that point, Tyr will be frustrated and mad at you for belittling the new victims.
Wow. You sure got me. That is clearly 100% how I feel. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2015, 08:04:35 PM
Reasonable Muslims at some point have to realize that there is too much about their religion that is fucked up, say to world that some things Mohammed said were retarded, that some of the Koran is bullshit, and either chuck it altogether or pick out some parts that are worth saving and invent a new religion.
Never gonna happen.
Their holy writings are available to every muslim and any intent to reform islam can be easily dismissed by the fundies by pointing out the correct passages in their Quran and Hadiths.
The problem with Islam is that, unlike any other universal religion, Islam was a warmongering ideology from the very begining.
Christianity was peaceful religion that was used by the powers that be as justification for power and expansion, so it was relatively easy to reform christianity by using the very bible used by the elites in power.
Judaism was a national religion which never had global pretentions and had several chock blocks built in to make impossible a global reach, like requiring all males to come 3 times a year to the temple, by having only one temple, and requiring religion conversion to be equal to national and cultural conversion. All these made expansion by conquest or colonization imposible for jews. Another built in safe block is the kosher diet, which forces jews to live in civilization and limits the reach of military campaigns by making living off the land a very difficult enterprise.
Bottom line, Mohaameed fucked up islam from the begining.
It cannot be reformed.
It can only be destroyed.
Quote from: Siege on November 15, 2015, 07:45:16 PM
Never gonna happen.
Their holy writings are available to every muslim and any intent to reform islam can be easily dismissed by the fundies by pointing out the correct passages in their Quran and Hadiths.
I agree, which is why I said they have to discard Islam and create something new.
What happened to Muslims? They used to be in mathematics and poetry and philosophy and all that good stuff. Nowadays they just blow things up and shoot places up.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2015, 07:50:33 PM
Quote from: Siege on November 15, 2015, 07:45:16 PM
Never gonna happen.
Their holy writings are available to every muslim and any intent to reform islam can be easily dismissed by the fundies by pointing out the correct passages in their Quran and Hadiths.
I agree, which is why I said they have to discard Islam and create something new.
Discard all of it and be done. Don't restart nonsense.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 15, 2015, 08:13:33 PM
Discard all of it and be done. Don't restart nonsense.
The charity part is nice.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2015, 08:15:57 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 15, 2015, 08:13:33 PM
Discard all of it and be done. Don't restart nonsense.
The charity part is nice.
True, but people would do that anyway. Gays, kids, and the overall general population would be better off without the nonsense.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 15, 2015, 08:24:55 PM
True, but people would do that anyway. Gays, kids, and the overall general population would be better off without the nonsense.
Is there something about having spent time in the military that makes people respond to posts without reading them? I specifically said either toss it altogether or only keep the good parts.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2015, 08:29:23 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 15, 2015, 08:24:55 PM
True, but people would do that anyway. Gays, kids, and the overall general population would be better off without the nonsense.
Is there something about having spent time in the military that makes people respond to posts without reading them? I specifically said either toss it altogether or only keep the good parts.
I agree with you about tossing it all together.
Your original post said "and" not "or". Different context IMO.
Quote
I agree, which is why I said they have to discard Islam and create something new.
My bad if I was confusing. ;)
Quote from: 11B4V on November 15, 2015, 08:52:03 PM
I agree with you about tossing it all together.
Your post said "and" not "or". Different context IMO.
My bad if I was confusing. ;)
Fair enough. But I don't see how you get from "create something new" to "keep some of the nonsense."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2015, 09:03:34 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 15, 2015, 08:52:03 PM
I agree with you about tossing it all together.
Your post said "and" not "or". Different context IMO.
My bad if I was confusing. ;)
Fair enough. But I don't see how you get from "create something new" to "keep some of the nonsense."
NP. Nonsense=Religion in my posts. IOW Religion itself is nonsense.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2015, 09:03:34 PM
Fair enough. But I don't see how you get from "create something new" to "keep some of the nonsense."
If you make it a religion, then you have kept some of the nonsense. I suppose quasi-religions like Buddhism are all right, since they have no deities and address only the behavior of the believer. They all seem pretty emo, but maybe some people need that excuse to feel good about their own emodom.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 15, 2015, 09:07:14 PM
NP. Nonsense=Religion in my posts. IOW Religion itself is nonsense.
Beat me to it. Deities and extrinsic morality (for adults) are nonsense.
When did Languish become so hostile to religion? :blink:
Always, you didnt notice back when you were not one of gods chosen.
I wonder what MishkaZaznaykin would have to say about all this.
Quote from: Jaron on November 15, 2015, 09:31:26 PM
When did Languish become so hostile to religion? :blink:
I am not hostile to religion,but I think it is nonsense. People can indulge if they please with my complete blessings (I've known any number of very good people who were religious), but that doesn't change the facts.
What facts?
Kill Them All! Sterilize the whole region and put the fear of God into the survivors who lurk within our borders, since the maggots are so eager to invoke it on others...
They want a war? Let's give it to them. The West has an overabundance of nukes it no longer has any need for; we might as well put them to use.
Ahh... but that was a fantasy.
In reality we'll temporize, obfuscate and wring our collective hands - wondering 'how come they hate us so much'... until the next attack comes. And with mindless idiots like the new Canadian PM, who's already wetting himself with his promise of welcoming twenty-five thousand potential Syrian terrorists - before Christmas no less - we'll just have to wait for the next assault.
Here's an unpleasant truth, for all the 'sympathizers' of those mongrels...
Even if the West was to pull out of every Muslim country tomorrow; even if we were to stop any military actions against any of them - and repatriate all of our fellow citizens operating there in any capacity - such wanton slaughter would still be conceived, prepared and executed.
The worm is in the fruit already.
Islam *must* die!
G.
Quote from: Siege on November 15, 2015, 07:45:16 PM
Judaism was a national religion which never had global pretentions and had several chock blocks built in to make impossible a global reach, like requiring all males to come 3 times a year to the temple, by having only one temple, and requiring religion conversion to be equal to national and cultural conversion. All these made expansion by conquest or colonization imposible for jews.
Impossible is a bit much. The Hasmoneans conquered Galilee and Edom and some strips beyond the Jordan; it appears they either engaged in forced or "persuasive" conversions. But it's true those efforts were opportunistic and local, not part of a universal expansionist ideology.
Quote from: Grallon on November 15, 2015, 10:28:59 PM
Kill Them All! Sterilize the whole region and put the fear of God into the survivors who lurk within our borders, since the maggots are so eager to invoke it on others...
They want a war? Let's give it to them. The West has an overabundance of nukes it no longer has any need for; we might as well put them to use.
Ahh... but that was a fantasy.
In reality we'll temporize, obfuscate and wring our collective hands - wondering 'how come they hate us so much'... until the next attack comes. And with mindless idiots like the new Canadian PM, who's already wetting himself with his promise of welcoming twenty-five thousand potential Syrian terrorists - before Christmas no less - we'll just have to wait for the next assault.
Here's an unpleasant truth, for all the 'sympathizers' of those mongrels...
Even if the West was to pull out of every Muslim country tomorrow; even if we were to stop any military actions against any of them - and repatriate all of our fellow citizens operating there in any capacity - such wanton slaughter would still be conceived, prepared and executed.
The worm is in the fruit already.
Islam *must* die!
G.
Easy there, Le Pen.
Quote from: Jaron on November 15, 2015, 09:31:26 PM
When did Languish become so hostile to religion? :blink:
2003
Quote from: Grallon on November 15, 2015, 10:28:59 PM
Kill Them All! Sterilize the whole region and put the fear of God into the survivors who lurk within our borders, since the maggots are so eager to invoke it on others...
They want a war? Let's give it to them. The West has an overabundance of nukes it no longer has any need for; we might as well put them to use.
Ahh... but that was a fantasy.
In reality we'll temporize, obfuscate and wring our collective hands - wondering 'how come they hate us so much'... until the next attack comes. And with mindless idiots like the new Canadian PM, who's already wetting himself with his promise of welcoming twenty-five thousand potential Syrian terrorists - before Christmas no less - we'll just have to wait for the next assault.
Here's an unpleasant truth, for all the 'sympathizers' of those mongrels...
Even if the West was to pull out of every Muslim country tomorrow; even if we were to stop any military actions against any of them - and repatriate all of our fellow citizens operating there in any capacity - such wanton slaughter would still be conceived, prepared and executed.
The worm is in the fruit already.
Islam *must* die!
G.
But I'm not a Nazi!
Quote from: Grallon on November 15, 2015, 10:28:59 PMEven if the West was to pull out of every Muslim country tomorrow; even if we were to stop any military actions against any of them - and repatriate all of our fellow citizens operating there in any capacity - such wanton slaughter would still be conceived, prepared and executed.
actually, this nonsense raises an interesting point.
yi, going back to this
QuoteI think it is an effort to comply with Allah's will, to make war on those not already in the House of Submission.
if the US/west completely and utterly pulled out of the middle east, out of all commitments and obligations, etc. but, the US/west didn't "submit" (house of submission...?), do you think ISIS would continue carrying out these attacks?
Quote from: LaCroix on November 15, 2015, 11:43:13 PM
if the US/west completely and utterly pulled out of the middle east, out of all commitments and obligations, etc. but, the US/west didn't "submit" (house of submission...?), do you think ISIS would continue carrying out these attacks?
Yes. I think they would try to emulate the great Muslim conquerors of their age of expansion.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2015, 11:59:42 PMYes. I think they would try to emulate the great Muslim conquerors of their age of expansion.
if they took everything and all that was left was the US, yeah. but i mean before that.
I am always baffled by the idea that the content of religious beliefs is immaterial to the behavior of those holding the beliefs.
If religion A has one tenet "Do no harm to others" and religion B has one tenet "Kill the infidels", it doesn't take any really sophisticated logic to understand that people genuinely holding those beliefs are going to behave differently.
Quote from: Berkut on November 16, 2015, 12:07:03 AM
I am always baffled by the idea that the content of religious beliefs is immaterial to the behavior of those holding the beliefs.
If religion A has one tenet "Do no harm to others" and religion B has one tenet "Kill the infidels", it doesn't take any really sophisticated logic to understand that people genuinely holding those beliefs are going to behave differently.
because "positive" religions aren't any better.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 16, 2015, 12:09:20 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 16, 2015, 12:07:03 AM
I am always baffled by the idea that the content of religious beliefs is immaterial to the behavior of those holding the beliefs.
If religion A has one tenet "Do no harm to others" and religion B has one tenet "Kill the infidels", it doesn't take any really sophisticated logic to understand that people genuinely holding those beliefs are going to behave differently.
because "positive" religions aren't any better.
How do you figure? This seems like just anti-religious sentiment. Religion brings out the worst in some people, but it can bring out the best in others.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 16, 2015, 12:04:23 AM
if they took everything and all that was left was the US, yeah. but i mean before that.
That's kind of a silly hypothetical, don't you think?
ISIS *might* not attack the US if they're busy conquering the rest of the world and the US promises not to interfere, until ISIS has conquered the rest of the world, at which point I would expect ISIS to try and conquer the US.
Quote from: Jaron on November 16, 2015, 12:11:03 AMHow do you figure? This seems like just anti-religious sentiment. Religion brings out the worst in some people, but it can bring out the best in others.
not an anti-religious statement. no religion is better/worse than another. it's the same old thing as anything else, and there's nothing unique about it that makes it worthy of taking a stand against. look at all the non-religious people who hate science (GMO food).
Quote from: LaCroix on November 16, 2015, 12:09:20 AM
because "positive" religions aren't any better.
Fucking Quaker psychos. They need to get their heads examined.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2015, 12:13:00 AMThat's kind of a silly hypothetical, don't you think?
ISIS *might* not attack the US if they're busy conquering the rest of the world and the US promises not to interfere, until ISIS has conquered the rest of the world, at which point I would expect ISIS to try and conquer the US.
but that sounds awfully strategic and based on something that isn't purely religion
Quote from: LaCroix on November 15, 2015, 11:43:13 PM
actually, this nonsense raises an interesting point.
...
So this individual agrees with me yet pretends he doesn't - only so he can raise the same point... Who's the more foolish - the fool or the fool who follows him? :rolleyes:
G.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2015, 12:15:56 AMFucking Quaker psychos. They need to get their heads examined.
there's a constitutional law case where a quaker goes absolutely nuts, screaming obscenities at people. acts like a real prick.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 16, 2015, 12:18:12 AM
there's a constitutional law case where a quaker goes absolutely nuts, screaming obscenities at people. acts like a real prick.
If a Muslim had started screaming obscenities at people in Paris we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2015, 12:23:59 AMIf a Muslim had started screaming obscenities at people in Paris we wouldn't be having this discussion.
and quakers don't come from a broken world
Quote from: LaCroix on November 16, 2015, 12:27:56 AM
and quakers don't come from a broken world
Neither, for that matter, did the 9/11 terrorists, Osama bin Laden, or any of the European-born terrorists.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 16, 2015, 12:16:47 AM
but that sounds awfully strategic and based on something that isn't purely religion
I am sure your point will be self-evident as soon as you tell me what it is.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2015, 12:34:09 AMNeither, for that matter, did the 9/11 terrorists, Osama bin Laden, or any of the European-born terrorists.
i made this point in the other thread awhile back. the individuals might not, but the extremist groups are located there. that's what causes these attacks, not because some guy in isolation attended church and decided to commit a massacre.
QuoteI am sure your point will be self-evident as soon as you tell me what it is.
i suggested this attack was based on a human factor. you suggested it was based on a religious factor. i didn't bother replying because it would have just been, "i disagree," but grallon's post gave me an idea to suggest an extreme hypothetical to test whether the basis was human or religious.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 16, 2015, 12:43:44 AM
i made this point in the other thread awhile back. the individuals might not, but the extremist groups are located there. that's what causes these attacks, not because some guy in isolation attended church and decided to commit a massacre.
Plenty of guys in the West have watched a few jihadist videos online and decided to commit a massacre.
Quotei suggested this attack was based on a human factor. you suggested it was based on a religious factor. i didn't bother replying because it would have just been, "i disagree," but grallon's post gave me an idea to suggest an extreme hypothetical to test whether the basis was human or religious.
Don't really see it proves or disproves anything.
Quote from: grumbler on November 15, 2015, 06:47:50 PM
Quote from: celedhring on November 15, 2015, 06:20:06 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 15, 2015, 06:05:14 PM
Seems to be a lot of people trying to belittle this attack. Going on about the incident in beirut and the university attack from months ago in Kenya. :frusty:
The "you should feel bad about feeling bad about this attack, because you didn't feel bad enough about previous ones" crowd is getting on my tits.
It is outrageous and offensive that you are not outraged enough about this incident to satisfy Tyr, and it is belittling to the most recent victims to even remember that there were previous victims.
You must stand ready, however, to forget this attack ever happened, should there be another attack somewhere else. If you aren't fast enough in forgetting this attack at that point, Tyr will be frustrated and mad at you for belittling the new victims.
What the fuck are you harping on about? Your posts have been almost impossible to understand lately - you are always making some obscure point (usually based on nitcpiking on minuatiae) that has absolutely zero relevance to the discussion at hand.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2015, 12:49:25 AMPlenty of guys in the West have watched a few jihadist videos online and decided to commit a massacre.
that's exactly my point. it's not where these people are from, it's where the groups that inspire these attacks come from.
QuoteDon't really see it proves or disproves anything.
it shows, from a very basic angle, that people act because they're human. they don't just act like religious robots or something, which i think is sometimes lost on people. islam didn't do this attack, just like christianity or any other religion isn't responsible for the crimes committed by worshipers.
Oh, thanks for pointing out that people act because they are human. That totally refutes my point that religion does in fact influence human behavior. Thanks.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 16, 2015, 12:09:20 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 16, 2015, 12:07:03 AM
I am always baffled by the idea that the content of religious beliefs is immaterial to the behavior of those holding the beliefs.
If religion A has one tenet "Do no harm to others" and religion B has one tenet "Kill the infidels", it doesn't take any really sophisticated logic to understand that people genuinely holding those beliefs are going to behave differently.
because "positive" religions aren't any better.
I may be one of the most anti-religious and anti-Christian people here, but this is a load of bullshit.
Quote from: Berkut on November 16, 2015, 01:01:29 AM
Oh, thanks for pointing out that people act because they are human. That totally refutes my point that religion does in fact influence human behavior. Thanks.
i haven't responded to you in this thread.. well, except now. (edit) :lol: and the post on the previous page
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2015, 01:02:49 AMI may be one of the most anti-religious and anti-Christian people here, but this is a load of bullshit.
read a little further, marti
People like LaCroix are the reason why people like grallon will win on this.
Because if these are the only two options (and this seems to be more and more the case, between the loony right and the loony left), ordinary voters will go "well, fuck it, grallon may be a racist genocidal fuck, but at least we have a chance to survive with this guy."
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2015, 01:06:04 AM
People like LaCroix are the reason why people like grallon will win on this.
Because if these are the only two options (and this seems to be more and more the case, between the loony right and the loony left), ordinary voters will go "well, fuck it, grallon may be a racist genocidal fuck, but at least we have a chance to survive with this guy."
i got a marti rant :yeah:
i wouldn't consider myself a leftist, though. i just don't think religion matters much, so why spend so much time hating on it? hate on what matters more: extremist groups. otherwise, this is just classifying whole groups of people based on the actions of a few.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 16, 2015, 01:09:16 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2015, 01:06:04 AM
People like LaCroix are the reason why people like grallon will win on this.
Because if these are the only two options (and this seems to be more and more the case, between the loony right and the loony left), ordinary voters will go "well, fuck it, grallon may be a racist genocidal fuck, but at least we have a chance to survive with this guy."
i got a marti rant :yeah:
i wouldn't consider myself a leftist, though. i just don't think religion matters much, so why spend so much time hating on it? hate on what matters more: extremist groups. otherwise, this is just classifying whole groups of people based on the actions of a few.
Saying that religion motivates the actions of the few is not saying anything about "classification" of "entire groups of people", other than the group of people who use violence to advance their religious agenda.
Quote from: Berkut on November 16, 2015, 01:10:59 AMSaying that religion motivates the actions of the few is not saying anything about "classification" of "entire groups of people", other than the group of people who use violence to advance their religious agenda.
you know, it's poor form to use my comments to support past arguments when my comments, in this thread, are based on a new discussion. in the last thread, i think (after a rocky start) i ended up explaining my position decently well. you seem fixated on something that i didn't really mean to argue against in the first place, which i brought up in the last thread.
I am not arguing about the last thread, but this one.
I think it is poor form to construct strawmen, myself.
Quote from: Berkut on November 16, 2015, 01:17:45 AM
I am not arguing about the last thread, but this one.
I think it is poor form to construct strawmen, myself.
in this thread, i never said "religion never motivates the actions of a few."
Quote from: LaCroix on November 16, 2015, 12:59:07 AM
that's exactly my point. it's not where these people are from, it's where the groups that inspire these attacks come from.
I see. So your thesis, to summarize, is that the concept and impetus for terrorism comes from "broken worlds," and thus, by extension, if these broken worlds didn't exist, people living in non-broken worlds would be singing kumbaya with the Quakers.
Your problem then becomes how to explain someone like that Norwegian Socialist killer, or Timothy McVeigh, or any number of Western terrorists, who were not inspired by messages originating in 3rd World hellholes. Or for that matter, all those bored credit card communists who kidnapped and murdered for the cause in the 60s.
You also have to explain the difference in response rates. There's all kinds of white power nonsense floating around the internet, yet we don't see the same frequency of terrorist attacks perpetrated by skinheads as we do by Muslims.
Quoteit shows, from a very basic angle, that people act because they're human. they don't just act like religious robots or something, which i think is sometimes lost on people. islam didn't do this attack, just like christianity or any other religion isn't responsible for the crimes committed by worshipers.
My predicting how ISIS would react to a promise by the US not to interfere in their world conquest shows that? If I changed my prediction would it disprove it?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2015, 01:19:46 AMI see. So your thesis, to summarize, is that the concept and impetus for terrorism comes from "broken worlds," and thus, by extension, if these broken worlds didn't exist, people living in non-broken worlds would be singing kumbaya with the Quakers.
mostly correct.
QuoteYour problem then becomes how to explain someone like that Norwegian Socialist killer, or Timothy McVeigh, or any number of Western terrorists, who were not inspired by messages originating in 3rd World hellholes. Or for that matter, all those bored credit card communists who kidnapped and murdered for the cause in the 60s.
easy, there's always going to be lone rangers. some people are just nuts.
QuoteYou also have to explain the difference in response rates. There's all kinds of white power nonsense floating around the internet, yet we don't see the same frequency of terrorist attacks perpetrated by skinheads as we do by Muslims.
first, white power = just words. it's always easier to say something than do something. second, there are no major violent white power groups anymore. there used to be, the KKK. that used to inspired people to commit terrorist acts all the time - e.g., the south, post-civil war.
QuoteMy predicting how ISIS would react to a promise by the US not to interfere in their world conquest shows that? If I changed my prediction would it disprove it?
well, if you changed your prediction, it'd be unreasonable. i read "test" after i posted it and thought... that's not the right word. i was more trying to suggest that these attacks are pure retaliation, a very human reaction, rather than anything philosophical/religious.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2015, 12:13:00 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 16, 2015, 12:04:23 AM
if they took everything and all that was left was the US, yeah. but i mean before that.
That's kind of a silly hypothetical, don't you think?
ISIS *might* not attack the US if they're busy conquering the rest of the world and the US promises not to interfere, until ISIS has conquered the rest of the world, at which point I would expect ISIS to try and conquer the US.
I don't think you should just assume ISIS would win if the West was out of the picture. Sure, they were making gains a couple years ago, but that was in two highly dysfunctional states.
Poland's foreign minister has suggested training refugees as an army in exile. "It can't be that we send our soldiers to fight in Syria while hundreds of thousands of Syrians sit in Berlin and drink coffee. [...] Tens of thousands of young men leave their rubber boats with their iPads and ask not for food and water but for a place to charge their cell phones!"
Quote from: Syt on November 16, 2015, 01:41:36 AM
Poland's foreign minister has suggested training refugees as an army in exile. "It can't be that we send our soldiers to fight in Syria while hundreds of thousands of Syrians sit in Berlin and drink coffee. [...] Tens of thousands of young men leave their rubber boats with their iPads and ask not for food and water but for a place to charge their cell phones!"
Funnily, this is also what Bill Maher has been saying.
By the way, what do you guys think of the idea? The guy is from PiS, so all the liberal and leftist media are making fun of him and saying he is making us into an international laughingstock, but I am not sure if this is such a bad idea - and even if it is a bad idea, it is not outside of the realm of discussion that European politicians engage in.
Here is more elaborate statement:
QuotePolish minister says Syrians can return to fight and 'liberate' homeland
Warsaw (AFP) - The hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees pouring into Europe can be trained to form an army and return to "liberate" their homeland, Poland's new foreign minister said on Sunday.
Witold Waszczykowski also told public television that the refugees could be gainfully employed in this manner rather than sipping coffee on an iconic Berlin avenue or other European cities.
"Hundreds of thousands of Syrians have come to Europe recently. We can help them form an army," he said.
"Tens of thousands of young men disembark from their rubber dinghies with iPad in hand and instead of asking for drink or food, they ask where they can charge their cellphones.
"They can go to fight to liberate their country with our help," said the minister, who takes office on Monday.
Waszczykowski said he was trying to avoid a situation where "we send our soldiers to fight in Syria while hundreds of thousands of Syrians drink their coffee in (Berlin's) Unter den Linden" boulevard or in other European cities.
Germany has to date maintained an open-door policy for Syrians escaping their country's bloodshed, giving them "primary protection" -- the highest status for refugees.
Poland's incoming European Affairs Minister Konrad Szymanski said Saturday that Warsaw no longer considered an EU plan to redistribute refugees across Europe as a "political possibility" in light of the Paris attacks that left at least 129 people dead.
The programme -- long criticised by the EU's eastern-most members -- has come under fresh criticism after officials said a Syrian passport found at the scene of one of the attacks belonged to an asylum seeker who registered on a Greek island in October.
http://news.yahoo.com/polish-minister-says-syrians-return-fight-liberate-homeland-225004972.html;_ylt=A0LEViOUF0lW8pAAAKhjmolQ
Comments section is agreeing with him (not that it counts for much...)
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2015, 02:13:57 AM
By the way, what do you guys think of the idea? The guy is from PiS, so all the liberal and leftist media are making fun of him and saying he is making us into an international laughingstock, but I am not sure if this is such a bad idea - and even if it is a bad idea, it is not outside of the realm of discussion that European politicians engage in.
Bay of Pigs.
In theory, it's not a bad idea.
But if they won't train and go back to fight...what then?
Bay of Pigs won't be an issue here. Muslims hate pork. It might be Bay of Lambs or Bay of Camels though.
"This is the time to mourn, not point fingers."
"Religions don't kill people. People kill people."
As if I was listening to the NRA...
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2015, 02:13:57 AM
By the way, what do you guys think of the idea? The guy is from PiS, so all the liberal and leftist media are making fun of him and saying he is making us into an international laughingstock, but I am not sure if this is such a bad idea - and even if it is a bad idea, it is not outside of the realm of discussion that European politicians engage in.
I think there's some merit to offer volunteers to train them and, if enough volunteer, form them into a unit. It worked for the Finnish Jägers in WW1. :P
I'm more annoyed by the rhetoric accompanying the suggestion.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 16, 2015, 01:31:00 AM
easy, there's always going to be lone rangers. some people are just nuts.
The Red Army Faction and their ilk were hardly lone rangers.
Quotefirst, white power = just words. it's always easier to say something than do something. second, there are no major violent white power groups anymore. there used to be, the KKK. that used to inspired people to commit terrorist acts all the time - e.g., the south, post-civil war.
And in which broken world did the idea of lynching uppity blacks first originate, so that Klansmen, who would otherwise have sung kumbaya endlessly, could be properly proselytized in the La Croix fashion?
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2015, 02:16:42 AM
Here is more elaborate statement:
QuotePolish minister says Syrians can return to fight and 'liberate' homeland
Warsaw (AFP) - The hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees pouring into Europe can be trained to form an army and return to "liberate" their homeland, Poland's new foreign minister said on Sunday.
Witold Waszczykowski also told public television that the refugees could be gainfully employed in this manner rather than sipping coffee on an iconic Berlin avenue or other European cities.
"Hundreds of thousands of Syrians have come to Europe recently. We can help them form an army," he said.
"Tens of thousands of young men disembark from their rubber dinghies with iPad in hand and instead of asking for drink or food, they ask where they can charge their cellphones.
"They can go to fight to liberate their country with our help," said the minister, who takes office on Monday.
Waszczykowski said he was trying to avoid a situation where "we send our soldiers to fight in Syria while hundreds of thousands of Syrians drink their coffee in (Berlin's) Unter den Linden" boulevard or in other European cities.
Germany has to date maintained an open-door policy for Syrians escaping their country's bloodshed, giving them "primary protection" -- the highest status for refugees.
Poland's incoming European Affairs Minister Konrad Szymanski said Saturday that Warsaw no longer considered an EU plan to redistribute refugees across Europe as a "political possibility" in light of the Paris attacks that left at least 129 people dead.
The programme -- long criticised by the EU's eastern-most members -- has come under fresh criticism after officials said a Syrian passport found at the scene of one of the attacks belonged to an asylum seeker who registered on a Greek island in October.
http://news.yahoo.com/polish-minister-says-syrians-return-fight-liberate-homeland-225004972.html;_ylt=A0LEViOUF0lW8pAAAKhjmolQ
Comments section is agreeing with him (not that it counts for much...)
I was unaware that Poland was going to send troops to fight in Syria.
The comments about charging their phones and sipping coffee makes it abundantly clear that he is not interested in solutions but rather in rationalizing Poland's refusal to accept refugees.
Quote from: Jaron on November 15, 2015, 10:24:31 PM
What facts?
The facts that any given religious person* agrees with me that millions upon millions of gods don't exist. They make an exception for their gods. I don't. But we are in fundamental agreement about the non-existence of gods, beyond their quibble.
*Hindus and Sikhs exccepted
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2015, 12:54:45 AM
What the fuck are you harping on about? Your posts have been almost impossible to understand lately - you are always making some obscure point (usually based on nitcpiking on minuatiae) that has absolutely zero relevance to the discussion at hand.
No, I will not stop talking over your head. If you can't keep up, just ignore the bits you can't understand.
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2015, 05:55:53 AM
The facts that any given religious person* agrees with me that millions upon millions of gods don't exist. They make an exception for their gods. I don't. But we are in fundamental agreement about the non-existence of gods, beyond their quibble.
*Hindus and Sikhs exccepted
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpublicrelationsmatters.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F06%2FReagan-Mondale-debate-There-you-go-again-again.gif&hash=2f7b0ecc32f79640632e62cdb93378dadf841626)
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 15, 2015, 02:40:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2015, 11:24:23 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2015, 08:53:35 PM
Guys while I agree that Islamic-inspired terrorists are the #1 suspect, we don't actually know who has done this terrible attack, or why. Let's wait for facts before we start debating what to do next.
Okay, so now it does look like Islamic, probably even IS-inspired terrorists are responsible. Would it really have been that terrible to wait until Sunday to start discussing what France/the West's response should be?
Yes.
And no, it served no purpose to wait except being politically correct. Languish has a whole does not care.
Raqqa is still not a smoldering ruin :mad:
it is to be hoped that one of the victims of this attack will be political correctness. It has done more bad than good since the 68-ers control of politics and media.
Quote from: mongers on November 15, 2015, 04:38:08 PM
On checking the woman is Obama's national security advisor, no idea on who the other Russian male is.
going by the eyebrows, someone from vulcan.
Not that he has anything to do with it but the attack might have some fortuitous effects for Putin. Less so for Ukraine or even the Baltics, long term.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 16, 2015, 12:16:47 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2015, 12:13:00 AMThat's kind of a silly hypothetical, don't you think?
ISIS *might* not attack the US if they're busy conquering the rest of the world and the US promises not to interfere, until ISIS has conquered the rest of the world, at which point I would expect ISIS to try and conquer the US.
but that sounds awfully strategic and based on something that isn't purely religion
there's no rule that says you can't use strategy in order to reach religiously mandated goals. jeez.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 16, 2015, 01:09:16 AM
i just don't think religion matters much,
Maybe in the west it doesn't. In the rest of the world the situation is often very very different.
edit: 4 posts in a row is silly. Might have been 5 (the train syrians and send them back idea was posted on languish some months ago)
https://youtu.be/glxh9ZgP7kc
John Oliver's thoughts on this. :wub:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 16, 2015, 06:14:03 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2015, 05:55:53 AM
The facts that any given religious person* agrees with me that millions upon millions of gods don't exist. They make an exception for their gods. I don't. But we are in fundamental agreement about the non-existence of gods, beyond their quibble.
*Hindus and Sikhs exccepted
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpublicrelationsmatters.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F06%2FReagan-Mondale-debate-There-you-go-again-again.gif&hash=2f7b0ecc32f79640632e62cdb93378dadf841626)
It's one of those bizarre statements that Grumbler makes that he apparently thinks is profound but is in fact meaningless. I know it's a popular statement amongst the "Bright movement", and Grumbles is childish enough to walk around telling people that he "is Bright".
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 16, 2015, 06:14:03 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2015, 05:55:53 AM
The facts that any given religious person* agrees with me that millions upon millions of gods don't exist. They make an exception for their gods. I don't. But we are in fundamental agreement about the non-existence of gods, beyond their quibble.
*Hindus and Sikhs exccepted
(snip)
I am sure that everyone thinks that THEIR religion is the one exception to the general consensus that any given god does not, in fact, exist. They generally can't respond to this sort of logic other than to post clips saying "there you go again," because there is no intellectual counter-argument to my statement. "MY god is different because that's what I believe" isn't an intellectual response.
Quote from: Jaron on November 15, 2015, 08:09:54 PM
What happened to Muslims? They used to be in mathematics and poetry and philosophy and all that good stuff. Nowadays they just blow things up and shoot places up.
Those guys tended to be not very pious Muslims.
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2015, 02:13:57 AM
By the way, what do you guys think of the idea? The guy is from PiS, so all the liberal and leftist media are making fun of him and saying he is making us into an international laughingstock, but I am not sure if this is such a bad idea - and even if it is a bad idea, it is not outside of the realm of discussion that European politicians engage in.
Presumably most of the refugees are people who didn't want to fight, that's why they are fleeing. I'm sure some of them do, and it might be possible to train them, but it likely won't be a significant number. Further, what will this refugee army fight for? These are refugees from a 4 year Civil War, they aren't likely to have a united position on what factions to support.
So is this the place to discuss ways to defeat ISIS or does it need another thread or for that mater reusing the ISIL one from a while back?
I'd like to focus on the Obama administration, which seems to be in a bit of a corner because to some extent the situation requires decisive action and that runs counter to Pres.Obama natural cautiousness?
Quote from: mongers on November 16, 2015, 08:26:02 AM
So is this the place to discuss ways to defeat ISIS or does it need another thread or for that mater reusing the ISIL one from a while back?
I'd like to focus on the Obama administration, which seems to be in a bit of a corner because to some extent the situation requires decisive action and that runs counter to Pres.Obama natural cautiousness?
Barack has been willing to drones or bombers to destroy targets (Libya for example), but has been unwilling (mostly) to put "Boots on the ground." What decisive action would you like to see? Anything that would destroy ISIS and prevent another ISIS like group from arising would seem (to me) to require a very long commitment from the west.
I think the problem is Assad.
If NATO troops are on the ground then they will only stop when Assad is ousted. Russia is preventing that.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 16, 2015, 09:50:52 AM
I think the problem is Assad.
If NATO troops are on the ground then they will only stop when Assad is ousted. Russia is preventing that.
Okay, but then what would replace Assad? I don't think the west is willing to simply replace him with another dictator. The experiences with democracy in Iraq (or Libya or Egypt) don't leave me with a lot of confidence that the situation would improve with him gone.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2015, 03:17:26 AMThe Red Army Faction and their ilk were hardly lone rangers.
And in which broken world did the idea of lynching uppity blacks first originate, so that Klansmen, who would otherwise have sung kumbaya endlessly, could be properly proselytized in the La Croix fashion?
that's why i said "mostly correct." broken world only goes so far. it's really whatever conditions exist that force a violent extreme group into existence. things like red army faction and the IRA formed more because there was a group of people who really desired something. the basis can be caused by religion, political ideology, ethnicity, nationalism, or one of many other reasons why people band together. but there has to be something going on for one person to convince others to jump on board. otherwise it's some ranting nut.
I am not worried about Islam.
I mean, they will kill a lot of more westerners before all this is over, but in the big scheme of things, Islam is condemned to the dust bin of history because natural selection dictates that totalitarian anti technological regimes cannot triumph against technological liberal democracies.
No matter how morally weak the West is today.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 16, 2015, 06:28:47 AMthere's no rule that says you can't use strategy in order to reach religiously mandated goals. jeez.
why? if you have a religious tenant -> kill all the christians. and you believe you must kill all the christians. if you're a true religious person, then you must kill all the christians and make no compromise. attacks should happen before and after. now, obviously this would almost never happen and strategy is of course used. but that's because people act more on a human basis than a religious one. if god were truly on someone's side, strategy is unnecessary because the outcome is essentially predetermined.
Quote from: Savonarola on November 16, 2015, 09:56:16 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 16, 2015, 09:50:52 AM
I think the problem is Assad.
If NATO troops are on the ground then they will only stop when Assad is ousted. Russia is preventing that.
Okay, but then what would replace Assad? I don't think the west is willing to simply replace him with another dictator. The experiences with democracy in Iraq (or Libya or Egypt) don't leave me with a lot of confidence that the situation would improve with him gone.
And that is the problem. We need a dictator in charge, it can be Assad or we can appoint one in concert with Russia & Iran.
Maybe we should let Iran deal with it, actually.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 16, 2015, 10:04:25 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 16, 2015, 06:28:47 AMthere's no rule that says you can't use strategy in order to reach religiously mandated goals. jeez.
why? if you have a religious tenant -> kill all the christians. and you believe you must kill all the christians. if you're a true religious person, then you must kill all the christians and make no compromise. attacks should happen before and after. now, obviously this would almost never happen and strategy is of course used. but that's because people act more on a human basis than a religious one. if god were truly on someone's side, strategy is unnecessary because the outcome is essentially predetermined.
LaCroix: theology master.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 16, 2015, 09:57:38 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2015, 03:17:26 AMThe Red Army Faction and their ilk were hardly lone rangers.
And in which broken world did the idea of lynching uppity blacks first originate, so that Klansmen, who would otherwise have sung kumbaya endlessly, could be properly proselytized in the La Croix fashion?
that's why i said "mostly correct." broken world only goes so far. it's really whatever conditions exist that force a violent extreme group into existence. things like red army faction and the IRA formed more because there was a group of people who really desired something. the basis can be caused by religion, political ideology, ethnicity, nationalism, or one of many other reasons why people band together. but there has to be something going on for one person to convince others to jump on board. otherwise it's some ranting nut.
So it could be for any grievance motivated by any reason. Glad we got that sorted out.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 16, 2015, 10:04:25 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 16, 2015, 06:28:47 AMthere's no rule that says you can't use strategy in order to reach religiously mandated goals. jeez.
why? if you have a religious tenant -> kill all the christians. and you believe you must kill all the christians. if you're a true religious person, then you must kill all the christians and make no compromise. attacks should happen before and after. now, obviously this would almost never happen and strategy is of course used. but that's because people act more on a human basis than a religious one. if god were truly on someone's side, strategy is unnecessary because the outcome is essentially predetermined.
:hmm: Good God, you now made me want to make sure to let my properties only to atheists to avoid any trouble.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 16, 2015, 10:05:24 AM
QuoteOkay, but then what would replace Assad? I don't think the west is willing to simply replace him with another dictator. The experiences with democracy in Iraq (or Libya or Egypt) don't leave me with a lot of confidence that the situation would improve with him gone.
And that is the problem. We need a dictator in charge, it can be Assad or we can appoint one in concert with Russia & Iran.
Maybe we should let Iran deal with it, actually.
I agree with this, but I don't think it's going to be politically palatable to the western powers.
Barack is in a no-win situation. Invading Syria or the Islamic State may be popular initially; but our experience in Iraq demonstrates how quickly that can fall apart. Letting Russia or Iran handle the situation is going to be unpopular at home; though may lead to the best long term solution. Bombing the hell out of ISIS will be popular, but won't solve anything.
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2015, 10:09:16 AMSo it could be for any grievance motivated by any reason. Glad we got that sorted out.
my point is that religious terrorism isn't any different than other forms. if people are forming violent extremist groups, they're going to cherrypick whatever they can from scripture and use it as a basis for their attacks. it's not religion -> terrorism; it's terrorism -> religion.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 16, 2015, 10:29:57 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2015, 10:09:16 AMSo it could be for any grievance motivated by any reason. Glad we got that sorted out.
my point is that religious terrorism isn't any different than other forms. if people are forming violent extremist groups, they're going to cherrypick whatever they can from scripture and use it as a basis for their attacks. it's not religion -> terrorism; it's terrorism -> religion.
Well one would hope they have to cherrypick. If all their scriptures are 100% behind terrorism that would be pretty scary.
But I guess the founder of such a religion would have been too busy blowing people up to convert others so it probably would never catch on.
However we have one religion which is producing most of the terrorists these days so that might mean something. I don't think it necessarily means we must eliminate all Muslims or religion (as if we could do that anyway) but rather that a Muslim problem might require a Muslim solution. As far as broken worlds well one would expect most terrorists to come from the most impoverished or fucked up places. Yet loads of Congolese and Haitian terrorists are not horrifying the world right now.
Quote from: Savonarola on November 16, 2015, 10:16:18 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 16, 2015, 10:05:24 AM
QuoteOkay, but then what would replace Assad? I don't think the west is willing to simply replace him with another dictator. The experiences with democracy in Iraq (or Libya or Egypt) don't leave me with a lot of confidence that the situation would improve with him gone.
And that is the problem. We need a dictator in charge, it can be Assad or we can appoint one in concert with Russia & Iran.
Maybe we should let Iran deal with it, actually.
I agree with this, but I don't think it's going to be politically palatable to the western powers.
Barack is in a no-win situation. Invading Syria or the Islamic State may be popular initially; but our experience in Iraq demonstrates how quickly that can fall apart. Letting Russia or Iran handle the situation is going to be unpopular at home; though may lead to the best long term solution. Bombing the hell out of ISIS will be popular, but won't solve anything.
Nope, sadly it is not.
The attacks have moved my sister deeply.
QuoteWhat a way to start the week......listening to a press conference instead of my Michael and Kelly
Quote from: Syt on November 16, 2015, 10:41:11 AM
The attacks have moved my sister deeply.
QuoteWhat a way to start the week......listening to a press conference instead of my Michael and Kelly
Those terrorists shall pay for this outrage.
Quote from: Savonarola on November 16, 2015, 09:29:02 AM
Barack has been willing to drones or bombers to destroy targets (Libya for example), but has been unwilling (mostly) to put "Boots on the ground." What decisive action would you like to see? Anything that would destroy ISIS and prevent another ISIS like group from arising would seem (to me) to require a very long commitment from the west.
His policy was premised on the understanding that Daesh was content to build its Potemkin caliphate in the desert regions of Iraq and Syria and thus could be "contained". Events have overtaken those assumptions. There is an effective fighting force already on the ground and within striking distance of the Daesh capital. NATO ground troops fighting alongside would make the work go much faster.
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2015, 07:55:27 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 16, 2015, 06:14:03 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2015, 05:55:53 AM
The facts that any given religious person* agrees with me that millions upon millions of gods don't exist. They make an exception for their gods. I don't. But we are in fundamental agreement about the non-existence of gods, beyond their quibble.
*Hindus and Sikhs exccepted
(snip)
I am sure that everyone thinks that THEIR religion is the one exception to the general consensus that any given god does not, in fact, exist. They generally can't respond to this sort of logic other than to post clips saying "there you go again," because there is no intellectual counter-argument to my statement. "MY god is different because that's what I believe" isn't an intellectual response.
I'd like to remind you that I am not religious. I just find this argument tedious, as well as sophistries like "The facts that any given religious person* agrees with me that millions upon millions of gods don't exist. They make an exception for their gods. I don't. But we are in fundamental agreement about the non-existence of gods, beyond their quibble."
Hollande has reiterated that he considers France to be at war :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34836439
With Daesh/IS/whatever? Then all of NATO should be at war yes? That is how this is supposed to work right?
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2015, 10:53:08 AM
With Daesh/IS/whatever? Then all of NATO should be at war yes? That is how this is supposed to work right?
With ISIS.
He can apparently invoke a NATO treaty article if he wants help from the rest of us.
Really how could it be otherwise? ISIS is a putative state, it has unquestionably engaged in an act of war, under any definition.
Will he? What would the Turks do?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 16, 2015, 10:46:20 AM
His policy was premised on the understanding that Daesh was content to build its Potemkin caliphate in the desert regions of Iraq and Syria and thus could be "contained". Events have overtaken those assumptions. There is an effective fighting force already on the ground and within striking distance of the Daesh capital. NATO ground troops fighting alongside would make the work go much faster.
Okay, but then what happens after ISIS has been overthrown? Is the United States or any NATO power willing to keep troops in the area and spend money for long term nation building?
Quote from: Savonarola on November 16, 2015, 10:59:35 AM
Okay, but then what happens after ISIS has been overthrown? Is the United States or any NATO power willing to keep troops in the area and spend money for long term nation building?
A mess/probably not.
Still no real choice at this point.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2015, 12:15:56 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 16, 2015, 12:09:20 AM
because "positive" religions aren't any better.
Fucking Quaker psychos. They need to get their heads examined.
They produce guys like Richard Nixon. You can't trust 'em. ;)
But more generally - religions are not all of a piece. Quakers are a subset of "Christian" and there have been lots of very violent Christian movements - even though the foundational texts are more or less the same. Likewise, there are Muslim sects that are pretty non-violent (and in fact, a lot like Quakers) - such as some varieties of Sufism. They resemble Quakers because they share a greater emphasis on intuitive religion - whereas others put a greater emphasis on (say) millennialism.
With religions, you have to be pretty specific. General labels like "Muslim" are not helpful, even though they all share the same foundational texts - different sects behave totally differently.
I think the word we are looking for is Salafism right? Maybe even a subsection of that.
Sufis are a "positive" religion and therefore "aren't any better". Better at what I have no idea :hmm:
Quote from: Savonarola on November 16, 2015, 10:59:35 AM
Okay, but then what happens after ISIS has been overthrown? Is the United States or any NATO power willing to keep troops in the area and spend money for long term nation building?
You know, I think anarchy would probably be preferable to ISIS.
At being resonable humane human beings.
Quote from: derspiess on November 14, 2015, 11:18:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 14, 2015, 11:10:47 PM
If you replace Allah with God then it fits with a lot of fundamentalist North American apocalyptic nonsense too ;)
Moral equivalence FTW!!!
It is not Moral equivalence to point out hypocrisy ;)
Condemning a whole religion for the acts of a very small number is nonsense.
Sufism isn't really a sect, it's more a set of disciplines and approaches, although there are Sufi "orders". Sufism crosses sectional divisions, for example the Ayatollah Khomeini studied Sufi texts and wrote Sufi poetry as a student. It's true that Dash/Al-Qaeda/Salafi/Wahhabbi tendency is anti-Sufi and in its extreme manifestations resorts to violence and extirpation.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 16, 2015, 11:24:25 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on November 16, 2015, 10:59:35 AM
Okay, but then what happens after ISIS has been overthrown? Is the United States or any NATO power willing to keep troops in the area and spend money for long term nation building?
You know, I think anarchy would probably be preferable to ISIS.
It's the lack of state authority which caused ISIS to appear in the first place, so that is not the answer. A strong state authority is.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 16, 2015, 11:04:06 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on November 16, 2015, 10:59:35 AM
Okay, but then what happens after ISIS has been overthrown? Is the United States or any NATO power willing to keep troops in the area and spend money for long term nation building?
A mess/probably not.
Still no real choice at this point.
Barack has doubled down on his commitment not to use ground troops:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-11-16/obama-rejects-calls-to-send-u-s-ground-troops-to-syria-fight (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-11-16/obama-rejects-calls-to-send-u-s-ground-troops-to-syria-fight)
Quote from: PJL on November 16, 2015, 11:28:25 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 16, 2015, 11:24:25 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on November 16, 2015, 10:59:35 AM
Okay, but then what happens after ISIS has been overthrown? Is the United States or any NATO power willing to keep troops in the area and spend money for long term nation building?
You know, I think anarchy would probably be preferable to ISIS.
It's the lack of state authority which caused ISIS to appear in the first place, so that is not the answer. A strong state authority is.
But then, how can that be done without propping up a dictator?
Quote from: Savonarola on November 16, 2015, 11:34:02 AM
Quote from: PJL on November 16, 2015, 11:28:25 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 16, 2015, 11:24:25 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on November 16, 2015, 10:59:35 AM
Okay, but then what happens after ISIS has been overthrown? Is the United States or any NATO power willing to keep troops in the area and spend money for long term nation building?
You know, I think anarchy would probably be preferable to ISIS.
It's the lack of state authority which caused ISIS to appear in the first place, so that is not the answer. A strong state authority is.
But then, how can that be done without propping up a dictator?
We can't. Propping up a dictator seems to be the only real option we have, or the least worst one we have.
Quote from: PJL on November 16, 2015, 11:39:21 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on November 16, 2015, 11:34:02 AM
But then, how can that be done without propping up a dictator?
We can't. Propping up a dictator seems to be the only real option we have, or the least worst one we have.
I agree, but I don't think that's going to be palatable to the western powers.
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2015, 07:55:27 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 16, 2015, 06:14:03 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2015, 05:55:53 AM
The facts that any given religious person* agrees with me that millions upon millions of gods don't exist. They make an exception for their gods. I don't. But we are in fundamental agreement about the non-existence of gods, beyond their quibble.
*Hindus and Sikhs exccepted
(snip)
I am sure that everyone thinks that THEIR religion is the one exception to the general consensus that any given god does not, in fact, exist. They generally can't respond to this sort of logic other than to post clips saying "there you go again," because there is no intellectual counter-argument to my statement. "MY god is different because that's what I believe" isn't an intellectual response.
Mainstream archaeologists agree with me on millions of facts (the moon isn't made of cheese, water is composed hydrogen and oxygen etc), so when I look at the pyramids and say "aliens built it", I'm 99.999% in agreement with academics.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 16, 2015, 09:57:38 AM
that's why i said "mostly correct." broken world only goes so far. it's really whatever conditions exist that force a violent extreme group into existence. things like red army faction and the IRA formed more because there was a group of people who really desired something. the basis can be caused by religion, political ideology, ethnicity, nationalism, or one of many other reasons why people band together. but there has to be something going on for one person to convince others to jump on board. otherwise it's some ranting nut.
Did you just concede your entire point. :unsure:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 16, 2015, 10:49:55 AM
I'd like to remind you that I am not religious. I just find this argument tedious, as well as sophistries like "The facts that any given religious person* agrees with me that millions upon millions of gods don't exist. They make an exception for their gods. I don't. But we are in fundamental agreement about the non-existence of gods, beyond their quibble."
Again, this isn't an intellectual response to my argument, but a mere statement that you found my argument "tedious" (yet, strangely, not so tedious that you eschewed investing lifespan in responding to it). Who cares what you find tedious? Why do you bother 'sharing" that with us? If four sentences are too long for your attention span, that says far more about your attention span than my four sentences. You'd be better off keeping that to yourself.
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2015, 01:08:14 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 16, 2015, 10:49:55 AM
I'd like to remind you that I am not religious. I just find this argument tedious, as well as sophistries like "The facts that any given religious person* agrees with me that millions upon millions of gods don't exist. They make an exception for their gods. I don't. But we are in fundamental agreement about the non-existence of gods, beyond their quibble."
Again, this isn't an intellectual response to my argument, but a mere statement that you found my argument "tedious" (yet, strangely, not so tedious that you eschewed investing lifespan in responding to it). Who cares what you find tedious? Why do you bother 'sharing" that with us? If four sentences are too long for your attention span, that says far more about your attention span than my four sentences. You'd be better off keeping that to yourself.
Sure there is. Of course it would be a long tedious theological response that would be as pointless as your entire point but there does exist such a response.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2015, 08:04:35 PM
Reasonable Muslims at some point have to realize that there is too much about their religion that is fucked up, say to world that some things Mohammed said were retarded, that some of the Koran is bullshit, and either chuck it altogether or pick out some parts that are worth saving and invent a new religion.
There's some pretty fucked up Christians too.
At some point, you have to realize there is a problem: some religions and ideologies are completely opposed to our way of life.
And then you must act, before the problem becomes serious, before people start blowing themselves up, before they start shooting randomly. By then, the extremist movement is firmly implanted in the susceptible communities and you can't eradicate it easily.
Or, you use the NRA's attitude: it's the price to pay to live in a free society, and you accept acts of terror as a fatality, so you change nothing.
As for the muslims realizing there are many things fucked up done in the name of their religion, when they speak, we do not listen. When they tell us Imam X should not be invited for a conference because he preaches hate, we talk to them of freedom of expression. When they tell us the radicals are poisoning their existence, we talk to them of freedom of religion. They come here as refugees, and they are face to face with the same extremists they fled. They fear for their life and no one listens. And when eventually, someone homegrown leaves for jihad and comes back to commit an act of terror, we blame them for not acting.
You cannot simply bomb an ideology, it always comes back. Israel has been bombing the Palestinian the arab armies and terrorist organizations since 1948 and they're still at each other's throat.
You cannot change the fact that some people will hate us for what we are. We can not kill them all. But we can act to curb their enthousiasm. We can expel the radicals from here and we can certainly make sure that young muslims can grow up in the same environment we do. You are not born a terrorist, you become one, through radicalization and endoctrination.
You have leaders of the muslim community telling you exactly what I've been saying for long:
In French, since you can understand it:
http://ici.radio-canada.ca/tele/tout-le-monde-en-parle/2015-2016/segments/entrevue/3925/attentats-paris (http://ici.radio-canada.ca/tele/tout-le-monde-en-parle/2015-2016/segments/entrevue/3925/attentats-paris)
Europe waited way too long before tackling the problem, and they are suffering the consequences. Canada and US are on the same page as them, waiting for the inevitable to happen, then blame those who told us what to do years ago.
What we have is this:
- Some muslims talk, no one listen to them. Non muslims who talk are called racist, intolerant, etc.
- The majority of the muslims don't consider the terrorist as the same as them. The same way a Protestant bombing an abortion clinic in the name of God is not representative of who I am, even if he's Canadian, even if I'm baptized. Discussing with a muslim about this will often result in such: "He's salafist, I'm not". To them, it's like a Christian bombing a Church in the name of God, it's not their God, end of story.
- Eventually, by being very lax about we who let him, what we allow them to do, we have extreme right-wing parties appearing on the landscape, their resistance will not be strictly limited to fanatics, they'll consider everyone different to be a problem.
- As a result of the previous point, radical preachers will increase in popularity.
- And we can always count on the useful idiots to ignore the problem, listen to the preachers of #4 instead of the muslims in #1, therefore exacerbating the problem.
Our attitude toward religion must change. We must recognize that some religions are more than a spiritual thing, they are an ideology akin to nazism. We must act now. We must refuse extremism. That will piss them off. They will attack us more than others at first, but eventually, they will have much less attraction on the people in our countries and they will need to recruit foreigners, easier to detect than homegrown terrorists. They won't be able to hide as easily as they do in their communities.
Quote from: DGuller on November 16, 2015, 10:10:53 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 16, 2015, 10:04:25 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 16, 2015, 06:28:47 AMthere's no rule that says you can't use strategy in order to reach religiously mandated goals. jeez.
why? if you have a religious tenant -> kill all the christians. and you believe you must kill all the christians. if you're a true religious person, then you must kill all the christians and make no compromise. attacks should happen before and after. now, obviously this would almost never happen and strategy is of course used. but that's because people act more on a human basis than a religious one. if god were truly on someone's side, strategy is unnecessary because the outcome is essentially predetermined.
:hmm: Good God, you now made me want to make sure to let my properties only to atheists to avoid any trouble.
:lol:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 16, 2015, 11:26:48 AM
Sufism isn't really a sect, it's more a set of disciplines and approaches, although there are Sufi "orders". Sufism crosses sectional divisions, for example the Ayatollah Khomeini studied Sufi texts and wrote Sufi poetry as a student. It's true that Dash/Al-Qaeda/Salafi/Wahhabbi tendency is anti-Sufi and in its extreme manifestations resorts to violence and extirpation.
Sufism is basically a direct, intuitive, "mystical" approach to Islam. Though of course, many of the Wahabbi types would deny it is even Islamic. ;)
However, for our purposes, it isn't really material whether its adherents are classified as members of a separate "sect" or not (I'd say that in actual practice most are). The point is that it is dangerous to generalize about the religion as a whole - if you gathered some Muslims of a Sufi persuasion and some Muslims of the Wahabbi sort in one room, the delta of difference between 'em could be pretty wide. ;) I cannot imagine a Wahabbi writing this:
QuoteI have learned so much from God
That I can no longer call myself
a Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Jew.
-Hafez
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hafez
It's heading into anti-Semites and Jews, Sufi and fellow travellers are some of the very first ISIS go after when taking over a place, before Christians and other sects.
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2015, 01:08:14 PM
Again, this isn't an intellectual response to my argument, but a mere statement that you found my argument "tedious" (yet, strangely, not so tedious that you eschewed investing lifespan in responding to it). Who cares what you find tedious? Why do you bother 'sharing" that with us? If four sentences are too long for your attention span, that says far more about your attention span than my four sentences. You'd be better off keeping that to yourself.
The arguments about God and derision toward believers has been going on since the beginning of the forum, it wasn't born in this thread. It's not even the first time you've trotted out that particular sophistry.
Let's examine your claim. You don't believe in any god and ridicule those who do. Yet you say you agree with them on the subject of "other gods".
So you don't believe in Allah. You think Muslims are idiots or fools for doing so. And you say this is the same position a Christian would have.
A Christian, however, might look at it differently. They do believe in "Allah" (which is simply Arabic for "God"), they just don't think he ever talked to Mohammed and doesn't care much if you like bacon.
Let's say you're wearing blue shirt. So red-shirt wearing grumbler doesn't exist. Neither does green-shirt wearing grumbler or brown-shirt wearing grumbler, or a thousand other hues. And you only drink beer, so Sprite-drinking grumbler and milk-drinking grumbler don't exist either. It would be rather silly of me to suggest you didn't exist at all, just because an infinite variety of "grumblers" can be imagined.
You're basically equating saying "I think grumbler's shirt is actually red" to saying "I think grumbler's not real."
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 16, 2015, 02:08:45 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2015, 01:08:14 PM
Again, this isn't an intellectual response to my argument, but a mere statement that you found my argument "tedious" (yet, strangely, not so tedious that you eschewed investing lifespan in responding to it). Who cares what you find tedious? Why do you bother 'sharing" that with us? If four sentences are too long for your attention span, that says far more about your attention span than my four sentences. You'd be better off keeping that to yourself.
The arguments about God and derision toward believers has been going on since the beginning of the forum, it wasn't born in this thread. It's not even the first time you've trotted out that particular sophistry.
Let's examine your claim. You don't believe in any god and ridicule those who do. Yet you say you agree with them on the subject of "other gods".
So you don't believe in Allah. You think Muslims are idiots or fools for doing so. And you say this is the same position a Christian would have.
A Christian, however, might look at it differently. They do believe in "Allah" (which is simply Arabic for "God"), they just don't think he ever talked to Mohammed and doesn't care much if you like bacon.
Let's say you're wearing blue shirt. So red-shirt wearing grumbler doesn't exist. Neither does green-shirt wearing grumbler or brown-shirt wearing grumbler, or a thousand other hues. And you only drink beer, so Sprite-drinking grumbler and milk-drinking grumbler don't exist either. It would be rather silly of me to suggest you didn't exist at all, just because an infinite variety of "grumblers" can be imagined.
You're basically equating saying "I think grumbler's shirt is actually red" to saying "I think grumbler's not real."
Yeah, Grumbler's argument works better when only considering religious beliefs characterized by Fundamentalist Christians or Wahabbists but does not work so well when attempting the characterize the Sufi belief Malthus posted.
We should spread the rumor in the Islamic World that the US Stronghold is actually Compton, not Washington DC; then see how well the terrorist fare there.
;)
QuoteParis attacks: 'France is at war,' Hollande says
Paris (CNN)Declaring that "France is at war," President Francois Hollande on Monday proposed sweeping new laws and more spending on public safety in response to Friday's terror attacks in Paris -- promising to eradicate terrorism, but not at the expense of France's freedom.
At the same time, ISIS threatened the United States that it could be next.
"I swear to God, as we struck France in its stronghold Paris, we will strike America in its stronghold, Washington," an ISIS fighter declared in a video released Monday.
The speech, and ISIS' latest threat, came as police scoured France and Belgium in a hunt for suspects in Friday's brutal attacks, which left at least 129 dead and 352 wounded.
Hollande calls for new laws
In a rare speech to a joint session of parliament, Hollande urged lawmakers to approve a three-month extension of the nation's state of emergency, new laws that would allow authorities to strip the citizenship from French-born terrorists, and provisions making it easier to deport suspected terrorists.
He also proposed adding 5,000 positions to the country's national paramilitary police force and said he would not propose cuts in the nation's defense spending until at least 2019.
He said France would intensify its attacks on ISIS and called for a United Nations Security Council meeting to discuss the worldwide threat posed by the group.
"We are not committed to a war of civilizations, because these assassins don't represent any civilization," Hollande said. "We are in a war against terrorism, jihadism, which threatens the whole world."
"Terrorism will not destroy France, because France will destroy it," Hollande said.
Raids across France
French police carried out raids around the country overnight into Monday, bringing to 150 the number of raids under the country's state of emergency since Friday.
French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said Monday that a rocket launcher and bulletproof vest were among the items seized. He said he had ordered that 104 people be put under house arrest since the attacks.
In Belgium, at least seven people were arrested in weekend raids connected to the Paris attacks, officials said. Those arrested were in contact with the Paris attackers, a senior Belgian counterterrorism source told CNN. No weapons or explosives were found.
While police said seven of the Paris attackers were dead -- either shot by officers or blown up by their own suicide vests -- an international manhunt is underway for one suspect who has already managed to slip through the fingers of authorities at least once.
Suspect at large described as dangerous
The suspect, Salah Abdeslam, is a 26-year-old French citizen who was born in Belgium, French police said in a public request for information, warning that he is dangerous and should not be approached. Belgium has issued an international warrant for his arrest.
Investigators haven't said much about how they believe Abdeslam is tied to the shootings and bombings that targeted people at restaurants, bars, a concert venue and a sports stadium.
The French newspaper Le Monde reported that he rented the black Volkswagen Polo that was found outside the Bataclan concert hall where three attackers massacred at least 89 people before blowing themselves up or being shot by police.
Questioned by police, then let go
Jean-Pascal Thoreau, a spokesman for Belgium's federal prosecutor, said Abdeslam is one of three brothers suspected of involvement in the rampage of violence. One of the brothers was killed in the attacks, and another was arrested by Belgian police, he said.
Salah Abdeslam had been questioned by French police earlier but was not detained, a source close to the investigation into the Paris attacks said.
He was driving in the direction of the Belgian border a few hours after the attacks when officers stopped him, the source said. Now, his whereabouts are unknown.
Le Monde reported that police hadn't yet linked him to the Paris attacks when they stopped him and two other people in a black Volkswagen Golf. When Belgian police stopped the car later Saturday, Abdeslam was no longer in it.
On Monday, police had blocked off two streets in an active standoff in Molenbeek, a suburb of Brussels, Belgium, with a history of links to terrorism plots. Police in balaclavas surrounded a building and were using a megaphone to command someone to come out, a CNN team on the ground reported.
No one was arrested, Thoreau said. Belgian state broadcaster RTBF, citing the country's Federal Justice Department, had previously reported that police made one arrest but had not apprehended Abdeslam.
Car found with weapons inside
Le Monde reported that Salah Abdeslam's older brother Ibrahim was the suicide bomber whose explosives detonated at a cafe on boulevard Voltaire in eastern Paris during the wave of attacks on the city. The Paris prosecutor's office has identified that attacker as a 31-year-old French citizen but hasn't disclosed his name.
According to Le Monde, Ibrahim Abdeslam rented the black Seat car that authorities say was used in the string of deadly attacks on restaurants and bars on Friday. But it's not yet clear whether he was in the vehicle at the time of the attacks, the newspaper said.
Other suspected attackers have been identified, including Ismael Omar Mostefai, a 29-year-old French citizen from the Paris suburbs who authorities say was radicalized in 2010 but wasn't known to be associated with a terrorist group. Mostefai was one of the three terrorists who stormed the Bataclan concert hall, according to officials.
On Monday, the Paris prosecutor's office identified another of the Bataclan attackers as Samy Amimour, a 28-year-old from the Parisian suburb of Drancy.
Amimour was known to have links to terrorists and had been the subject of an international arrest warrant since 2013 after violating the judicial supervision he had been placed under, the prosecutor's office said in a statement.
He was placed under supervision in 2012 after anti-terrorism authorities investigated an aborted attempt to travel to Yemen, the statement said.
Stadium attacker believed to have fought in Syria
Authorities have also released names for two of the suicide bombers who set off their explosives outside the Stade de France, the national stadium where France's soccer team was playing Germany's.
One is Bilal Hadfi, who is reported to have been a 20-year-old French citizen living in Belgium.
Guy van Vlierden, a Belgian terrorism expert, said Hadfi is thought to have fought in Syria, where he went by the names Abu Moudjahid Al-Belgiki and Bilal Al Mouhajir.
Hadfi appears to have traveled to Syria last spring, van Vlierden said, citing analysis of his social media postings and other communications.
At least three of the terrorists involved in Friday's attacks in France have spent time in Syria, a French official told CNN Sunday. The official did not specify who those three attackers were.
On Monday, CNN affiliate BFM reported that French officials believe that six of the people directly involved in the attacks had spent time in Syria.
Syrian passport holder linked to refugee flow
Attention is also heavily focused on a Syrian passport found near the body of another of the three Stade de France bombers.
The first stadium attacker was carrying the passport, a French senator who was briefed by the Interior Ministry told CNN's Christiane Amanpour. French officials have determined that the bomber was among a group of Syrian refugees who arrived on the Greek island of Leros on October 3.
The senator told CNN that the man was carrying the passport and also a registration document for refugee status by Greek authorities. The fingerprints of the passport holder taken by Greek authorities match those of the terrorist who blew himself up at the Stade de France, the senator said.
The Paris prosecutor's office on Monday confirmed the link, saying the passport bearing the name of Ahmad Al Mohammad, a 25-year-old from Idlib, still needs to be verified.
Attack raises concerns internationally
In Britain, authorities said they would increase security for Tuesday's soccer match between England and France. And in Washington, transit police stepped up patrols to safeguard the city's mass transit system.
More patrols, more dogs and random explosives screenings were introduced, along with unseen countermeasures meant to prevent an attack, the Metro Transit Police Department said.
CIA Director John Brennan said he would be surprised if the group doesn't have additional attacks in preparation.
"I would anticipate this is not the only operation they have in the pipeline," he said. "I do believe this is something we will have to deal with for quite some time."
Refugee concerns intensify
The alleged link between one of the Paris attackers and the refugees from the Syrian war flocking to Europe this year has intensified concerns about how to handle the massive influx of people.
"The fear that terrorists are hiding amongst refugees will increase and will be used by anti-immigrant politicians," said Karen Jacobsen, who directs the Refugees and Forced Migration program at Tufts University's Feinstein International Center.
But she said measures like "sealing borders with razor wire and having police on trains requesting papers" won't prevent desperate refugees from reaching Europe.
"The United States and Europe must work together to find reasonable ways to manage the current refugee flow into Europe and to utilize more creative and effective intelligence to monitor terrorist plans," Jacobsen wrote in an opinion article for CNN.
City on edge
On Monday, Parisians tried to return to school and work in a city scarred by its second major terror attack this year. In January, terrorists stormed the offices of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, killing 12.
At one intersection, police who arrived to direct traffic Monday were met by worried pedestrians asking "Is anything happening?" according to CNN's Atika Shubert.
At a Paris school, a father said, "It's difficult to let them go off to school and for us to return to work, for everyone. We're all just going to have to look out for one another."
In a radio address Monday, Prime Minister Manuel Valls said, "Life must carry on, but we are going to live a long time with this terrorist threat, and without doubt we have to prepare for new attacks."
I'm curious, what would extending the state of emergency for such a length of time mean in practical terms? Also does anyone have an opinion on Hollande's new proposals?
QuoteHe also proposed adding 5,000 positions to the country's national paramilitary police force and said he would not propose cuts in the nation's defense spending until at least 2019.
My God! This scale of national mobilization has not been seen since the Levée en masse.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anselm.edu%2Facademic%2Fhistory%2Fhdubrulle%2FModernFrance%2F2013%2Fgraphics%2FMobilization%2520Order%25201914.jpg&hash=de54ea09035282a8363a9f0312158e28d255e44a)
Stripping citizenship is definitely problematic.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2015, 02:20:06 PM
Stripping citizenship is definitely problematic.
That caught my eye as well. What is the advantage for the government to do that? Also legally what would happen to these now stateless people?
(Just general questions, not directed at Yi specifically.)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 16, 2015, 02:08:45 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2015, 01:08:14 PM
Again, this isn't an intellectual response to my argument, but a mere statement that you found my argument "tedious" (yet, strangely, not so tedious that you eschewed investing lifespan in responding to it). Who cares what you find tedious? Why do you bother 'sharing" that with us? If four sentences are too long for your attention span, that says far more about your attention span than my four sentences. You'd be better off keeping that to yourself.
The arguments about God and derision toward believers has been going on since the beginning of the forum, it wasn't born in this thread. It's not even the first time you've trotted out that particular sophistry.
Let's examine your claim. You don't believe in any god and ridicule those who do. Yet you say you agree with them on the subject of "other gods".
So you don't believe in Allah. You think Muslims are idiots or fools for doing so. And you say this is the same position a Christian would have.
A Christian, however, might look at it differently. They do believe in "Allah" (which is simply Arabic for "God"), they just don't think he ever talked to Mohammed and doesn't care much if you like bacon.
Let's say you're wearing blue shirt. So red-shirt wearing grumbler doesn't exist. Neither does green-shirt wearing grumbler or brown-shirt wearing grumbler, or a thousand other hues. And you only drink beer, so Sprite-drinking grumbler and milk-drinking grumbler don't exist either. It would be rather silly of me to suggest you didn't exist at all, just because an infinite variety of "grumblers" can be imagined.
You're basically equating saying "I think grumbler's shirt is actually red" to saying "I think grumbler's not real."
Now THIS is sophistry!
If one were to *define* grumbler as being a human being wearing a red shirt and drinking diet pepsi, and in fact the human being in question only wears blue and drinks milk or lemonade, then in fact we would absolutely conclude that "grumbler" as you defined him does not exist.
And in fact, when it comes to Gods, their attributes are very much the definition of what they are - to say that "allah" exists, but he never chatted with Mohammed is not saying that he exists (in the fashion that Muslims consider him to exist) at all. That is one of the characteristics that define the being that they are talking about.
So your argument is just terrible - it is an attempt to define away the very characteristics that believers consider to define the deity they claim to have faith in, that they claim to worship, that they claim defines their own behavior.
"Grumbler" is just a convenient label we attach to an actual physical person I have very good evidence actually exists. If me and you are talking, and I tell you about this guy grumbler I know, and you say "Hey, I know grumbler too! She is a good friend of my sisters!" I would reasonably conclude that in fact the grumbler you are talking about and the grumbler I am talking about are not in fact the same person, even if they happen to share an identifier.
Some US governors would make good EU heads of government:
http://www.nytimes.com/live/paris-attacks-live-updates/arkansas-governor-says-his-state-opposes-settling-syrian-refugees/
QuoteMultiple Republican Governors Say They Oppose the Entry of Syrian Refugees
A growing number of Republican governors have said they oppose the entry of Syrian refugees into their states in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris.
Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas announced on Twitter on Monday that he opposed settling refugees from Syria in his state. Here is his full statement.
QuoteAs Governor I will oppose Syrian refugees being relocated to Arkansas.
Gov. Charlie Baker of Massachusetts said Monday morning that he opposed letting Syrian refugees into the state until the federal government decided how to deal with them.
"No, I'm not interested in accepting refugees from Syria," he told reporters at the Statehouse. "I'm going to set the bar really high," he said. "My view on this is that the safety and security of the people of the commonwealth of Mass is my highest priority."
He said he had had no conversations yet with federal officials, but added: "We would have to be very cautious about accepting folks without knowing a lot more about what the federal government's plan looks like and how it would actually be implemented and executed on."
Mayor Martin J. Walsh of Boston, a Democrat, who was standing next to Mr. Baker as they emerged from a legislative hearing, agreed with his approach.
"I stand with the governor," the mayor said, adding, "we would have to see the vetting process."
Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas released a letter on Monday addressed to President Obama, saying that Texas "will not accept any refugees from Syria" because of security concerns. "And I urge you, as president, to halt your plans to allow Syrians to be resettled anywhere in the United States."
The Obama administration has said that it intends to allow up to 10,000 refugees from Syria into the country.
Gov. Phil Bryant of Mississippi said that he vowed to do "everything humanly possible" to block refugees from entering his state.
Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana said in a statement on Monday that all state agencies will immediately suspend resettlement of refugees from Syria. And Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, a candidate for president, issued an executive order "to prevent the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the State of Louisiana."
In Michigan, Gov. Rick Snyder said on Sunday that the state would freeze its efforts to accept refugees until the Department of Homeland Security reviews its security procedures.
In a statement on Sunday, Gov. Robert Bentley announced he was refusing the relocation of Syrian refugees to Alabama. A Syrian passport was found near the body of one of the attackers in Paris.
"After full consideration of this weekend's attacks of terror on innocent citizens in Paris, I will oppose any attempt to relocate Syrian refugees to Alabama through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program," he said. "As your governor, I will not stand complicit to a policy that places the citizens of Alabama in harm's way."
Whether governors have the authority to block refugees is not clear.
John Barcanic, the executive director of World Relief Chicago, a refugee resettlement agency, said in an interview that governors are typically not involved with the resettlement process.
"My hunch is that they don't have the power to stop it," he said. "It's the Department of State who decides whether we'll take certain kinds of refugees. Once somebody is in the country, I'm fairly certain that a governor doesn't have the ability to stop somebody from living in their state simply because of their race."
I can see calling for some careful vetting but blocking all refugees seems a little unreasonable. LOL at Jindal being a 'candidate for President'.
And here I thought 10,000 was embarrassingly low.
Quote from: Syt on November 16, 2015, 02:43:23 PM
Some US governors would make good EU heads of government:
I was surprised (and disappointed) that Snyder put the freeze on given how many refugees from the Middle East Michigan has accepted over the years.
Although maybe I should be concerned that
Ernst Blofeld Rick Scott didn't. Who knows what villainous scheme he has planned?
On the theology I would put PW's point a little differently.
Most monotheistic believers would agree that a single omnipotent Creator god exists. The nature of such a belief excludes the possibility of other gods, whether dozens, thousands, or millions. Again, the believers would all accept that, regardless of their sect. The differences among the sects amount to differences on how to characterize the single omnipotent creator god. Those differences are significant theologically as between themselves but are not significant in terms of their collective difference as against those who do not believe in a single omnipotent creator god. As to the latter, the believers are in fundamental agreement with each other and in disagreement with those who reject the concept. A successful argument against them would require directly taking on the belief in the single omnipotent creator god concept.
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2015, 01:14:18 PM
Sure there is. Of course it would be a long tedious theological response that would be as pointless as your entire point but there does exist such a response.
How... persuasive.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 16, 2015, 02:08:45 PM
It would be rather silly of me to suggest you didn't exist at all, just because an infinite variety of "grumblers" can be imagined.
Imagine an infinite variety of grumblers? :hmm: I'd rather not.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 16, 2015, 11:24:25 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on November 16, 2015, 10:59:35 AM
Okay, but then what happens after ISIS has been overthrown? Is the United States or any NATO power willing to keep troops in the area and spend money for long term nation building?
You know, I think anarchy would probably be preferable to ISIS.
It's not like Iraq where we unseated a well-established governing structure, systematically dismantled the state, and replaced it with nothing. The state has already ceased to exist in the ISIS occupied areas and Assad has shown little interest or ability to reconstruct it. Replacing one anarchic mess with a somewhat less nasty anarchic mess would be a net gain.
I wouldn't mind taking some refugees but how would the vetting of refugees even be accomplished? I could see if they were refugees that for the most part we wouldn't find any threatening ideology from, such as the Viet Namese who came here after South Vietnam fell. There's no Syrian government to reference to know who the people are, plus the turmoil and changes there would seem to render inaccurate most info they would have on their citizens. I assume there are other processes to vett people, but how reliable are they?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 16, 2015, 02:54:34 PM
On the theology I would put PW's point a little differently.
Most monotheistic believers would agree that a single omnipotent Creator god exists. The nature of such a belief excludes the possibility of other gods, whether dozens, thousands, or millions. Again, the believers would all accept that, regardless of their sect. The differences among the sects amount to differences on how to characterize the single omnipotent creator god. Those differences are significant theologically as between themselves but are not significant in terms of their collective difference as against those who do not believe in a single omnipotent creator god. As to the latter, the believers are in fundamental agreement with each other and in disagreement with those who reject the concept. A successful argument against them would require directly taking on the belief in the single omnipotent creator god concept.
:thumbsup:
That is very well put.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 16, 2015, 10:51:39 AM
Hollande has reiterated that he considers France to be at war :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34836439
Maybe the should call the operation "Charles Martell"
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 16, 2015, 03:03:10 PM
It's not like Iraq where we unseated a well-established governing structure, systematically dismantled the state, and replaced it with nothing.
Replaced it with nothing? I guess you didn't see the org chart of the Iraqi military that Hans posted many years ago.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 16, 2015, 03:06:53 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 16, 2015, 10:51:39 AM
Hollande has reiterated that he considers France to be at war :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34836439
Maybe the should call the operation "Charles Martell"
Well, there is actually an ISIS physical state to target, territory, banks, taxes, infrastructure, economy unlike previously with radical groups who exist without such trappings.
Quote from: DGuller on November 16, 2015, 03:01:19 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 16, 2015, 02:08:45 PM
It would be rather silly of me to suggest you didn't exist at all, just because an infinite variety of "grumblers" can be imagined.
Imagine an infinite variety of grumblers? :hmm: I'd rather not.
Age can not wither him, but his infinite variety has gotten pretty stale. :hmm:
Quote from: Savonarola on November 16, 2015, 02:26:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2015, 02:20:06 PM
Stripping citizenship is definitely problematic.
That caught my eye as well. What is the advantage for the government to do that? Also legally what would happen to these now stateless people?
(Just general questions, not directed at Yi specifically.)
probably only for people with double nationality (another farce that should be gotten rid of).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 16, 2015, 02:54:34 PM
On the theology I would put PW's point a little differently.
Most monotheistic believers would agree that a single omnipotent Creator god exists. The nature of such a belief excludes the possibility of other gods, whether dozens, thousands, or millions. Again, the believers would all accept that, regardless of their sect. The differences among the sects amount to differences on how to characterize the single omnipotent creator god. Those differences are significant theologically as between themselves but are not significant in terms of their collective difference as against those who do not believe in a single omnipotent creator god. As to the latter, the believers are in fundamental agreement with each other and in disagreement with those who reject the concept. A successful argument against them would require directly taking on the belief in the single omnipotent creator god concept.
I am not sure that this is worth debating, but I disagree with your idea that the religions that believe in a single omnipotent creator god would agree that the god that commanded their prophet/savior/whatever is the same as the god that commanded the other guys'. For instance, I don't think that Jews believe that their god told Mohammed, for example, that Hews believe that Ezra is the son of God. Clearly Mohammad says that his god did. Can the same god say two contradictory things?
Ditto for Christians accepting that the god of Mohammed is their god. If they truly believed this, they would be Muslims, not Christians.
Now, the Sikhs and Hindus would agree with you that the names men call the creator-god/ultimate reality doesn't matter, and that all sacred texts are fallible and useful for allegorical purposes only. That's why I excluded them from my argument.
One does not need to distinguish between the differences between the creator-god-religions and non-CG religions and those between CG religions, as a matter of logic. All one needs to note is that, if Jews or Christians really believe that their god told Mohammed what he claims, then they are disobeying their god by not following his dictates passed through Mohammed.
I think all of them agree with me about the creator-gods of, say, Mithraism or Zoroastrianism, though.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 16, 2015, 02:54:34 PM
On the theology I would put PW's point a little differently.
Most monotheistic believers would agree that a single omnipotent Creator god exists. The nature of such a belief excludes the possibility of other gods, whether dozens, thousands, or millions. Again, the believers would all accept that, regardless of their sect. The differences among the sects amount to differences on how to characterize the single omnipotent creator god. Those differences are significant theologically as between themselves but are not significant in terms of their collective difference as against those who do not believe in a single omnipotent creator god.
I do not agree with that in the least - the differences between the beliefs of various groups who claim to believe in a "single omnipotent Creator god" is immense, insofar as they make claims about the characteristics of that god and how those characteristics map to demands on the deities followers.
I don't even accept that there is anything "special" about this *particular* characteristic that you have singled out - that the set of gods in question share the attribute that belief in them is a belief in a singular deity. As a non-believer, I don't think that particular belief is of any more moment than any other particular common attribute shared by some set of posited deities.
All posited "gods" have some set of attributes that define what the believer actually believes in - the set of those characteristics and attributes defines the being they claim exists. If person A believes in a deity that has an attribute X, and person B believes in a deity that has an attribute ~X, then they clearly are NOT believing in the same deity, not matter what they call it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2015, 02:20:06 PM
Stripping citizenship is definitely problematic.
Definitely not. Slovakia has made a law a few years ago that any Slovakian who takes up the granted Hungarian citizenship (on ethnic grounds) in Hungary, automatically loses his/her Slovakian citizenship. And this is for people who are only residents in Slovakia and nowhere else.
Did the EU care? No.
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2015, 02:58:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2015, 01:14:18 PM
Sure there is. Of course it would be a long tedious theological response that would be as pointless as your entire point but there does exist such a response.
How... persuasive.
:huh: I am not even sure how to respond to this. Was I attempting to persuade you of anything? Why would that be worth my time?
Quote
One does not need to distinguish between the differences between the creator-god-religions and non-CG religions and those between CG religions, as a matter of logic. All one needs to note is that, if Jews or Christians really believe that their god told Mohammed what he claims, then they are disobeying their god by not following his dictates passed through Mohammed.
I think all of them agree with me about the creator-gods of, say, Mithraism or Zoroastrianism, though.
Oh this garbage again. Joy.
QuoteAll posited "gods" have some set of attributes that define what the believer actually believes in - the set of those characteristics and attributes defines the being they claim exists. If person A believes in a deity that has an attribute X, and person B believes in a deity that has an attribute ~X, then they clearly are NOT believing in the same deity, not matter what they call it.
Well many Christians claim God has different attributes. So therefore Christians do not believe in the same deity I suppose? :hmm:
Quote from: Tamas on November 16, 2015, 03:51:15 PM
Definitely not. Slovakia has made a law a few years ago that any Slovakian who takes up the granted Hungarian citizenship (on ethnic grounds) in Hungary, automatically loses his/her Slovakian citizenship. And this is for people who are only residents in Slovakia and nowhere else.
Did the EU care? No.
It wasn't clear to me from the article that the law would only apply to people with dual citizenship.
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2015, 03:52:39 PM
Well many Christians claim God has different attributes. So therefore Christians do not believe in the same deity I suppose? :hmm:
No, of they don't.
If Christian A believes in a god that says the Pope is his representative on Earth, and Christian B believes in a god that thinks the pope is sent from Satan, then no, they most certainly do NOT believe in the same god.
They both believe in different gods that share a lot of attributes. But it is certainly NOT the same god. How could it be, when they have exclusionary attributes?
The fact that they both call their god the same thing, or both belong to religions that for purely semantic reasons we find convenient to label as "Christian" doesn't mean anything from a logical standpoint.
Hell, I am not sure, from my own experience with Christians, that there are even TWO Christian who believe in the same god!
I have not had time to keep up with this thread. Has anyone proposed nuking from orbit yet?
B&G: factually I think you are eliding over the very substantial similarities between the God worshipped by Jews/Christians/Muslims (for example Muslims unequivocally believe it is the same God) but it isn't essential to the point.
The point is that the mere fact that believers in a monotheistic God don't agree on the characteristics of that God is not itself an argument for the existence or non-existence of such a being, UNLESS one assumes that a necessary characteristic of such a God is that it would be irrational for it to permit such a state of confusion to exist in the first place.
But that is not how I read grumbler's argument. I read his argument as saying that since there is widespread disagreement about the specific characteristics of God, the "majority view" as to any specific posited God is that it doesn't exist. Thus by operation of a series of hypothetical votes, each posited God would be voted down, therefore one should conclude there is no God. One problem with this argument is that the results could change if e.g. there was a massive conversion to one particular sect - then there would be clear majority in support of a singular god-concept. By how could such a mere change of contingent human opinion cause a God to spring into existence?
From my POV as an observer what Jews/Christians/Muslims/Zoroastrians/etc believe is irrelevant to the question of whether some singular God exists. The arguments for or against that question are either sound or they are not. If the arguments are sound, they don't become unsound if billions of people suddenly develop confused understandings. If the arguments aren't sound, they don't become sound even if billions of people all decide to convert overnight to one sect. Again, the exception being an argument that a rational omnipotent God wouldn't "hide the ball" but would make sure everyone got it right.
Quote from: Berkut on November 16, 2015, 04:03:02 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2015, 03:52:39 PM
Well many Christians claim God has different attributes. So therefore Christians do not believe in the same deity I suppose? :hmm:
No, of they don't.
If Christian A believes in a god that says the Pope is his representative on Earth, and Christian B believes in a god that thinks the pope is sent from Satan, then no, they most certainly do NOT believe in the same god.
They both believe in different gods that share a lot of attributes. But it is certainly NOT the same god. How could it be, when they have exclusionary attributes?
The fact that they both call their god the same thing, or both belong to religions that for purely semantic reasons we find convenient to label as "Christian" doesn't mean anything from a logical standpoint.
Hell, I am not sure, from my own experience with Christians, that there are even TWO Christian who believe in the same god!
How very pre reformist of you. "You don't worship the same way therefore you are not a Christian. You shall be burned as the heretic you are!" :P
Also - take the B&G argument and apply it to a known existent person, say George Washington.
Some people think that George Washington chopped down the cherry tree. Some people think he didn't. Does that mean they believe in two different people? Should we question the existence of George Washington?
It could be objected that this is a trivial example, but it isn't difficult to think of historical personages about whom there are fundamental differences in interpretation - for example, Socrates, Caesar, Augustine, Napoleon - to the point of basic disagreement about the nature of the person and what he said, did, believed.
Quote from: Tamas on November 16, 2015, 03:51:15 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2015, 02:20:06 PM
Stripping citizenship is definitely problematic.
Definitely not. Slovakia has made a law a few years ago that any Slovakian who takes up the granted Hungarian citizenship (on ethnic grounds) in Hungary, automatically loses his/her Slovakian citizenship. And this is for people who are only residents in Slovakia and nowhere else.
Did the EU care? No.
The definition who is and who isn't a citizen is a national not EU matter and one that is closely guarded by national politicians. So even if the EU had cared there wouldn't have been anything it could do legally. Blaming the EU here makes no sense.
Quote from: Berkut on November 16, 2015, 04:03:02 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2015, 03:52:39 PM
Well many Christians claim God has different attributes. So therefore Christians do not believe in the same deity I suppose? :hmm:
No, of they don't.
If Christian A believes in a god that says the Pope is his representative on Earth, and Christian B believes in a god that thinks the pope is sent from Satan, then no, they most certainly do NOT believe in the same god.
They both believe in different gods that share a lot of attributes. But it is certainly NOT the same god. How could it be, when they have exclusionary attributes?
The fact that they both call their god the same thing, or both belong to religions that for purely semantic reasons we find convenient to label as "Christian" doesn't mean anything from a logical standpoint.
Hell, I am not sure, from my own experience with Christians, that there are even TWO Christian who believe in the same god!
I think I disagree, Berkut.
Quote from: Malthus on November 16, 2015, 01:47:40 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 16, 2015, 11:26:48 AM
Sufism isn't really a sect, it's more a set of disciplines and approaches, although there are Sufi "orders". Sufism crosses sectional divisions, for example the Ayatollah Khomeini studied Sufi texts and wrote Sufi poetry as a student. It's true that Dash/Al-Qaeda/Salafi/Wahhabbi tendency is anti-Sufi and in its extreme manifestations resorts to violence and extirpation.
Sufism is basically a direct, intuitive, "mystical" approach to Islam. Though of course, many of the Wahabbi types would deny it is even Islamic. ;)
However, for our purposes, it isn't really material whether its adherents are classified as members of a separate "sect" or not (I'd say that in actual practice most are). The point is that it is dangerous to generalize about the religion as a whole - if you gathered some Muslims of a Sufi persuasion and some Muslims of the Wahabbi sort in one room, the delta of difference between 'em could be pretty wide. ;) I cannot imagine a Wahabbi writing this:
QuoteI have learned so much from God
That I can no longer call myself
a Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Jew.
-Hafez
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hafez
To me, the biggest problem with religions is this: uneducated mystics taking personal for universal.
Only because the "God" (I am putting this in quotation marks because the word is meaningless outside of personal experience) is telling you not to eat pork or fuck guys it does not mean you should treat it as a universal law. There is nothing more blasphemous, to me, than assuming you know what the "God" wants for other people.
Sufis are cool.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 16, 2015, 04:12:10 PM
Also - take the B&G argument and apply it to a known existent person, say George Washington.
Some people think that George Washington chopped down the cherry tree. Some people think he didn't. Does that mean they believe in two different people? Should we question the existence of George Washington?
If one person says that GW did, and the other insists he did not, then they certainly both believe in different GW. Of course, one is wrong and the other is right - and there is no real way at this point to figure out which - but, it isn't really material in either case, as there is ample historical evidence the GW (absent characeristics relating to the chopping down of trees) existed. It's not like we have to solely go on this particular characteristic.
Now - if someone argued the GW existed, he did chop down that tree, and therefore we should all do X, Y, and Z because he chopped down that tree...then it becomes a bit more important.
If someone else argued that he exists, he did NOT chop down that tree, and there we should absolutely NOT do X, Y, and Z, then yeah - I might start caring about that.
You can certainly posit the existence of any god that does NOT have some characteristic, and it has the virtue of being more likely to exist, I suppose, since it would be one less thing for the various believers to disagree about. This is how we end up with the super weak gods that don't really do anything or have any attributes beyond "It makes me feel spiritual!" which are, if nothing else, logically defensible from the standpoint of not having problematic attributes, or making real demands.
Quote
It could be objected that this is a trivial example, but it isn't difficult to think of historical personages about whom there are fundamental differences in interpretation - for example, Socrates, Caesar, Augustine, Napoleon - to the point of basic disagreement about the nature of the person and what he said, did, believed.
And to the extent that this is the case, it is perfectly valid to point out that the "existence" of these objects is disputable insofar as their followers insist that not only did the person exist, but that they had some characteristic.
For example, if someone insists that there was a guy named Napoleon who was 4'9" tall, and we can conclusively show that he was certainly 5'5", then in fact it is perfectly reasonable to say that the person is wrong, and 4'9" Napoleon does not exist.
That is not, however, an argument that no person named Napoleon existed with some set of attributes that we can all agree on are in fact accurate (leader of France, general, etc., etc.).
Berkut, given that all monotheistic religions ultimately claim that Hashem is unknowable and encompasses all qualities, it is pointless to argue whether they believe in the same deity or not. But then again monotheistic religions are wrong on so many things, it could be the nature of the deity as well.
How about we agree that God is just not good at communicating with his underlings, and seems too detached to correct misunderstandings when they do pop up?
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2015, 04:24:08 PM
To me, the biggest problem with religions is this: uneducated mystics taking personal for universal.
Only because the "God" (I am putting this in quotation marks because the word is meaningless outside of personal experience) is telling you not to eat pork or fuck guys it does not mean you should treat it as a universal law. There is nothing more blasphemous, to me, than assuming you know what the "God" wants for other people.
Sufis are cool.
I mean I can't really argue with this because you prefaced it with saying "To me", but that is not the standard understanding of most religions.
Quote from: DGuller on November 16, 2015, 04:32:50 PM
How about we agree that God is just not good at communicating with his underlings, and seems too detached to correct misunderstandings when they do pop up?
I think it's more the case of God's underlings being unable to communicate with each other. "God" is a part of our brain - but people are so fucking awe struck when they "touch" it, they externalise the experience. It's like people who have an awesome hallucinogen trip and suddenly think they have been to alternative dimensions.
Quote from: Barrister on November 16, 2015, 04:33:58 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2015, 04:24:08 PM
To me, the biggest problem with religions is this: uneducated mystics taking personal for universal.
Only because the "God" (I am putting this in quotation marks because the word is meaningless outside of personal experience) is telling you not to eat pork or fuck guys it does not mean you should treat it as a universal law. There is nothing more blasphemous, to me, than assuming you know what the "God" wants for other people.
Sufis are cool.
I mean I can't really argue with this because you prefaced it with saying "To me", but that is not the standard understanding of most religions.
Yes, because most people who follow religions never had a bona fide religious experience. So they go by what the mystics tell them.
I would agree that it is largely pointless to argue about whether theists all believe in the same god or different gods - it just kind of annoys from a logical standpoint.
A "thing", whatever it is - god, table, idea, whatever - has attributes that define it. The label we give it is NOT an attribute, it is just a label.
To say that a thing exists, is to say that some object with a set of attributes exists. To say that an object that you define as having attributes XYZ exists, and is the same as an object that has attributes AB and not Z is logically ridiculous. It is semantically invalid.
And that is what is happening. This is not a transitory characteristic, like shirt color - these are the fundamental "things" that define what the object actually is, and in the case of religious beliefs, these attributes drive behavior. To say that a Jew and a Muslim believe in the same god is just pure sophistry.
It probably isn't all that important sophistry, I suppose. But I never let something not being important stop me from thinking too much about it... :berkut:
Quote from: Martinus on November 16, 2015, 04:35:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 16, 2015, 04:32:50 PM
How about we agree that God is just not good at communicating with his underlings, and seems too detached to correct misunderstandings when they do pop up?
I think it's more the case of God's underlings being unable to communicate with each other. "God" is a part of our brain - but people are so fucking awe struck when they "touch" it, they externalise the experience. It's like people who have an awesome hallucinogen trip and suddenly think they have been to alternative dimensions.
I guess maybe that's why God gave up on trying to correct misunderstandings. No matter what he tries to communicate, people just find a way to fuck it up. He's omnipotent, but not that omnipotent.
Quote from: Berkut on November 16, 2015, 04:37:19 PM
I would agree that it is largely pointless to argue about whether theists all believe in the same god or different gods - it just kind of annoys from a logical standpoint.
A "thing", whatever it is - god, table, idea, whatever - has attributes that define it. The label we give it is NOT an attribute, it is just a label.
To say that a thing exists, is to say that some object with a set of attributes exists. To say that an object that you define as having attributes XYZ exists, and is the same as an object that has attributes AB and not Z is logically ridiculous. It is semantically invalid.
And that is what is happening. This is not a transitory characteristic, like shirt color - these are the fundamental "things" that define what the object actually is, and in the case of religious beliefs, these attributes drive behavior. To say that a Jew and a Muslim believe in the same god is just pure sophistry.
It probably isn't all that important sophistry, I suppose. But I never let something not being important stop me from thinking too much about it... :berkut:
No, I agree with you, but that is frustration coming from people being dumb, and using everything (including "God") for self-aggrandizement.
I think religious or mystical experiences are "real" in that they happen, they are quite awesome to those experiencing them, and they can constitute a positive experience. It's like having great sex or listening to an awesome piece of music - i.e. even if they serve no rational purpose and have no logical explanation, they nonetheless satisfy a need that cannot be substituted by another stimuli (in the same way, say, the experience from seeing your child grow up cannot be substituted by having a good meal or reading a good book).
They can also give us very interesting insights into our own nature, and help us develop on a psychological and a moral level - thus leading to increased happiness.
Now, the problem occurs when someone, who has just experienced this kind of revelation, begins to universalise and externalise it. It's like someone who finds a diet working for them, suddenly becomes a fanatic preaching that everybody else should follow the same diet - only that here the conviction is 1000 times greater, because the experience is so strong and life changing. So they begin to preach what they found was good for them - as a universal law for everybody to follow.
That's how mysticism degenerates into religion.
Quote from: Berkut on November 16, 2015, 04:37:19 PM
I would agree that it is largely pointless to argue about whether theists all believe in the same god or different gods - it just kind of annoys from a logical standpoint.
A "thing", whatever it is - god, table, idea, whatever - has attributes that define it. The label we give it is NOT an attribute, it is just a label.
To say that a thing exists, is to say that some object with a set of attributes exists. To say that an object that you define as having attributes XYZ exists, and is the same as an object that has attributes AB and not Z is logically ridiculous. It is semantically invalid.
And that is what is happening. This is not a transitory characteristic, like shirt color - these are the fundamental "things" that define what the object actually is, and in the case of religious beliefs, these attributes drive behavior. To say that a Jew and a Muslim believe in the same god is just pure sophistry.
It probably isn't all that important sophistry, I suppose. But I never let something not being important stop me from thinking too much about it... :berkut:
A religious Jew, Muslim or Christian could reasonably argue that the "things" that define their mutual "God" are pretty general - omniscience, omnipotence, creator of the universe, etc. Whether he said not to eat shellfish isn't a truly significant aspect of his existence.
Anyway, apparently there is an answer to this, but it costs $20. :D
http://www.eerdmans.com/Products/6689/do-we-worship-the-same-god.aspx
Quote from: Malthus on November 16, 2015, 04:45:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 16, 2015, 04:37:19 PM
I would agree that it is largely pointless to argue about whether theists all believe in the same god or different gods - it just kind of annoys from a logical standpoint.
A "thing", whatever it is - god, table, idea, whatever - has attributes that define it. The label we give it is NOT an attribute, it is just a label.
To say that a thing exists, is to say that some object with a set of attributes exists. To say that an object that you define as having attributes XYZ exists, and is the same as an object that has attributes AB and not Z is logically ridiculous. It is semantically invalid.
And that is what is happening. This is not a transitory characteristic, like shirt color - these are the fundamental "things" that define what the object actually is, and in the case of religious beliefs, these attributes drive behavior. To say that a Jew and a Muslim believe in the same god is just pure sophistry.
It probably isn't all that important sophistry, I suppose. But I never let something not being important stop me from thinking too much about it... :berkut:
A religious Jew, Muslim or Christian could reasonably argue that the "things" that define their mutual "God" are pretty general - omniscience, omnipotence, creator of the universe, etc. Whether he said not to eat shellfish isn't a truly significant aspect of his existence.
Logically, the significance of the attribute has no bearing on the matter.
If someone posited a deity that had very general attributes, and someone else posited a deity that had those exactly same general attributes, then I would agree that they are talking about the same deity.
But you don't get to do that, then add in a bunch more attributes afterwards that are NOT shared, and still claim that it is the same deity!
You don't get to say "I believe in a deity that is defined by these attributes: ABCDEF"
While someone else says "I believe in a deity defined by these attributes: ABCDXYZ"
And conclude that you both believe in a deity defined by only these attributes: "ABCD". Because neither of you actually believes in a deity with ONLY THOSE attributes.
Why can't it be the same deity with just human-introduced misunderstandings about some of the more minor points? :huh:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 16, 2015, 04:04:20 PM
But that is not how I read grumbler's argument. I read his argument as saying that since there is widespread disagreement about the specific characteristics of God, the "majority view" as to any specific posited God is that it doesn't exist. Thus by operation of a series of hypothetical votes, each posited God would be voted down, therefore one should conclude there is no God. One problem with this argument is that the results could change if e.g. there was a massive conversion to one particular sect - then there would be clear majority in support of a singular god-concept. By how could such a mere change of contingent human opinion cause a God to spring into existence?
That is not my argument at all. My argument is that most religious people (I note exceptions) claim an exemption for their particular god that they deny to all other potential/postulated gods. I don't have any real grief with this, I simply note that it is true. So long as it is a matter of personal belief, and only affects their own behavior (without inconveniencing others unduly) I am perfectly happy to coexist with their beliefs. I know any number of people for whom this is true.
No, I have grief with people who insist their their exceptional god requires that others behave in a certain way, and use either force or the coercion of the state to enforce those beliefs. Don't want to take birth control because you think your god forbids it? Knock yourself out. Force others to forgo birth control because you think your god forbids them? You've crossed the line, and I oppose that religious belief.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2015, 03:59:51 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 16, 2015, 03:51:15 PM
Definitely not. Slovakia has made a law a few years ago that any Slovakian who takes up the granted Hungarian citizenship (on ethnic grounds) in Hungary, automatically loses his/her Slovakian citizenship. And this is for people who are only residents in Slovakia and nowhere else.
Did the EU care? No.
It wasn't clear to me from the article that the law would only apply to people with dual citizenship.
I thought it was clear in the BBC article. Turning people stateless is illegal under international conventions, though not mentioned in the article.
QuoteMaking it easier to strip dual nationals of their French citizenship if they are convicted of a terrorist offence, as long as this did not render them stateless
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 16, 2015, 04:12:10 PM
Also - take the B&G argument and apply it to a known existent person, say George Washington.
Some people think that George Washington chopped down the cherry tree. Some people think he didn't. Does that mean they believe in two different people? Should we question the existence of George Washington?
It could be objected that this is a trivial example, but it isn't difficult to think of historical personages about whom there are fundamental differences in interpretation - for example, Socrates, Caesar, Augustine, Napoleon - to the point of basic disagreement about the nature of the person and what he said, did, believed.
Gods are not historical personages about whom facts can be discovered. They are not at all comparable.
And Mason Weems, who invented the story, didn't even include it in the first four editions of his "biography" of Washington. He made no bones about the fact that his object was to tell morality tales, not historical facts (the fifth edition added the subtitle "Curious Anecdotes Laudable to Himself and Exemplary to his Countrymen"), and felt free to invent many stories about Washington and many other contemporaries for his "biographies." People who think Washington chopped down the cherry tree are objectively incorrect.
Quote from: DGuller on November 16, 2015, 04:32:50 PM
How about we agree that God is just not good at communicating with his underlings, and seems too detached to correct misunderstandings when they do pop up?
There is a line of religious teaching that God is unknowable so there is that.
Quote from: Savonarola on November 16, 2015, 02:49:13 PM
Although maybe I should be concerned that Ernst Blofeld Rick Scott didn't. Who knows what villainous scheme he has planned?
He plans to send them all to Liberty City, Overtown, and Miami Gardens.
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2015, 05:02:51 PM
No, I have grief with people who insist their their exceptional god requires that others behave in a certain way, and use either force or the coercion of the state to enforce those beliefs. Don't want to take birth control because you think your god forbids it? Knock yourself out. Force others to forgo birth control because you think your god forbids them? You've crossed the line, and I oppose that religious belief.
Ok no argument there.
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2015, 05:20:53 PM
People who think Washington chopped down the cherry tree are objectively incorrect.
True but then take the Socrates we read about in Plato, in Xenophon, and in Aristophanes.
Quote from: Berkut on November 16, 2015, 04:37:19 PM
I would agree that it is largely pointless to argue about whether theists all believe in the same god or different gods - it just kind of annoys from a logical standpoint.
A "thing", whatever it is - god, table, idea, whatever - has attributes that define it. The label we give it is NOT an attribute, it is just a label.
To say that a thing exists, is to say that some object with a set of attributes exists.
Fine so define God to be an omnipotent being that created the universe. No other known attributes.
Now the argument against can't be simply that Hannah and Mary and Aisha tell different stories about it.
I think we're ignoring the most important question...
Does God need a starship, or not?
Government shutdown coming over the refugee issue?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/the_political_fight_over_syrian_refugees_is_getting_nuts.html
Poor Berkut, he's gone full Viking. Never go full Viking.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 16, 2015, 05:11:56 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2015, 03:59:51 PM
It wasn't clear to me from the article that the law would only apply to people with dual citizenship.
I thought it was clear in the BBC article. Turning people stateless is illegal under international conventions, though not mentioned in the article.
It wasn't clear to me either; and I'm hardly an expert in international law.
Just out of curiosity what does the "State of Emergency" that's been declared in France mean in practical terms? Hollande wants to extend it for three months, is that likely to happen?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 16, 2015, 05:29:51 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2015, 05:20:53 PM
People who think Washington chopped down the cherry tree are objectively incorrect.
True but then take the Socrates we read about in Plato, in Xenophon, and in Aristophanes.
Okay.
Quote from: Savonarola on November 16, 2015, 07:05:56 PM
Just out of curiosity what does the "State of Emergency" that's been declared in France mean in practical terms? Hollande wants to extend it for three months, is that likely to happen?
Oh yes, it is likely to happen. Hollande is now steering the ship all starboard, ahoy.
Among the propositions on the table, bi-nationals "born-French" will be dispossessed of their citizenship in case of terrorism, foreign borns who present a threat to national security quickly deported, and a "National Guard" made of reservists of the Armed Forces will be mobilized. Also, constitutional changes will be proposed, which will have to be ratified either by a session of congress or a referendum, but the tenants of this reform haven't been made public yet.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 16, 2015, 06:50:02 PM
I think we're ignoring the most important question...
Does God need a starship, or not?
A more important question: if god is omnipotent, can he microwave a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it?
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2015, 07:54:52 PM
A more important question: if god is omnipotent, can he microwave a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it?
I doubt a burrito can even remotely withstand 1.416785(71)×1032 K, which is theorically absolute heat, let alone the heat of Sun and stars which God, if he has created them without machinery, can logically withstand.
God 1, burrito 0.
Quote from: Drakken on November 16, 2015, 07:53:46 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on November 16, 2015, 07:05:56 PM
Just out of curiosity what does the "State of Emergency" that's been declared in France mean in practical terms? Hollande wants to extend it for three months, is that likely to happen?
Oh yes, it is likely to happen. Hollande is now steering the ship all starboard, ahoy.
Among the propositions on the table, bi-nationals "born-French" will be dispossessed of their citizenship in case of terrorism, foreign borns who present a threat to national security quickly deported, and a "National Guard" made of reservists of the Armed Forces will be mobilized. Also, constitutional changes will be proposed, which will have to be ratified either by a session of congress or a referendum, but the tenants of this reform haven't been made public yet.
Basically Hollande is a full 180 degrees to Trudeau. Will we have to suffer such a tragedy before our PM and his supporters understand?
Quote from: Drakken on November 16, 2015, 07:53:46 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on November 16, 2015, 07:05:56 PM
Just out of curiosity what does the "State of Emergency" that's been declared in France mean in practical terms? Hollande wants to extend it for three months, is that likely to happen?
Oh yes, it is likely to happen. Hollande is now steering the ship all starboard, ahoy.
Among the propositions on the table, bi-nationals "born-French" will be dispossessed of their citizenship in case of terrorism, foreign borns who present a threat to national security quickly deported, and a "National Guard" made of reservists of the Armed Forces will be mobilized. Also, constitutional changes will be proposed, which will have to be ratified either by a session of congress or a referendum, but the tenants of this reform haven't been made public yet.
The propositions Drakken mentions are included in a Security Pact proposed by Hollande which would require amending the Consitution. Needs 2/3 majority so the conservatives would have to agree. Not impossible during an
Union nationale phase.
As for the State of Emergency, it's one step below State of Siege and gives more powers to the authorities i.e préfets and Interior minister, in security matters. To extend it to three months, there needs to be a law, otherwise it can't be more than 12 days.
Examples of increased powers:
House arrest without judgement
departure order
establishment of safety zones where the presence of certain people can be restricted
closure of concert venues and meeting halls
traffic prohibitions
search orders day and night can be ordered by préfets or the Interior minister
ordering surrenders of war, self-defense and hunting weapons
special censorship powers
Quoteinterdiction de circulation des personnes et des véhicules ; institution de zones de sécurité à l'intérieur desquelles le séjour de certaines personnes peut être réglementé ; interdiction de séjour. Aussi de nouveaux pouvoirs sont-ils donnés au ministre de l'Intérieur : assignation à résidence de toute personne dont l'activité se révèle dangereuse pour la sécurité et l'ordre publics des circonscriptions territoriales où s'applique l'état d'urgence ; fermeture de salles de spectacle et de tous les lieux de réunion ; éventuellement interdiction de toute réunion de nature à provoquer le désordre ; remise des armes de guerre, de défense (revolvers, pistolets), de chasse. Des dispositions expresses du décret déclarant ou de la loi prorogeant l'état d'urgence peuvent de plus conférer au ministre de l'Intérieur ou aux préfets le pouvoir d'ordonner des perquisitions de jour et de nuit et les habiliter à prendre toutes mesures pour assurer le contrôle de la presse, de toutes publications et des émissions radiophoniques. Elles permettent aussi au gouvernement d'user du droit de réquisition que prévoit la loi de 1938 touchant l'organisation de la nation en temps de guerre. Un décret peut également autoriser la juridiction militaire à se saisir des crimes ainsi que des délits qui leur sont connexes, relevant de la cour d'assises.
PS: from Encyclopaedia Universalis, not French Wikipedia.
I'm fairly certain ultimately changes to the Constitution will be more important than merely expanding "states of security" to three months. If Hollande needs UMP LR and FN backing his package, I predict he will probably have to assent to more radical-leaning amendements.
CNBC seems to think the US is going to not help the French on this...or already has...or something
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/16/why-nato-probably-wont-help-france-against-isis.html
QuoteFrance is at war after the brutal attacks on Paris last week, President François Hollande said Monday, leading many to wonder if that war will include a full response from NATO, the military alliance sworn to protect it.
But the short answer is that military help from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is unlikely to come.
The issue at hand is whether France would invoke Article 5 of NATO's founding treaty, which says an armed attack against a member state "shall be considered an attack against them all." Such an invocation would call on the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom and others to assist in the effort to "restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
Only one country has ever invoked Article 5: The United States activated that part of the treaty after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. France is among the NATO nations that contributed ground forces to the subsequent war in Afghanistan.
James Stavridis, a retired four-star U.S. Navy admiral and NATO supreme allied commander, wrote over the weekend in Foreign Policy that it's "NATO's turn to attack."
"There is a time for soft power and playing the long game in the Middle East, but there is also a time for the ruthless application of hard power," Stavridis wrote. "It is NATO's responsibility to recognize our current moment qualifies as the latter."
But experts said that France is unlikely to officially call on NATO, because the United States may oppose such a move. A NATO presence in the region also could do more harm than good in building an international coalition.
In a Monday speech, U.S. President Barack Obama cautioned that it would be a "mistake" to have full-scale ground force operations against the so-called Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL), instead advocating for a measured approach that seeks to prevent repeating errors made in other recent U.S. wars.
"Not because our military could not march into ... Raqqa [ISIS' self-declared capital in Syria] and temporarily clear out ISIL, but because we would see a repetition of what we've seen before," Obama said after a G-20 meeting in Turkey. "If you do not have local populations that are committed to inclusive governance and who are pushing back against ideological extremes, then they resurface."
Additionally, the United States is particularly sensitive to official declarations of war, Anthony Cordesman, the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote in a Monday analysis. Internationally formalized war "raises serious issues about the rights of combatants, how you legally define ISIS as an opponent and other problems in international law," he wrote, adding that "a formal declaration of war against a claimed state with international networks is a potential legal nightmare."
France is unlikely to invoke Article 5 without first consulting the United States, according to Colin Clarke, a political scientist with Rand Corp.
"The last thing they would want is to invoke Article 5 and have the U.S. back away," he said, explaining that Washington may be reticent to initiate a treaty-legalized war as it pursues diplomatic agreement with Russia and others.
Russia itself remains a sticking point, as Moscow routinely voices anti-NATO rhetoric and accuses the alliance of encroaching on its interests. Russia already has military aircraft and support troops in Syria and is flying missions against ISIS.
"To have this Cold War-era institution acting in the same theater as the Russians seems highly unlikely," Clark said. "Although, stranger things have happened."
France appears to be considering its options, and has not given any clear indication whether it will call on NATO, Stratfor military analyst Omar Lamrani told CNBC. In a Monday note, political analyst and former U.K. diplomat Alastair Newton wrote that "such an invocation looks unlikely for now; but I doubt that it can be ruled out entirely."
If Paris did call to activate the treaty's responsibilities, it's not clear that much would change in terms of military responses to ISIS.
The exact text of the agreement says that signatories must assist "individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force." Pointing to this phrase, Lamrani said that few NATO countries would be compelled to contribute more against ISIS than they already are.
The United States has "basically already fulfilled" the NATO responsibilities it would face if France invokes Article 5, he said. Other countries that have taken more of a back seat, like Germany, may offer additional support to the efforts in Syria, but would be unlikely to step up use of force, Lamrani said.
"Ultimately, it's more of a domestic politics issue than it is a military issue," he said of Article 5.
Well...um...what was just said here? The US does not want a big risky move that would force it to do nothing it is not already doing?
France needs to invokie it anyway, just so the other countries can have treaty obligation to help in the war, especially our dumb new government.
France should be calling the shots. If they want ground troops there, then we should bring ground troops. Anything less means that NATO is worthless.
I think the article is saying two things: if NATO committed ground troops it would not be wise, and if France invoked Article 5 the US and other countries currently bombing would be able to say we're already fulfilling our treaty commitments. Germany and other countries might have to send some nurses or minesweepers.
Quote from: Drakken on November 16, 2015, 08:00:28 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2015, 07:54:52 PM
A more important question: if god is omnipotent, can he microwave a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it?
I doubt a burrito can even remotely withstand 1.416785(71)×1032 K, which is theorically absolute heat, let alone the heat of Sun and stars which God, if he has created them without machinery, can logically withstand.
God 1, burrito 0.
So, you are saying god is not omnipotent.
A Franco-American operation on the Iraq-Syria border ?
Say the equivalent of an old fashion airmobile brigade takes control of two or three former airbases in the border region, cuting the Eurphates 'valley' supply line down into ISIL occupied Iraq. Islamic State is now divided into two, this expeditionary or blocking force has the Iraqi Kurds on one flank and the Syrian Kurds/YPG on the other, though with the Turks at their backs, so not all plain sailing by any means.
This force could be supplied via the M40/10 out of Jordan and would be a first step in cutting up and killing IS; boots on the ground, yes, but that will eventually have to happen once the list of IS attacks in the West grows too long or do we just keep waiting and hoping it'll go away.
And this probably only works if there's also a political deal brokered in Syria and the Iraqi state gets its act together in fighting ISIL in Iraq, the Kurds not being able to do it all.
I'd vote for the British joining this, rather than say some more marginal airstrikes instead.
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2015, 10:04:21 PM
Quote from: Drakken on November 16, 2015, 08:00:28 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2015, 07:54:52 PM
A more important question: if god is omnipotent, can he microwave a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it?
I doubt a burrito can even remotely withstand 1.416785(71)×1032 K, which is theorically absolute heat, let alone the heat of Sun and stars which God, if he has created them without machinery, can logically withstand.
God 1, burrito 0.
So, you are saying god is not omnipotent.
You have missed a greater conundrum: why would God eat a burrito at all?
Quote from: mongers on November 16, 2015, 10:11:41 PM
A Franco-American operation on the Iraq-Syria border ?
Say the equivalent of an old fashion airmobile brigade takes control of two or three former airbases in the border region, cuting the Eurphates 'valley' supply line down into ISIL occupied Iraq. Islamic State is now divided into two, this expeditionary or blocking force has the Iraqi Kurds on one flank and the Syrian Kurds/YPG on the other, though with the Turks at their backs, so not all plain sailing by any means.
This force could be supplied via the M40/10 out of Jordan and would be a first step in cutting up and killing IS; boots on the ground, yes, but that will eventually have to happen once the list of IS attacks in the West grows too long or do we just keep waiting and hoping it'll go away.
And this probably only works if there's also a political deal brokered in Syria and the Iraqi state gets its act together in fighting ISIL in Iraq, the Kurds not being able to do it all.
I'd vote for the British joining this, rather than say some more marginal airstrikes instead.
I don't want no goddamn Din Bin Foo.
Grumbler was once very religious, he was the Ensi of Anu back in his hometown.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2015, 10:18:55 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 16, 2015, 10:11:41 PM
A Franco-American operation on the Iraq-Syria border ?
Say the equivalent of an old fashion airmobile brigade takes control of two or three former airbases in the border region, cuting the Eurphates 'valley' supply line down into ISIL occupied Iraq. Islamic State is now divided into two, this expeditionary or blocking force has the Iraqi Kurds on one flank and the Syrian Kurds/YPG on the other, though with the Turks at their backs, so not all plain sailing by any means.
This force could be supplied via the M40/10 out of Jordan and would be a first step in cutting up and killing IS; boots on the ground, yes, but that will eventually have to happen once the list of IS attacks in the West grows too long or do we just keep waiting and hoping it'll go away.
And this probably only works if there's also a political deal brokered in Syria and the Iraqi state gets its act together in fighting ISIL in Iraq, the Kurds not being able to do it all.
I'd vote for the British joining this, rather than say some more marginal airstrikes instead.
I don't want no goddamn Din Bin Foo.
Glad you got the reference, though I think using blocking force was over-egging it, though I do think the plan has some merit.
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2015, 07:54:52 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 16, 2015, 06:50:02 PM
I think we're ignoring the most important question...
Does God need a starship, or not?
A more important question: if god is omnipotent, can he microwave a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it?
Yes.
And then he would eat it anyways.
Greece still has a big army doesn't it? How about France hire them as mercanaries on the national level by paying off the country's debt?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 16, 2015, 10:59:03 PM
Greece still has a big army doesn't it? How about France hire them as mercanaries on the national level by paying off the country's debt?
I think if we're going to get Byzantium involved in the ME again, they should at least take back Constantinople first.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 16, 2015, 10:57:35 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2015, 07:54:52 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 16, 2015, 06:50:02 PM
I think we're ignoring the most important question...
Does God need a starship, or not?
A more important question: if god is omnipotent, can he microwave a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it?
Yes.
And then he would eat it anyways.
:hmm: I think Mnsky will not be short of employment opportunities even in afterlife.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 16, 2015, 05:32:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 16, 2015, 04:37:19 PM
I would agree that it is largely pointless to argue about whether theists all believe in the same god or different gods - it just kind of annoys from a logical standpoint.
A "thing", whatever it is - god, table, idea, whatever - has attributes that define it. The label we give it is NOT an attribute, it is just a label.
To say that a thing exists, is to say that some object with a set of attributes exists.
Fine so define God to be an omnipotent being that created the universe. No other known attributes.
OK.
Quote
Now the argument against can't be simply that Hannah and Mary and Aisha tell different stories about it.
I never made an argument against based on different stories.
Just pointed out that if the stories are in fact different, then the god in question is not one god but more than one, and hence the "See, we all believe in this thing together!" bit isn't really true.
Quote from: grumbler on November 16, 2015, 07:54:52 PM
A more important question: if god is omnipotent, can he microwave a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it?
Wow, your linguistic paradox has completely discredited the concept of omnipotence. Congratulations!
More seriously, though, I think the definition of omnipotence people use only applies to self-contained, measurable actions. An omnipotent being can heat a burrito to any specific temperature or ingest one at any specific temperature or create a boulder of any specific mass or lift that boulder, etc. How that action relates to other actions or the being's abilities is an extraneous layer of meaning on top; when it is reduced to a measurable action, the paradox disappears.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 16, 2015, 10:57:35 PM
Yes.
And then he would eat it anyways.
Then he'd survive college.
Quote from: Syt on November 16, 2015, 02:43:23 PM
Some US governors would make good EU heads of government:
http://www.nytimes.com/live/paris-attacks-live-updates/arkansas-governor-says-his-state-opposes-settling-syrian-refugees/
QuoteMultiple Republican Governors Say They Oppose the Entry of Syrian Refugees
My sisters are happy: http://www.fox13news.com/news/florida-news/50025186-story
QuoteGovernor to feds: Keep Syrian refugees out of Florida
Gov. Rick Scott said the state will not be willing to accept any refuges from Syria, adding Florida to the growing list of states changing their minds in the wake of the Paris terror attacks.
After reports that one of the Paris terrorists posed as a Syrian refugee to gain access to Europe, Scott asked the federal government Monday not to send any Syrian refugees to Florida.
"We are probably the best melting pot in the world, Florida is," Scott said. "Let's find out what happened, especially when you find out one of the terrorists was posed as a refugee."
The governor's words elicited sharp criticism from the country's largest Islamic civil rights group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
"Why is he so weak that he is giving in to the demands of terrorist organizations?" asked CAIR's Florida chapter executive director, Hassan Shibly. "We fear that may incite further acts of violence, because they see they are getting exactly what they want."
Shibly points out a study by the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute that says of 784,000 refugees that have resettled in the United States since 9/11, only three were accused of plotting terrorism.
Further, the study said refugees endure a two-year screening process by American intelligence agencies.
"They're escaping from ISIS," said Shibly. "They are the victims of ISIS."
None of the terrorists in France have been confirmed to be Syrian refugees, though one reportedly posed as one.
The 25 state governors who said no to refugees, 24 of them being Republicans, insist they're playing it safe.
"It is imperative that Texas do everything we can to ensure that we don't have a Syrian refugee sneak into the state of Texas who can pose a similar terrorist nature," said Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.
I wonder if they outsource to Indian Muslims? :hmm:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-terror-attacks/isis-has-help-desk-terrorists-staffed-around-clock-n464391
QuoteISIS Has Help Desk for Terrorists Staffed Around the Clock
I don't understand. Say one state accepts the Syrians. Can't they then move to another state to live or work? Isn't it state to state, no papers? :unsure:
Quote from: Syt on November 17, 2015, 06:01:29 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 16, 2015, 02:43:23 PM
Some US governors would make good EU heads of government:
http://www.nytimes.com/live/paris-attacks-live-updates/arkansas-governor-says-his-state-opposes-settling-syrian-refugees/
QuoteMultiple Republican Governors Say They Oppose the Entry of Syrian Refugees
My sisters are happy: http://www.fox13news.com/news/florida-news/50025186-story
QuoteGovernor to feds: Keep Syrian refugees out of Florida
Gov. Rick Scott said the state will not be willing to accept any refuges from Syria, adding Florida to the growing list of states changing their minds in the wake of the Paris terror attacks.
<_<
Oh well, that's what happens when we elect the head of SPECTRE governor.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 17, 2015, 06:04:16 AM
I don't understand. Say one state accepts the Syrians. Can't they then move to another state to live or work? Isn't it state to state, no papers? :unsure:
Yes, this is largely an empty gesture. I believe the state they move to provides some temporary shelter and maybe training, but in the long run they're free to move anywhere they please.
Speaking of empty gestures, courtesy of my brother in law:
(https://scontent-vie1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/11988739_774929835946538_3939977339485260049_n.jpg?oh=4162e9de17be18487f351c0c5b9ce524&oe=56AECBDC)
The panic of the (mostly Republican) governors is especially amusing when one realizes that the refugees that are to be accepted have been in Lebanese refugee camps for two years now waiting for admission to the US. They aren't brand-new refugees.
Not that facts ever stopped a politician from a good news-making attack of hysteria.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 16, 2015, 11:04:00 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 16, 2015, 10:59:03 PM
Greece still has a big army doesn't it? How about France hire them as mercanaries on the national level by paying off the country's debt?
I think if we're going to get Byzantium involved in the ME again, they should at least take back Constantinople first.
Don't forget that for French leftists and others, like former leftist/commies but not neo-cons, e.g Chirac, Turkey is the heir of Byzantium.
Because they're a Languish favourite:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fekstrabladet.dk%2Fincoming%2Farticle5831523.ece%2FIMAGE_ALTERNATES%2Fp900%2Fpix.jpg&hash=4bee799c93315e7a18ad7479f0ef6b9538fa51a2)
They have weapons
Fuck them
We have champagne
I find it funny. /ducks and covers
Goddamn Duque.
I think the governors are rightly concerned with scenarios where crazy people with guns kill random civilians, given the many shootings that have taken place on US soil. But instead of trying to prevent crazy people from getting guns, they seem to target the wrong people.
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2015, 01:46:34 AM
Just pointed out that if the stories are in fact different, then the god in question is not one god but more than one, and hence the "See, we all believe in this thing together!" bit isn't really true.
Does that make sense though? I mean I'm sure different people who have at some point been in my life would tell wildly different stories about me. Are they not all talking about the same person?
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 17, 2015, 07:02:16 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 16, 2015, 11:04:00 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 16, 2015, 10:59:03 PM
Greece still has a big army doesn't it? How about France hire them as mercanaries on the national level by paying off the country's debt?
I think if we're going to get Byzantium involved in the ME again, they should at least take back Constantinople first.
Don't forget that for French leftists and others, like former leftist/commies but not neo-cons, e.g Chirac, Turkey is the heir of Byzantium.
Why would French leftists have any opinion whatsoever on who's the true "heir of Byzantium"? :huh:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 17, 2015, 08:19:35 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 17, 2015, 07:02:16 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 16, 2015, 11:04:00 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 16, 2015, 10:59:03 PM
Greece still has a big army doesn't it? How about France hire them as mercanaries on the national level by paying off the country's debt?
I think if we're going to get Byzantium involved in the ME again, they should at least take back Constantinople first.
Don't forget that for French leftists and others, like former leftist/commies but not neo-cons, e.g Chirac, Turkey is the heir of Byzantium.
Why would French leftists have any opinion whatsoever on who's the true "heir of Byzantium"? :huh:
Turkey in the EU.
Quote from: Liep on November 17, 2015, 07:31:42 AM
Because they're a Languish favourite:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fekstrabladet.dk%2Fincoming%2Farticle5831523.ece%2FIMAGE_ALTERNATES%2Fp900%2Fpix.jpg&hash=4bee799c93315e7a18ad7479f0ef6b9538fa51a2)
They have weapons
Fuck them
We have champagne
I find it funny. /ducks and covers
Still not funny. You know what would help? If the fuckers could draw worth a shit.
No, that wouldn't make you find it funny.
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 08:10:21 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2015, 01:46:34 AM
Just pointed out that if the stories are in fact different, then the god in question is not one god but more than one, and hence the "See, we all believe in this thing together!" bit isn't really true.
Does that make sense though? I mean I'm sure different people who have at some point been in my life would tell wildly different stories about me. Are they not all talking about the same person?
No, it doesn't make sense. For the last page B&G have been denying that they were saying what Minsky thought they were saying, only to clarify that they really did say what Minsky thought they were saying. And what they're saying frankly is a little confused.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2015, 08:39:56 AM
Still not funny. You know what would help? If the fuckers could draw worth a shit.
It may not be particularly humorous, but it's a sentiment I can agree with, unlike some of their others.
Quote from: Syt on November 17, 2015, 06:54:13 AM
Speaking of empty gestures, courtesy of my brother in law:
(https://scontent-vie1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/11988739_774929835946538_3939977339485260049_n.jpg?oh=4162e9de17be18487f351c0c5b9ce524&oe=56AECBDC)
Islam, and the Muslim world, is in serious shit right now. It is kind of ridiculous to hear about them expanding like some kind of conquering empire because they have some nutters among them who blow shit up.
But I guess this is from the same crowd who think 16% of Frenchmen are pro-ISIS.
Quote from: Drakken on November 16, 2015, 07:53:46 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on November 16, 2015, 07:05:56 PM
Just out of curiosity what does the "State of Emergency" that's been declared in France mean in practical terms? Hollande wants to extend it for three months, is that likely to happen?
Oh yes, it is likely to happen. Hollande is now steering the ship all starboard, ahoy.
Among the propositions on the table, bi-nationals "born-French" will be dispossessed of their citizenship in case of terrorism, foreign borns who present a threat to national security quickly deported, and a "National Guard" made of reservists of the Armed Forces will be mobilized. Also, constitutional changes will be proposed, which will have to be ratified either by a session of congress or a referendum, but the tenants of this reform haven't been made public yet.
Very strong moves, but smart moves, given the enormity of the problem in France. I'm seeing reports of large numbers of extremists in Paris that the intel agencies are just now realizing. Any truth to that or is it over the top reporting?
"when the day comes" :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2015, 09:38:56 AM
But I guess this is from the same crowd who think 16% of Frenchmen are pro-ISIS.
14% of Frenchmen are pro-Mithra.
Quote from: KRonn on November 17, 2015, 10:46:43 AM
Very strong moves, but smart moves, given the enormity of the problem in France. I'm seeing reports of large numbers of extremists in Paris that the intel agencies are just now realizing. Any truth to that or is it over the top reporting?
What figures do you have?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 17, 2015, 11:48:54 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2015, 09:38:56 AM
But I guess this is from the same crowd who think 16% of Frenchmen are pro-ISIS.
14% of Frenchmen are pro-Mithra.
Ah that might have been the cause of the problem. 16% of Frenchmen are actually pro-Isis. Frankly I am disturbed it is not higher. What is wrong with Isis? Certainly preferable to Set.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2015, 12:04:25 PM
What is wrong with Isis? Certainly preferable to Set.
She married her brother. I could see this going over well in Texas, but not France.
Nothing, Isis is fucking awesome. She puts her husband-brother back together and then conveniently couldn't find his penis. Then she crafts her own gold penis in order to impregnate herself.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 17, 2015, 08:59:41 AM
No, that wouldn't make you find it funny.
I could at least admire artistry. This is like a Tijuana bible.
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 12:54:34 PM
Nothing, Isis is fucking awesome. She puts her husband-brother back together and then conveniently couldn't find his penis. Then she crafts her own gold penis in order to impregnate herself.
Thus becoming, in one stroke as it were, the patron deity of both artificial insemination and dildos. :)
Quote from: Caliga on November 17, 2015, 11:39:41 AM
"when the day comes" :lol:
Hey, you are already ruled by Barack Hussein Obama. Can that day be far off? :hmm:
;)
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 17, 2015, 12:00:41 PM
Quote from: KRonn on November 17, 2015, 10:46:43 AM
Very strong moves, but smart moves, given the enormity of the problem in France. I'm seeing reports of large numbers of extremists in Paris that the intel agencies are just now realizing. Any truth to that or is it over the top reporting?
What figures do you have?
This morning on TV news it was said that French authorities said about 11k people just in Paris. That seems like way too many but given the level of security reaction in France there might be something to it. There are reports of a hundred or more raids every day.
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 12:54:34 PM
Nothing, Isis is fucking awesome. She puts her husband-brother back together and then conveniently couldn't find his penis. Then she crafts her own gold penis in order to impregnate herself.
Just from this thread, that's an extra three of you on an NSA/GCHQ watch-list. :ph34r:
Quote from: mongers on November 17, 2015, 01:29:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 12:54:34 PM
Nothing, Isis is fucking awesome. She puts her husband-brother back together and then conveniently couldn't find his penis. Then she crafts her own gold penis in order to impregnate herself.
Just from this thread, that's an extra three of you on an NSA/GCHQ watch-list. :ph34r:
Posting on Languish gets us there automatically. :D
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2015, 01:34:07 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 17, 2015, 01:29:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 12:54:34 PM
Nothing, Isis is fucking awesome. She puts her husband-brother back together and then conveniently couldn't find his penis. Then she crafts her own gold penis in order to impregnate herself.
Just from this thread, that's an extra three of you on an NSA/GCHQ watch-list. :ph34r:
Posting on Languish gets us there automatically. :D
maybe they have ranks or levels...
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2015, 12:04:25 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 17, 2015, 11:48:54 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2015, 09:38:56 AM
But I guess this is from the same crowd who think 16% of Frenchmen are pro-ISIS.
14% of Frenchmen are pro-Mithra.
Ah that might have been the cause of the problem. 16% of Frenchmen are actually pro-Isis. Frankly I am disturbed it is not higher. What is wrong with Isis? Certainly preferable to Set.
Of the Isis-Apophis-Osiris trio, Isis is definitely the most agreeable. Osiris is hottest, though.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 17, 2015, 01:51:53 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2015, 01:34:07 PM
Posting on Languish gets us there automatically. :D
maybe they have ranks or levels...
They do. In fact they're listed right below your name :tinfoil:
;)
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2015, 01:55:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2015, 12:04:25 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 17, 2015, 11:48:54 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2015, 09:38:56 AM
But I guess this is from the same crowd who think 16% of Frenchmen are pro-ISIS.
14% of Frenchmen are pro-Mithra.
Ah that might have been the cause of the problem. 16% of Frenchmen are actually pro-Isis. Frankly I am disturbed it is not higher. What is wrong with Isis? Certainly preferable to Set.
Of the Isis-Apophis-Osiris trio, Isis is definitely the most agreeable. Osiris is hottest, though.
I prefer Bastet.
Analysis from the BEEB:
QuoteParis attacks: Why IS will eventually fail
By Owen Bennett-Jones
BBC News
With each attack come millions of words. Politicians, journalists and witnesses express their shock and their determination to hold tight to the values of openness, tolerance and democracy.
But soon after these initial reactions, bewilderment sets in. What do the jihadists want? Why are they so brutal, as they were in Paris? How can they be stopped? How long can they endure?
The West's dilemmas are acute. But the jihadists also have things to worry about.
Brutality alienates
The mass movement of Syrian refugees tells its own story. While a few thousand alienated young men and women have headed east to Syria, hundreds of thousands of Syrians have headed west to Europe.
In the months that followed the fall of Mosul, there were signs the so-called Islamic State (IS) had learnt an important lesson about how to govern.
It knew the Taliban administrations in Afghanistan and small pockets of Pakistan had failed to sustain popular support.
In both countries, people had hoped the Taliban could offer an alternative to the existing, corrupt political order.
But when they gained power, the Taliban's brutality alienated its support base.
Take the issue of administering justice. Exasperated by the dysfunctional state judicial system, people wanted to believe in the Taliban's promises of speedy justice. But as often as not, the new religious courts consisted of ill-educated clerics handing down capricious verdicts.
There were signs when Islamic State started taking territory in Syria, it tried to avoid such mistakes. Local level administrators reassured traders they would be able to run their businesses in a safe and secure environment.
But, while first-hand accounts are few and far between, the evidence suggests IS has failed to follow through on such promises.
Furthermore, its leaders are so ill-educated, they will never be able to govern well enough to provide people with jobs.
When the Iraqi town of Sinjar was recently retaken by Western-backed Kurdish forces, there was no-one living there. Having killed or terrified Sinjar's residents, IS had ended up running a ghost town.
Flee or keep your head down
There are other reasons to believe IS will eventually fail.
Its central idea - those who do not agree with its religious ideas are worthy of death - is rejected by virtually everyone, including most Muslims.
For members of a minority seeing IS forces heading in their direction, it means the only option is to flee. For Sunni Muslims, it is a case of keeping your head down, attending prayers and obeying all the IS rules regarding dress, beards and other customs.
But right now, the victories just keep coming at an astonishing rate. Before 9/11, advocates of jihadist violence were little-known, irrelevant figures: misfits on the margin, rejected by their own societies and ignored by the West. How different it looks today.
The Americans have been humbled in Iraq and Afghanistan. The caliphate has been established. Al-Shabab in Somalia and Boko Haram in Nigeria have attracted tens of thousands of fighters. And all the while, the West looks on, transfixed, unsure what is coming next.
Of course, the jihadists have had setbacks. Osama Bin Laden was killed. Some drone strikes have found their mark. The West's proxy forces in Iraq and Syria have on a few occasions forced IS to relinquish territory.
But for the most part, the defeats have been Western ones. A single week can now bring hundreds of deaths.
'Us or them?'
To maintain the flow of recruits in the long term, the jihadists need to make Muslims feel more vulnerable and alienated in Western societies.
And in countries such as the UK, this objective is being achieved.
Largely unnoticed by the national media, inter-communal tensions are deepening at the local level. Where once the BNP stood alone, there are now a plethora of British - or more often English - nationalist groups resorting to street power.
Each protest makes it easier for the jihadist recruiters to press home the question: "Who are you with - us or them?"
The jihadists have another, more important, objective: to draw Western armies back to the Middle East.
Only then, will they be able to rally mainstream Arab support by portraying foreign troops as imperialists determined to occupy Muslim lands. Western governments will then be faced with the choice so concisely described by an al-Qaeda magazine headline in 2009: "Disastrous occupation or humiliating withdrawal?"
While this does make some good points, I don't think it makes a great case why ISIS will fail. The Taliban didn't collapse because of judges delivering capricious sentences, it failed because of the force of western arms. It does make about the best case for Barack's continued "Containment" strategy but, once again, what happens when ISIS does fail? Who is going to replace it?
what happens when ISIS does fail? Who is going to replace it?
Probably the next iteration of radicals, since there are so many groups that have been around for a long time. Unless the nations in the area can properly pick up the pieces. Syria will be going through some significant change. Even if Assad steps down under Russian and other national pressure and with peace guarantees and agreements, there's no guarantee that the winner of the first elections won't be a radical group as those groups usually have the most organization, at first anyway. Libya seems like it'll be a mess for a long time, and that's not even being talked about. The West destabilized that nation, tossed out Ghadaffi who was actually quite tame and working with the West/US on anti-terrorism.
Quote from: KRonn on November 17, 2015, 01:25:00 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 17, 2015, 12:00:41 PM
Quote from: KRonn on November 17, 2015, 10:46:43 AM
Very strong moves, but smart moves, given the enormity of the problem in France. I'm seeing reports of large numbers of extremists in Paris that the intel agencies are just now realizing. Any truth to that or is it over the top reporting?
What figures do you have?
This morning on TV news it was said that French authorities said about 11k people just in Paris. That seems like way too many but given the level of security reaction in France there might be something to it. There are reports of a hundred or more raids every day.
11K makes sense as a number of listed
Fiche S (S Profiles), but not necessarily closely watched ahem, radicals (danger for the security of the State) for all France.
For Paris, even counting suburbs, that seems too much.
http://www.lepoint.fr/societe/plus-de-10-000-personnes-objets-de-fiches-s-de-renseignement-16-11-2015-1982062_23.php (http://www.lepoint.fr/societe/plus-de-10-000-personnes-objets-de-fiches-s-de-renseignement-16-11-2015-1982062_23.php)
There was mention of S Profiles in another news cast which might be what the 11k was in reference to. Probably the news stations are still getting information, figuring thing out and working to put it all together.
Quote from: Savonarola on November 17, 2015, 02:05:00 PM
(snip)
While this does make some good points, I don't think it makes a great case why ISIS will fail. The Taliban didn't collapse because of judges delivering capricious sentences, it failed because of the force of western arms. It does make about the best case for Barack's continued "Containment" strategy but, once again, what happens when ISIS does fail? Who is going to replace it?
I agree that the article makes a few good points, but badly misses the point about when and how Islamist groups came to the forefront. Not sure whether it was just that the narrative that the US has been "humbled' that required the author to pretend that jihadi movements didn't exist before 9/11, or whether the author just figured that, if he didn't hear of them before 9/11, no one else did either, but this movement goes back to at least the late 1970s when the communists began to crack down on all non-communist groups in Afghanistan.
I agree with you that the Taliban, though some of their specific acts were highly unpopular, would have held power for quite a while in Afghanistan barring western intervention. Brutal as they were, they at least offered some hope of effective government.
The concept of ISIS containment has always been a silly idea, in my opinion. It's merely a method by which an anxious president avoids committing himself to a war that could mar what he sees as his legacy. He wants to spend his money on efforts to dodge bullets, not eliminate those firing the bullets. I agree with Obama on a lot of things, but am starting to thing that all of his virtues can't compensate for his innate desire to avoid making the hard decisions.
One thing seems sure: neither the Sunnis nor the Shiites are willing to live under the rule of the other any more. That means re-drawing borders. That wouldn't be such a big problem if it weren't for the Kurds. Kurdish Iraq can't be given to Turkey when Iraq is eliminated, but if it is made independent it will surely result in a situation pretty much identical to that of AH and Serbia before 1914. Is it possible to do a Turkish breakup like Czechs and Slovaks did in 1993?
I don't know if we have been "humbled" but rather our strategy was not working. And that Iraqi government we set up told us to go away. There is only so much blood and treasure you want to sink into policies going nowhere. I think everybody in the US would be fine if the plan was 'steam roll Daesh' (or ISIS or whatever) so long as somebody else was going to step in seize control when we are done.
Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2015, 02:39:02 PM
Is it possible to do a Turkish breakup like Czechs and Slovaks did in 1993?
only if you nuke them into submission. The Turks aren't going to let one square cm of their ground go and as it looks now they're unlikely to at least accept that Kurds are not Mountain Turks and dislike being seen as such. So the conflict will go on and on and on...
Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2015, 02:39:02 PM
Is it possible to do a Turkish breakup like Czechs and Slovaks did in 1993?
Probably not. The Czechs and Slovaks had mostly been partners and were on decent terms. About as much as two east European ethnic groups can be in those sorts of situations anyway.
Quote from: KRonn on November 17, 2015, 10:46:43 AM
Quote from: Drakken on November 16, 2015, 07:53:46 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on November 16, 2015, 07:05:56 PM
Just out of curiosity what does the "State of Emergency" that's been declared in France mean in practical terms? Hollande wants to extend it for three months, is that likely to happen?
Oh yes, it is likely to happen. Hollande is now steering the ship all starboard, ahoy.
Among the propositions on the table, bi-nationals "born-French" will be dispossessed of their citizenship in case of terrorism, foreign borns who present a threat to national security quickly deported, and a "National Guard" made of reservists of the Armed Forces will be mobilized. Also, constitutional changes will be proposed, which will have to be ratified either by a session of congress or a referendum, but the tenants of this reform haven't been made public yet.
Very strong moves, but smart moves, given the enormity of the problem in France. I'm seeing reports of large numbers of extremists in Paris that the intel agencies are just now realizing. Any truth to that or is it over the top reporting?
There are 11 000 people with a profile S in all of France, meaning they are under watch by the French intelligence agencies. Out of these, 3850 are supposed to be muslim radicals. They may be people supporting ISIS morally or physically. They are not all criminals, but some of them may seek to leave the country for Jihad in Syria. Some others may be weapons merchants who count terrorists or criminal groups in their client lists, it is hard to say.
But they are not "just realizing". They had them under watch, but were often refused a warrant because the evidence was too thin.
Now with Hollande's state of emergency, they can investigate a bit further and search for evidence legally, without the need for a search warrant.
Quote from: viper37 on November 17, 2015, 03:29:18 PM
There are 11 000 people with a code S in all of France, meaning they are under watch by the French intelligence agencies. Out of these, 3850 are supposed to be muslim radicals. They may be people supporting ISIS morally or physically. They are not all criminals, but some of them may seek to leave the country for Jihad in Syria. Some others may be weapons merchants who count terrorists or criminal groups in their client lists, it is hard to say.
Interesting.
Do you have any idea about the affiliations of the 7150 code S people who are not muslim radicals?
Separatists and political radicals I would guess. Lots of crazy political ideas float around France.
Quote from: Jacob on November 17, 2015, 03:35:36 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 17, 2015, 03:29:18 PM
There are 11 000 people with a code S in all of France, meaning they are under watch by the French intelligence agencies. Out of these, 3850 are supposed to be muslim radicals. They may be people supporting ISIS morally or physically. They are not all criminals, but some of them may seek to leave the country for Jihad in Syria. Some others may be weapons merchants who count terrorists or criminal groups in their client lists, it is hard to say.
Interesting.
Do you have any idea about the affiliations of the 7150 code S people who are not muslim radicals?
no, that wasn't explained to me. They could be drug trafficker or weapons merchants who never directly interacted with ISIS or another terror group. They could be criminal bands from Marseilles where they frequently solve their dispute with an AK-47. All I know is they aren't supposed to have ties to muslim extremists. Doesn't mean they are innocent, just they have other criminal or borderline criminal activities.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2015, 03:39:06 PM
Separatists and political radicals I would guess. Lots of crazy political ideas float around France.
that and eco terrorists too, Peta types willing to put a bomb somewhere. People for whom there is no direct evidence of criminal activities but who are suspected to be in contact with criminals, helping them or committing future reprehensible acts.
That just means they are under surveillance by the authorities, like the Liberals spying on Parti Québécois members in the 70s.
Quote from: viper37 on November 17, 2015, 03:40:51 PM
no, that wasn't explained to me. They could be drug trafficker or weapons merchants who never directly interacted with ISIS or another terror group. They could be criminal bands from Marseilles where they frequently solve their dispute with an AK-47. All I know is they aren't supposed to have ties to muslim extremists. Doesn't mean they are innocent, just they have other criminal or borderline criminal activities.
Okay thanks :)
No nukes form orbit yet?
Quote from: lustindarkness on November 17, 2015, 05:04:45 PM
No nukes form orbit yet?
That's a bit rude to do to Paris. :o
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 05:51:16 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on November 17, 2015, 05:04:45 PM
No nukes form orbit yet?
That's a bit rude to do to Paris. :o
The Nazi's didn't even shell the place. Lusti worse than Hitler!
Quote from: lustindarkness on November 17, 2015, 06:00:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2015, 05:52:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2015, 05:51:16 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on November 17, 2015, 05:04:45 PM
No nukes form orbit yet?
That's a bit rude to do to Paris. :o
The Nazi's didn't even shell the place. Lusti worse than Hitler!
I did not mean Paris, but yes, yes I am. :(
Well, of higher rank, anyway. Hitler never got beyond Corporal. ;)
The Post is going all in.
http://nypost.com/2015/11/16/obamas-patience-merely-gave-isis-time-to-grow/ (http://nypost.com/2015/11/16/obamas-patience-merely-gave-isis-time-to-grow/)
Quote...
Our military has the resources to shatter ISIS, but political correctness has penetrated so deep into the Pentagon that, even should a president issue the one-word order, "Win!," our initial actions would be cautious and halting. We've bred a generation of military leaders afraid of being prosecuted by their own government for the kind of errors inevitable in wartime. Instead of "leaning forward in the foxhole," our leaders lean on lawyers.
If lawyers had had to approve our World War II target lists, we couldn't have won. War is never clean or easy, and the strictures imposed on our military today just protect our enemies. Collateral damage and civilian casualties are part of combat and always will be. The most humane approach is to pile on fast and win decisively — which results in far less suffering than the sort of protracted agony we see in Syria.
The generals who won World War II would start by leveling Raqqa, the ISIS caliphate's capital. Civilians would die, but those remaining in Raqqa have embraced ISIS, as Germans did Hitler. The jihadis must be crushed. Start with their "Berlin."
Kill ten thousand, save a million.
Unthinkable? Fine. We lose.
And the jihadis? They'll always have Paris.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 17, 2015, 06:45:19 PM
The Post is going all in.
http://nypost.com/2015/11/16/obamas-patience-merely-gave-isis-time-to-grow/ (http://nypost.com/2015/11/16/obamas-patience-merely-gave-isis-time-to-grow/)
Quote...
Our military has the resources to shatter ISIS, but political correctness has penetrated so deep into the Pentagon that, even should a president issue the one-word order, "Win!," our initial actions would be cautious and halting. We've bred a generation of military leaders afraid of being prosecuted by their own government for the kind of errors inevitable in wartime. Instead of "leaning forward in the foxhole," our leaders lean on lawyers.
If lawyers had had to approve our World War II target lists, we couldn't have won. War is never clean or easy, and the strictures imposed on our military today just protect our enemies. Collateral damage and civilian casualties are part of combat and always will be. The most humane approach is to pile on fast and win decisively — which results in far less suffering than the sort of protracted agony we see in Syria.
The generals who won World War II would start by leveling Raqqa, the ISIS caliphate's capital. Civilians would die, but those remaining in Raqqa have embraced ISIS, as Germans did Hitler. The jihadis must be crushed. Start with their "Berlin."
Kill ten thousand, save a million.
Unthinkable? Fine. We lose.
And the jihadis? They'll always have Paris.
[/QUOTE
Tim have you accidentally quoted from the dailymail style comments section or is that really the OpEd?
Quote from: mongers on November 17, 2015, 06:51:31 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 17, 2015, 06:45:19 PM
The Post is going all in.
Our military has the resources to shatter ISIS, but political correctness has penetrated so deep into the Pentagon that, even should a president issue the one-word order, "Win!," our initial actions would be cautious and halting. We've bred a generation of military leaders afraid of being prosecuted by their own government for the kind of errors inevitable in wartime. Instead of "leaning forward in the foxhole," our leaders lean on lawyers.
If lawyers had had to approve our World War II target lists, we couldn't have won. War is never clean or easy, and the strictures imposed on our military today just protect our enemies. Collateral damage and civilian casualties are part of combat and always will be. The most humane approach is to pile on fast and win decisively — which results in far less suffering than the sort of protracted agony we see in Syria.
The generals who won World War II would start by leveling Raqqa, the ISIS caliphate's capital. Civilians would die, but those remaining in Raqqa have embraced ISIS, as Germans did Hitler. The jihadis must be crushed. Start with their "Berlin."
Kill ten thousand, save a million.
Unthinkable? Fine. We lose.
And the jihadis? They'll always have Paris.
Tim have you accidentally quoted from the dailymail style comments section or is that really the OpEd?
Real OpEd by a former Lt. Colonel and author of some decent Clancyesque technothriller/war novels.
This beats Syt's family connections on FB, fortunately it's not my family. :D
QuoteDear friends, please, it's time to take down those French flags. I know you meant them as a signal of solidarity and attachment to some humanistic values that, for some historical reasons, Paris still seemed to embody. And while I've personally had ever since I was a kid a strong distaste for blue-white-and-red, I recognized that intention and shut my big mouth.
But president Hollande's speech, last night, sadly confirmed my fears -- I thought I was hearing a French translation of George W. Bush's post 9-11 speech. What the French flag stands for, now, is war, policing, and the state of exception (sic). And there is no reason to believe the results will differ: after Daesh, Bush's unholy child, get ready for Hollande's progeny in 5 or 10 years...
There are in the animal world some parasitic worms who infect the brains of insects to push them to a suicidal behaviour, so that they get eaten and the worm can pursue their lifecycle in their next host. I wish I could believe that such a worm has taken hold of our leaders -- because when I try to think of the possible motivations for their decisions, they seem so mean, cynical and inhumane that the "parasitic worm" hypothesis sounds like the optimistic one.
Bolded parts added and sic for state of exception, whatever that means, probably a reference to the emergency state
Flanby/Hollande worse than Hitler?
In other news, seems the Union nationale is over at the Assemblée Nationale.
Teh BEEBZ
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2015, 01:04:23 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 16, 2015, 09:57:38 AM
that's why i said "mostly correct." broken world only goes so far. it's really whatever conditions exist that force a violent extreme group into existence. things like red army faction and the IRA formed more because there was a group of people who really desired something. the basis can be caused by religion, political ideology, ethnicity, nationalism, or one of many other reasons why people band together. but there has to be something going on for one person to convince others to jump on board. otherwise it's some ranting nut.
Did you just concede your entire point. :unsure:
nope
Quote from: LaCroix on November 17, 2015, 09:29:32 PM
nope
I thought your starting position was broken world was the indispensible component.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2015, 09:35:19 PMI thought your starting position was broken world was the indispensible component.
that can be a serious reason why. but there can be something else, like a group feeling under pressure/attack. broken world isn't indispensable, but it sure helps.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 17, 2015, 09:37:31 PM
that can be a serious reason why. but there can be something else, like a group feeling under pressure/attack. broken world isn't indispensable, but it sure helps.
Something else, such as a religion that glorifies violence and retribution and magnifies perceived insults to the group?
Sure sounds to me like you're retreating from your previous position, without admitting that you are.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2015, 09:42:04 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 17, 2015, 09:37:31 PM
that can be a serious reason why. but there can be something else, like a group feeling under pressure/attack. broken world isn't indispensable, but it sure helps.
Something else, such as a religion that glorifies violence and retribution and magnifies perceived insults to the group?
Sure sounds to me like you're retreating from your previous position, without admitting that you are.
no, my position has always been that there's another reason for violence than mere classification. some ethnic groups commit violent acts, while many others don't. some religious groups commit violent acts, while many others don't. broken world explains why violent extremist muslim groups have erupted, but it's not gonna cover every instance because there can be other causes for violent individuals banding together to form a violent group.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 17, 2015, 09:52:48 PM
no, my position has always been that there's another reason for violence than mere classification.
I don't understand what this means.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2015, 09:57:41 PMI don't understand what this means.
classification = classes of people, like religion, ethnicity, political ideology, etc. how people classify themselves.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 17, 2015, 10:57:38 PM
classification = classes of people, like religion, ethnicity, political ideology, etc. how people classify themselves.
Then you seem to be contradicting yourself with this:
some ethnic groups commit violent acts, while many others don't. some religious groups commit violent acts, while many others don't.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 17, 2015, 07:48:14 PM
Flanby/Hollande worse than Hitler?
Of course not. He is not President of the United States.
QuoteIn other news, seems the Union nationale is over at the Assemblée Nationale.
Who is rebelling?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2015, 10:59:53 PMThen you seem to be contradicting yourself with this:
some ethnic groups commit violent acts, while many others don't. some religious groups commit violent acts, while many others don't.
broad classifications. literally taken, yes, al-qaeda is a classification. i thought your argument was that all of islam is violent as witnessed by the actions of violent islamic groups. i'm saying that's similar to all communists are violent as witnessed by the actions of the bolsheviks.
Russia just hammered Raqqa with the biggest bombing raid since Vietnam.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/17/russia-pounds-isis-with-biggest-bomber-raid-in-decades.html
Quote from: LaCroix on November 17, 2015, 11:08:30 PM
broad classifications. literally taken, yes, al-qaeda is a classification. i thought your argument was that all of islam is violent as witnessed by the actions of violent islamic groups. i'm saying that's similar to all communists are violent as witnessed by the actions of the bolsheviks.
I have never said all Muslims are violent. That would be empirically ridiculous. I have said violence is a key, unalterable component of the holy text, and that because of this sacred endorsement of violence--nay, the elevation of violence to a sacred duty-- Muslims have a higher proclivity for violence than members of other religions.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 17, 2015, 11:13:34 PM
Russia just hammered Raqqa with the biggest bombing raid since Vietnam.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/17/russia-pounds-isis-with-biggest-bomber-raid-in-decades.html
U mad Russia?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 17, 2015, 11:13:34 PM
Russia just hammered Raqqa with the biggest bombing raid since Vietnam.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/17/russia-pounds-isis-with-biggest-bomber-raid-in-decades.html
Interesting that Russia is going with ISIL too, and also interesting that Turkey appears to have granted transit rights.
Daesh losing is just going to create something worse. Duque's crazy non-family member will be mad at Putin. Ah just kidding he will of course blame AMURIKKKA.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2015, 11:14:30 PMI have never said all Muslims are violent. That would be empirically ridiculous. I have said violence is a key, unalterable component of the holy text, and that because of this sacred endorsement of violence--nay, the elevation of violence to a sacred duty-- Muslims have a higher proclivity for violence than members of other religions.
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.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 18, 2015, 12:32:50 AM
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.
They do. Sadly they do.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 17, 2015, 06:45:19 PM
The Post is going all in.
http://nypost.com/2015/11/16/obamas-patience-merely-gave-isis-time-to-grow/ (http://nypost.com/2015/11/16/obamas-patience-merely-gave-isis-time-to-grow/)
Quote...
Our military has the resources to shatter ISIS, but political correctness has penetrated so deep into the Pentagon that, even should a president issue the one-word order, "Win!," our initial actions would be cautious and halting. We've bred a generation of military leaders afraid of being prosecuted by their own government for the kind of errors inevitable in wartime. Instead of "leaning forward in the foxhole," our leaders lean on lawyers.
If lawyers had had to approve our World War II target lists, we couldn't have won. War is never clean or easy, and the strictures imposed on our military today just protect our enemies. Collateral damage and civilian casualties are part of combat and always will be. The most humane approach is to pile on fast and win decisively — which results in far less suffering than the sort of protracted agony we see in Syria.
The generals who won World War II would start by leveling Raqqa, the ISIS caliphate's capital. Civilians would die, but those remaining in Raqqa have embraced ISIS, as Germans did Hitler. The jihadis must be crushed. Start with their "Berlin."
Kill ten thousand, save a million.
Unthinkable? Fine. We lose.
And the jihadis? They'll always have Paris.
I agree with this. We are facing an enemy that, barring resources and ability to project its power, is at least as savage and barbaric if not much more than the nazi Germany and Japan in WWII. Yet, nothing even close to Dresden or Hiroshima bombing would even be considered these days - and this is what took the Allies to win.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2015, 11:19:48 PM
Daesh losing is just going to create something worse.
I think the risk of dangerous, mutated life forms emerging from a nuclear wasteland is greatly overstated, thanks to Hollywood and liberal media. :rolleyes:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 17, 2015, 11:13:34 PM
Russia just hammered Raqqa with the biggest bombing raid since Vietnam.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/17/russia-pounds-isis-with-biggest-bomber-raid-in-decades.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/17/russia-pounds-isis-with-biggest-bomber-raid-in-decades.html)
I wonder if they even had a military target in mind. The Russians might just level the whole city and consider it a victory. The Russians have never been shy of making a solitude and calling it peace.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 01:03:35 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2015, 11:19:48 PM
Daesh losing is just going to create something worse.
I think the risk of dangerous, mutated life forms emerging from a nuclear wasteland is greatly overstated, thanks to Hollywood and liberal media. :rolleyes:
The Japanese have a share of the blame in that as well.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F03130%2Fgodzilla_3130893b.jpg&hash=1b8e3ab3d233b8c97c48ec37c8f6398c10c138ec)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 12:41:30 AMI can make my prima facie case very easily. The Koran does call for violence. Muslims do a shitload of terrorism.
we're backtracking now. i don't think you can prove that the koran is the cause of violent groups emerging.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 17, 2015, 11:13:34 PM
Russia just hammered Raqqa with the biggest bombing raid since Vietnam.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/17/russia-pounds-isis-with-biggest-bomber-raid-in-decades.html
Never thought I'd be cheering Russia on.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 18, 2015, 01:08:02 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 12:41:30 AMI can make my prima facie case very easily. The Koran does call for violence. Muslims do a shitload of terrorism.
we're backtracking now. i don't think you can prove that the koran is the cause of violent groups emerging.
He doesn't need to prove the causal connection - there is what's called a factual presumption (or the "talks like a duck and walks like a duck" principle).
All he needs to show is that Koran calls for violence and that those who commit violence are quoting Koran - this is sufficient in any court of law to create a presumption that there is a causal connection between the two. The burden of proof then shifts to the other side which claims that despite these facts, there is no connection between the two.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 01:12:12 AMHe doesn't need to prove the causal connection - there is what's called a factual presumption (or the "talks like a duck and walks like a duck" principle).
All he needs to show is that Koran calls for violence and that those who commit violence are quoting Koran - this is sufficient in any court of law to create a presumption that there is a causal connection between the two. The burden of proof then shifts to the other side which claims that despite these facts, there is no connection between the two.
we're not in a court of law. we're on an internet forum. i've had an idea, and i've suggested it. it could be wrong, but i haven't seen anything that proves it wrong.
Well, you should know that ducks are an important feature of Polish law. Every court room must have a duck in good standing and all officers must swear upon the duck daily. The duck is suppose to keep away Jews, evil spirits and ring worms by it's "ferocious hissing". Its a secular version of the Polish Catholic ritual of the goose, which is believed to have pagan origins where they used as duck instead of a goose.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2015, 01:20:38 AM
Well, you should know that ducks are an important feature of Polish law. Every court room must have a duck in good standing and all officers must swear upon the duck daily. The duck is suppose to keep away Jews, evil spirits and ring worms by it's "ferocious hissing". Its a secular version of the Polish Catholic ritual of the goose, which is believed to have pagan origins where they used as duck instead of a goose.
:lol:
Quote from: LaCroix on November 18, 2015, 01:14:41 AM
we're not in a court of law. we're on an internet forum. i've had an idea, and i've suggested it. it could be wrong, but i haven't seen anything that proves it wrong.
Nothing? I just spent 6 pages explaining why broken lands doesn't explain Islamic terrorism.
I have seen some conspiracy theories floating around already that the Paris attack was masterminded by the Mossad.
Quote from: Jaron on November 18, 2015, 01:46:30 AM
I have seen some conspiracy theories floating around already that the Paris attack was masterminded by the Mossad.
Theories you start don't count.
I had a theory once. My theory was that Elephants evolved from eels. I call it my "Trunk First" origin of the Elephant. The Eel evolved an incredibly complex tail that eventually that formed the body of the elephant. Over time tail developed legs and became ambulatory, but it need to keep the rest of the body in the water to breath. Slowly the eyes, mouth and all other major organs migrated their way back to the tail becoming the modern elephant. Wait, what were we talking about again?
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2015, 11:14:47 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 17, 2015, 11:13:34 PM
Russia just hammered Raqqa with the biggest bombing raid since Vietnam.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/17/russia-pounds-isis-with-biggest-bomber-raid-in-decades.html
U mad Russia?
They just killed 200 Russian civilians, of course they are.
I like that people started calling them Daesh, sounds like the Danish word 'das' which means old fashion toilets (hole in the ground style).
Ramzan Kadyrov weighs in with a creative suggestion:
https://www.rt.com/politics/322448-drone-dive-chechen-leader-suggests/
QuoteUnmanned aircraft! Chechen leader suggests dropping terrorists from drones
While world leaders struggle with the problem of dealing with terrorists, Ramzan Kadyrov has come up with a direct solution: dropping captured terrorists from drones and publishing detailed accounts on when and how each extremist died.
"I suggest that if any terrorists are detained they should be suspended on unmanned aerial vehicles that attack the positions of the Iblis State and then drop them on their accomplices' heads," Kadyrov wrote in his Instagram account, which is his medium of choice for communication with the public.
READ MORE: Chechen leader claims Islamic State has no chances in the republic
The Chechen leader used the term 'Iblis State' to describe the terrorist group Islamic State (IS, previously known as ISIL and ISIS) because he, along with many Russian Muslims, considers that extremists insult their religion by using the word 'Muslim' in their name.
Kadyrov also added that in his opinion such executions must be organized without any trials and urged everyone to participate in the fight against terrorism in whichever way they can.
"I am confident that it is the duty of every Russian citizen and patriot of his Fatherland to report any information that could help to identify terrorists and disclose their places of residence," he wrote.
Kadyrov made his announcement on Tuesday, hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin told reporters that the Federal Security Service (FSB) had established that the A231 airliner in Egypt was downed by a bomb blast. Putin also pledged to find and punish those responsible for the attack and all who attempt to help them. FSB Director Aleksandr Bortnikov has announced earlier that Russia was offering a $50 million reward for information on those behind the terror attack on the A321.
Last week Ramzan Kadyrov made an address to Muslims across the world, calling on them to unite and destroy the Islamic State terrorist group. He also reiterated his point that the current Middle-East crisis was masterminded by the United States and other Western nations.
READ MORE: Kadyrov calls for Muslims worldwide to unite to defeat ISIS
Earlier this year Kadyrov expressed confidence that IS had been created "first of all against Russia" and warned of the threat that the jihadist group and the conflict in Syria pose to Russia's security. He also noted that the US and other Western nations "spawned" the current terrorist movement in the Mid East in order to distract public attention from numerous problems in the region and incite hatred towards Muslims all over the world.
Sounds good.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 17, 2015, 11:13:34 PM
Russia just hammered Raqqa with the biggest bombing raid since Vietnam.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/17/russia-pounds-isis-with-biggest-bomber-raid-in-decades.html
:blackjackboner:
Quote from: Liep on November 18, 2015, 04:37:12 AM
I like that people started calling them Daesh, sounds like the Danish word 'das' which means old fashion toilets (hole in the ground style).
Those are known as
Toilettes à la turque (Turkish toilet) in French. :smarty: :frog:
Quote from: LaCroix on November 18, 2015, 01:14:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 01:12:12 AMHe doesn't need to prove the causal connection - there is what's called a factual presumption (or the "talks like a duck and walks like a duck" principle).
All he needs to show is that Koran calls for violence and that those who commit violence are quoting Koran - this is sufficient in any court of law to create a presumption that there is a causal connection between the two. The burden of proof then shifts to the other side which claims that despite these facts, there is no connection between the two.
we're not in a court of law. we're on an internet forum. i've had an idea, and i've suggested it. it could be wrong, but i haven't seen anything that proves it wrong.
I don't think there is any possible evidence that could prove it wrong once you dismiss the personal, consistent, and overwhelming testimony of the human beings who are willing to tell you exactly why they do the things they do...
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2015, 04:06:51 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2015, 11:14:47 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 17, 2015, 11:13:34 PM
Russia just hammered Raqqa with the biggest bombing raid since Vietnam.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/17/russia-pounds-isis-with-biggest-bomber-raid-in-decades.html
U mad Russia?
They just killed 200 Russian civilians, of course they are.
That was rhetorical Tim.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 12:41:30 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 18, 2015, 12:32:50 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 01:12:12 AM
All he needs to show is that Koran calls for violence and that those who commit violence are quoting Koran - this is sufficient in any court of law to create a presumption that there is a causal connection between the two. The burden of proof then shifts to the other side which claims that despite these facts, there is no connection between the two.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwemeantwell.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F09%2FKangaroo-Court-e1379633717575.jpg&hash=043f118d02edf8b8a87ae5e995a818231150d32f)
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2015, 01:04:09 AM
I wonder if they even had a military target in mind. The Russians might just level the whole city and consider it a victory. The Russians have never been shy of making a solitude and calling it peace.
That was their Grozny strategy IIRC. Well, I guess that and throwing in untrained conscripts on the ground.
Anyway the article said the bombing raid consisted of 25 planes. Is that really the heaviest bombing since Vietnam?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2015, 11:49:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 01:12:12 AM
All he needs to show is that Koran calls for violence and that those who commit violence are quoting Koran - this is sufficient in any court of law to create a presumption that there is a causal connection between the two. The burden of proof then shifts to the other side which claims that despite these facts, there is no connection between the two.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwemeantwell.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F09%2FKangaroo-Court-e1379633717575.jpg&hash=043f118d02edf8b8a87ae5e995a818231150d32f)
:lol:
Apparently Facebook blocked accounts of women named Isis. :lol:
Including this one, that you may remember form a previous social media campaign:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpolpix.sueddeutsche.com%2Fpolopoly_fs%2F1.2596823.1447862219%21%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2F860x860%2Fimage.jpg&hash=d8f9c0767aba18762925601e207b9d41a16d03bc)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2015, 11:46:57 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 12:41:30 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 18, 2015, 12:32:50 AM
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.
I'm not sure the Byzantines or Sassanids or Arab Jews would agree.
Quote from: Syt on November 18, 2015, 12:47:31 PM
Apparently Facebook blocked accounts of women named Isis. :lol:
Including this one, that you may remember form a previous social media campaign:
I would block her too, she looks dangerous (to my marriage).
Pity about the boring job developing enterprise software.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2015, 11:14:30 PM
I have never said all Muslims are violent. That would be empirically ridiculous. I have said violence is a key, unalterable component of the holy text, and that because of this sacred endorsement of violence--nay, the elevation of violence to a sacred duty-- Muslims have a higher proclivity for violence than members of other religions.
Sikhs have been violent too, committing terrorist act in the name of their ideology.
The IRA committed numerous terrorist acts in the UK, and they got support from the local Catholic clergy. And it wasn't until the very recent events that a Pople officially condemned the acts.
There were numerous anti-abortion terror acts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence) committed by Christians.
Christian Terrorism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism) has a dedicated page on Wikipedia.
There's even a case about buddhism and violence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence)
So, yes, it is unfair to say that Islam is more prone to violence than other religions. You could say it is more prone to violence today, that might be accurate. It's also the second most numerous religion in the world, and I think the majority of them lives in 3rd world or developping countries, more fertile grounds for extreme ideologies to emerge.
Quote from: Liep on November 18, 2015, 04:37:12 AM
I like that people started calling them Daesh, sounds like the Danish word 'das' which means old fashion toilets (hole in the ground style).
Good.
Never liked how willing everyone is to call them Islamic state. Seems like a bit of an acceptance of them
Germany has a new meme thanks to interior minister De Maiziere's press conference regarding the cancellation of the German friendly match. When pressed for details he said he couldn't say anything. "Part of the replies would unsettle the population."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 12:41:30 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 18, 2015, 12:32:50 AM
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 Bible calls for violence, Christians do a shitload of violence.
Israel's more militant factions relies on their sacred texts to justify Israel's expulsion of the Palestinians.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 01:12:12 AM
He doesn't need to prove the causal connection - there is what's called a factual presumption (or the "talks like a duck and walks like a duck" principle).
All he needs to show is that Koran calls for violence and that those who commit violence are quoting Koran - this is sufficient in any court of law to create a presumption that there is a causal connection between the two. The burden of proof then shifts to the other side which claims that despite these facts, there is no connection between the two.
The problem with this is that you can make the same link with all religions.
Ergo, religions are dangerous and should be banned?
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2015, 01:45:51 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 01:12:12 AM
He doesn't need to prove the causal connection - there is what's called a factual presumption (or the "talks like a duck and walks like a duck" principle).
All he needs to show is that Koran calls for violence and that those who commit violence are quoting Koran - this is sufficient in any court of law to create a presumption that there is a causal connection between the two. The burden of proof then shifts to the other side which claims that despite these facts, there is no connection between the two.
The problem with this is that you can make the same link with all religions.
Ergo, religions are dangerous and should be banned?
Same with the non-religious. Everybody should be banned.
Actually that would solve the problems :hmm:
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2015, 01:43:22 PM
the Bible calls for violence, Christians do a shitload of violence.
Israel's more militant factions relies on their sacred texts to justify Israel's expulsion of the Palestinians.
The New Testament most definitely does not call for violence. Exactly the opposite.
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2015, 01:43:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 12:41:30 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 18, 2015, 12:32:50 AM
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 Bible calls for violence, Christians do a shitload of violence.
There is a fundamental difference in both kind and scale between the violence we see in the name of Islam today, and the violence we see in the name of Christianity.
Indeed, the "Christians do shitloads of violence" claim is kind of ridiculous, really. They do not, in fact, engage in violence in the name of their faith to any extent that can be compared to what is happening in the Islamic world.
Quote
Israel's more militant factions relies on their sacred texts to justify Israel's expulsion of the Palestinians.
And you would be perfectly reasonable to point out that those particular people are motivated by their religious faith, and that this is a serious problem for others in that area. Because they are, and because it is...
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 01:47:16 PM
Same with the non-religious. Everybody should be banned.
Actually that would solve the problems :hmm:
No, we atheists are the good guys. We don't kill in the name of religion, so that's much less offensive. Imagine the confort of the dead knowing they were killed for rational things like ethnicity, language, land or water instead of their beliefs?
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2015, 01:33:52 PM
Sikhs have been violent too, committing terrorist act in the name of their ideology.
Wait.. what? What Sikh "ideology" even permits terrorism, let alone inspiring it?
Quote from: Queequeg on November 18, 2015, 12:51:56 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2015, 11:46:57 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 12:41:30 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 18, 2015, 12:32:50 AM
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.
I'm not sure the Byzantines or Sassanids or Arab Jews would agree.
It's not the same thing.
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2015, 01:43:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 12:41:30 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 18, 2015, 12:32:50 AM
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 Bible calls for violence, Christians do a shitload of violence.
Israel's more militant factions relies on their sacred texts to justify Israel's expulsion of the Palestinians.
Israel makes a tough case study for this sort of argument, on either side. Some of its (arguably) most religious citizens dislike the existence of the state because they view having a country called "Israel" as blasphemy; on the other hand, many instrumental in the state's violent origins were very religious - but most Zionists were atheists and socialists. The most violent 'terrorists' in its history were the Irgun and Stern Gang, who were not notably religious: their terrorism was ethnic and political. However, in modern times, many "settlers" are religious. Of course, there have been notable Jewish religious terrorists in Israel, but their targets are as often the state as Arabs - for example, Yigal Amir, who assassinated the Israeli Prime Minister.
Quote from: Tyr on November 18, 2015, 01:37:05 PM
Quote from: Liep on November 18, 2015, 04:37:12 AM
I like that people started calling them Daesh, sounds like the Danish word 'das' which means old fashion toilets (hole in the ground style).
Good.
Never liked how willing everyone is to call them Islamic state. Seems like a bit of an acceptance of them
:lmfao: So, calling them Islamic State in their own language is somehow less of an "acceptance" than calling it that in English?
SMH
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2015, 01:45:51 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 01:12:12 AM
He doesn't need to prove the causal connection - there is what's called a factual presumption (or the "talks like a duck and walks like a duck" principle).
All he needs to show is that Koran calls for violence and that those who commit violence are quoting Koran - this is sufficient in any court of law to create a presumption that there is a causal connection between the two. The burden of proof then shifts to the other side which claims that despite these facts, there is no connection between the two.
The problem with this is that you can make the same link with all religions.
This is the most frustrating of arguments.
It simply IS NOT TRUE.
Religious doctrines have actual content. They have directives, instructions, systems of thought, ideas, etc., etc.
They are not all the same - of COURSE they are not all the same.
Hence it is, on its face, simply NOT TRUE that you can just declare them all equal in that content. The idea is simply inane.
Different religions make different demands on their followers, and have different justifications for those demands. This results in differences in behavior of those followers. This is self evidently true.
Some religions, as they are understood and practiced today, are more accepting of violence than others. That is a direct result of their actual doctrines. No major religion is particularly consistent within the set of followers, so there is large variance between all of them, and individual adherents fall in some range of their tolerance for various behaviors.
But any reasonable person comparing the Koran to the New Testament, and concluding that they are equally tolerant of mayhem, murder, and violence is simply refusing to see what is right in front of them - they are not the same.
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2015, 01:57:12 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 18, 2015, 01:37:05 PM
Quote from: Liep on November 18, 2015, 04:37:12 AM
I like that people started calling them Daesh, sounds like the Danish word 'das' which means old fashion toilets (hole in the ground style).
Good.
Never liked how willing everyone is to call them Islamic state. Seems like a bit of an acceptance of them
:lmfao: So, calling them Islamic State in their own language is somehow less of an "acceptance" than calling it that in English?
SMH
Yes, apparently.
QuoteDaesh: This is a term the militant group hates. French President François Hollande has used it since the attacks Friday, and first used it in September 2014. It's an Arabic acronym for "al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham." It can sometimes be spelled DAIISH, Da'esh or Daech, a popular French version. The hacktivist group Anonymous and President Barack Obama have used the term since the deadly terrorist attacks in Paris.
Thanks to Arabic wordplay, it could also be an insult. "Depending on how it is conjugated in Arabic, it can mean anything from 'to trample down and crush' to 'a bigot who imposes his view on others,'" Boston Globe writer Zeba Khan reported in October 2014. ISIS threatened "to cut the tongue of anyone who publicly used the acronym Daesh, instead of referring to the group by its full name," the Associated Press wrote in September 2014.
http://www.ibtimes.com/isil-isis-islamic-state-daesh-whats-difference-2187131
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2015, 01:57:12 PM
Quote from: Tyr on November 18, 2015, 01:37:05 PM
Quote from: Liep on November 18, 2015, 04:37:12 AM
I like that people started calling them Daesh, sounds like the Danish word 'das' which means old fashion toilets (hole in the ground style).
Good.
Never liked how willing everyone is to call them Islamic state. Seems like a bit of an acceptance of them
:lmfao: So, calling them Islamic State in their own language is somehow less of an "acceptance" than calling it that in English?
SMH
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/14/9734894/daesh-isis-isil
QuoteA short guide to ISIS's many names
There are, broadly speaking, four things that people call the group: ISIS, ISIL, the Islamic State, and Daesh. This is largely ISIS's fault; a big reason the group has so many names is that it keeps changing it.
When the group's predecessor organization was created in 1999, it was called Jamaat al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, which means Unity and Jihad. In 2004, the group's founder, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, pledged an oath to al-Qaeda, changing his group's name to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn — or, as it was called in English, al-Qaeda in Iraq.
After AQI took over huge swaths of Iraq in 2006, the organization declared itself to be a state in northern Iraq and started calling itself the Islamic State in Iraq. When it took a bunch of territory in Syria in 2013, it began calling itself the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham — ISIS.
Al-Sham is a difficult-to-translate Arabic term referring to a specific geographic area along the eastern Mediterranean that includes Syria. Some English speakers translate al-Sham as "the Levant," which refers to a broader region in the Middle East that generally overlaps with al-Sham. This is how you get ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant), as the White House and others call it. Others still approximate al-Sham to Syria, which yields the same ISIS acronym.
The full name in Arabic is transliterated like this: al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi Iraq wa al-Sham — which produces the acronym DAIISH (usually spelled Daesh in English). That sounds an awful lot like the Arabic word "dahes," which the Guardian translates as "one who sows discord." ISIS kind of hates this insulting connotation, and so banned the name "Daesh" in its territory.
But it doesn't use ISIS either. Crucially, the group now claims to be a caliphate — that is, the successor of the original seventh-century founding Islamic nation. As such, it dropped the geographic identifiers from its name, and simply calls itself "the Islamic State."
The case for calling it "Daesh"
A lot of news organizations use "Islamic State" or "the Islamic State" for a simple reason: It's what the group calls itself, and accuracy is important. But politicians and governments generally don't. They've got some pretty good reasons: Calling it the Islamic State helps ISIS sell its message, and helps insult Muslims to boot.
The name "Islamic State," as opposed to ISIS or Daesh, is at its heart a propaganda tool. By claiming to be the caliphate, ISIS is implying that it's the only state true Muslims should obey: Around the world, they should pledge loyalty to the one and only Islamic State. This message is part of how ISIS recruits and thus keeps fighting.
Hence why British and French authorities are moving to the more derogatory Daesh, which doesn't imply that the group is either a real government or an authentic representation of Islamic thought.
"Islamic State, ISIL, and ISIS [give] legitimacy to a terrorist organization that is not Islamic nor has it been recognised as a state," 120 British MPs wrote in a letter to Lord Tony Hall, the director general of the BBC.
It seems unlikely that anyone joins ISIS because of the words David Cameron or Barack Obama, let alone a TV news anchor, uses to describe the group.
But there's also an issue of insulting and stigmatizing Muslims. Using the name Daesh sends the message to French and British audiences that they should not equate ISIS with Islam. Given the large Muslim minorities in both countries, and their struggles with assimilation and intolerance, this is an important message. A group of British imams wrote a letter to Cameron last year asking him to call it the "un-Islamic state."
Cameron, during a BBC interview, called the name Islamic State "a perversion of the religion of Islam, and many Muslims listening to this programme will recoil every time they hear the words Islamic State."
The case for calling the group ISIS
While it's Cameron's job to combat ISIS propaganda in the UK, it's the BBC's job to accurately inform its audience about ISIS as an organization: what it believes, how strong it is, what it wants, and, yes, what it calls itself.
For non-Arabic-speaking audiences, Daesh is merely another unfamiliar foreign word. But "the Islamic State" helps convey the group's core ideology: It sees itself as an Islamic government, not merely another terrorist organization.
Understanding this is critically important to understanding how the group works. It's also important for understanding how it's being fought. Because ISIS is ideologically committed to governing and defending its territory, it needs to fight a conventional war rather than an insurgency. This point is not well understood; most people think of ISIS as something like the Viet Cong or the Iraqi insurgents of the mid-2000s.
At the same time, "ISIS" is perhaps more accurate than "Islamic State" because, despite the group's efforts to sow violence in other countries such as Yemen and Libya, its claim to statehood only really stands in Syria and Iraq.
As for the issue of whether the last word in ISIS's name should be translated as "al-Sham" or "the Levant" or "Syria," there's not really a single answer.
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2015, 01:52:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 01:47:16 PM
Same with the non-religious. Everybody should be banned.
Actually that would solve the problems :hmm:
No, we atheists are the good guys. We don't kill in the name of religion, so that's much less offensive. Imagine the confort of the dead knowing they were killed for rational things like ethnicity, language, land or water instead of their beliefs?
You think killing people for their ethnicity is rational?
Are you trying to hit all the dumbest argument ever in one day?
Pointing out that people sometimes kill for other reasons than religion is no meaningful response to pointing out that religion gets a lot of people killed.
So fucking what?
It's like someone saying "Hey, drunk drivers are a serious problem - people are killed and injured all the time by them! If only we could do something about that!" and your response is "ZOMG BUT PEOPLE DIE FROM PLANE CRASHES AND THEY DON'T FEEL ANY BETTER ABOUT IT!!!!ZOMG!!!!11111KKKKKK"
1. People getting killed in non-religious violence is bad as well. We should do something about that.
2. That has nothing really to do, however, with the fact that lots of people are killed as a result of religious violence, nor is it any kind of response to a discussion about that problem.
2a. I don't know why you brought up atheists at all. What does atheism have to do with ethnic violence, or greed over land, language, or water? Are you trying to argue that being atheist some how leads to that kind of violence? Could you please quote me the atheist doctrine that results in said violence, because last I checked "atheism" was simply the lack of belief in a deity, and I really don't see how that could possibly result in anyone doing much of anything in and of itself.
I like calling them ISIS. It sounds like a James Bond villain or something.
Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2015, 01:57:39 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2015, 01:45:51 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 01:12:12 AM
He doesn't need to prove the causal connection - there is what's called a factual presumption (or the "talks like a duck and walks like a duck" principle).
All he needs to show is that Koran calls for violence and that those who commit violence are quoting Koran - this is sufficient in any court of law to create a presumption that there is a causal connection between the two. The burden of proof then shifts to the other side which claims that despite these facts, there is no connection between the two.
The problem with this is that you can make the same link with all religions.
This is the most frustrating of arguments.
It simply IS NOT TRUE.
Religious doctrines have actual content. They have directives, instructions, systems of thought, ideas, etc., etc.
They are not all the same - of COURSE they are not all the same.
Hence it is, on its face, simply NOT TRUE that you can just declare them all equal in that content. The idea is simply inane.
Different religions make different demands on their followers, and have different justifications for those demands. This results in differences in behavior of those followers. This is self evidently true.
Some religions, as they are understood and practiced today, are more accepting of violence than others. That is a direct result of their actual doctrines. No major religion is particularly consistent within the set of followers, so there is large variance between all of them, and individual adherents fall in some range of their tolerance for various behaviors.
But any reasonable person comparing the Koran to the New Testament, and concluding that they are equally tolerant of mayhem, murder, and violence is simply refusing to see what is right in front of them - they are not the same.
However, the same reasonable person would also note that "religions, as they are understood and practiced today" are not the same as the contents of the New Testament and the Koran, respectively - that (for example) most forms of Christianity have put as much emphasis on the teachings found in the "Old Testament" as in the new (plus various philosophers, saints, and others); similarly, Muslims look to the oral traditions and sayings (Hadath) in addition to or as interpretation of the Koran.
Of course, each sect or group puts different emphasis on different aspects - so you get a very wide variation of practice
within those groups called "Christian" and "Muslim" over time, from quietist Quakers through murderous Puritans, or from mystic Sufis through murderous Daesh.
You could not predict that from simply reading the New Testament and the Koran. Which is why simply reading one or the other and concluding a straightforward causal connection between the violent bits in the Koran and today's violence isn't a good strategy. The more important thing is why the group committing today's violence chose to emphasize the violent bits, as opposed to the non-violent bits that also exist (and are chosen by other groups).
Murderous Puritans? :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 01:48:38 PM
The New Testament most definitely does not call for violence. Exactly the opposite.
Depends on how you see it. The Crucifixion of his son is ordered by God. Some Christians feel compelled to crucify themselves every Easter day. I'd call this violent. People are pressured into doing it to be be a good christian, even if disavowed by the Pope.
Eradicating other factions of Christianity in the name of God is a very religious thing to do. Let's kill 'em all, let God sort 'em all, and all that kind of things.
Bominb abortion clinics is a religious thing to do, killing murderers, dispensing God's justice and all.
Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2015, 02:06:20 PM
Are you trying to hit all the dumbest argument ever in one day?
No, I was sarcastic.
Even if we abolished all religions, we would still slaughter ourselves for various reasons.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 02:16:16 PM
Murderous Puritans? :huh:
English Civil War Hijack! :D
The Pogues perhaps put it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-y2ox2HPnc
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 02:16:16 PM
Murderous Puritans? :huh:
George Washington's ancestors had to leave Britain because of angry Puritans. They also invaded Maryland to stamp out "Poppery".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 01:48:38 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2015, 01:43:22 PM
the Bible calls for violence, Christians do a shitload of violence.
Israel's more militant factions relies on their sacred texts to justify Israel's expulsion of the Palestinians.
The New Testament most definitely does not call for violence. Exactly the opposite.
Matthew 10:34: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35"For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;..."
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2015, 02:20:36 PM
George Washington's ancestors had to leave Britain because of angry Puritans. They also invaded Maryland to stamp out "Poppery".
Why the quotes? It was quite literally Poppery.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 02:22:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2015, 02:20:36 PM
George Washington's ancestors had to leave Britain because of angry Puritans. They also invaded Maryland to stamp out "Poppery".
Why the quotes? It was quite literally Poppery.
Popery? "Poppery" sounds like a crusade for chewing gum. :P
Edit: though the Puritans would have stamped that out as well! :D
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2015, 02:22:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 01:48:38 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2015, 01:43:22 PM
the Bible calls for violence, Christians do a shitload of violence.
Israel's more militant factions relies on their sacred texts to justify Israel's expulsion of the Palestinians.
The New Testament most definitely does not call for violence. Exactly the opposite.
Matthew 10:34: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35"For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;..."
Bah you don't need Jesus to set a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
Lots of cool stuff like that in Matthew especially when Jesus denounces his family. But of course he was not talking about a literal sword or literal violence so I assume you are kidding here.
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2015, 02:24:06 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 02:22:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2015, 02:20:36 PM
George Washington's ancestors had to leave Britain because of angry Puritans. They also invaded Maryland to stamp out "Poppery".
Why the quotes? It was quite literally Poppery.
Popery? "Poppery" sounds like a crusade for chewing gum. :P
Edit: though the Puritans would have stamped that out as well! :D
Only if you enjoyed chewing it.
I wish Sheilbh was around to defend the Puritans, he always did a great job at that. I miss him.
Hey, anyone who wants incitement to violent lunacy can find it in the Book of Revelations. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 02:22:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2015, 02:20:36 PM
George Washington's ancestors had to leave Britain because of angry Puritans. They also invaded Maryland to stamp out "Poppery".
Why the quotes? It was quite literally Poppery.
Because it's a pejorative, that the Puritans applied to non Catholics on occasion.
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2015, 02:24:06 PM
Popery? "Poppery" sounds like a crusade for chewing gum. :P
Perhaps a portmanteau of poppycock and foppery? :hmm:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2015, 02:28:48 PM
Because it's a pejorative, that the Puritans applied to non Catholics on occasion.
In the same way leftwing non-Communists were pinkos.
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2015, 02:18:31 PM
Even if we abolished all religions, we would still slaughter ourselves for various reasons.
I actually do not at all believe that to be true.
At least, I don't think we would do so to anywhere near the same extent.
Absent religion, I posit a measurable decline in the percentage of human deaths resulting from violence.
Indeed, I think we can show that this is already happening, as the pervasiveness and power of religion has declined over the last several centuries.
Now, it is certainly relevant to note that some of the most horrific orgies of human on human violence have had very non-religious foundations (the world wars and Communist pogroms in the USSR/Cambodia/North Korea for example) - but the difference is that we can (and I think have) actually learned from them, and are less likely to repeat them as a consequence. The people and nations that participated in WW1 and WW2 are very, very unlikely to repeat the experience. Can anyone another France versus Germany total war?
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2015, 02:17:07 PM
Depends on how you see it. The Crucifixion of his son is ordered by God. Some Christians feel compelled to crucify themselves every Easter day. I'd call this violent. People are pressured into doing it to be be a good christian, even if disavowed by the Pope.
Eradicating other factions of Christianity in the name of God is a very religious thing to do. Let's kill 'em all, let God sort 'em all, and all that kind of things.
Bominb abortion clinics is a religious thing to do, killing murderers, dispensing God's justice and all.
None of these are actions that have any basis in the acts or words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels. He never said a person would reach the kingdom of heaven by blowing up abortion clinics or killing Albigensians.
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2015, 01:33:52 PM
Sikhs have been violent too, committing terrorist act in the name of their ideology.
The IRA committed numerous terrorist acts in the UK, and they got support from the local Catholic clergy. And it wasn't until the very recent events that a Pople officially condemned the acts.
There were numerous anti-abortion terror acts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence) committed by Christians.
Christian Terrorism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism) has a dedicated page on Wikipedia.
There's even a case about buddhism and violence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence)
So, yes, it is unfair to say that Islam is more prone to violence than other religions. You could say it is more prone to violence today, that might be accurate. It's also the second most numerous religion in the world, and I think the majority of them lives in 3rd world or developping countries, more fertile grounds for extreme ideologies to emerge.
You are making the same mistake Yi is making by blaming a religion for the acts of people who happen to belong to that religion but whose actions are motivated by other things.
The Sikh example illustrates the point well. While it is true that there have been terrorists who are also Sikh the terrorism was certainly not committed in "the name of their ideology" (assuming for a moment that you thought the Sikh religion was an ideology). Those terrorists committed their acts for the same reason the IRA did (and for the same reason as the FLQ ;)) They wanted an independent homeland.
Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2015, 02:31:47 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2015, 02:18:31 PM
Even if we abolished all religions, we would still slaughter ourselves for various reasons.
I actually do not at all believe that to be true.
At least, I don't think we would do so to anywhere near the same extent.
Absent religion, I posit a measurable decline in the percentage of human deaths resulting from violence.
Indeed, I think we can show that this is already happening, as the pervasiveness and power of religion has declined over the last several centuries.
Now, it is certainly relevant to note that some of the most horrific orgies of human on human violence have had very non-religious foundations (the world wars and Communist pogroms in the USSR/Cambodia/North Korea for example) - but the difference is that we can (and I think have) actually learned from them, and are less likely to repeat them as a consequence. The people and nations that participated in WW1 and WW2 are very, very unlikely to repeat the experience. Can anyone another France versus Germany total war?
How absurd. It's sad that a full grown man believes such nonsense. If we roll back time to 30 years ago, the biggest single danger to Westerns comes from materialists like yourself. It's arguable that in the last 30 years religion has failed to superseded other motives for murder. Well known anti-religious atheist Sam Harris has argued for the murder of people based solely on what that they believe, and he sells lots of books. So clearly we haven't learned.
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2015, 02:18:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2015, 02:06:20 PM
Are you trying to hit all the dumbest argument ever in one day?
No, I was sarcastic.
Even if we abolished all religions, we would still slaughter ourselves for various reasons.
Agreed, and humans have been doing so. I don't think more people have died from religions. Seems more have died from other reasons. WW1, WW2, , various Euro wars, US Civil War, just to name a few. Communists killed a hundred million at least, and many other wars and conflicts that have nothing to do with religion.
Man both of the Paris attack threads got hijacked by religion.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2015, 02:30:36 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2015, 02:24:06 PM
Popery? "Poppery" sounds like a crusade for chewing gum. :P
Perhaps a portmanteau of poppycock and foppery? :hmm:
Hey, that could work. :D
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 03:02:07 PM
Man both of the Paris attack threads got hijacked by religion.
I tried for an English Civil War hijack, but it didn't have legs. :(
Quote from: KRonn on November 18, 2015, 02:58:06 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2015, 02:18:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2015, 02:06:20 PM
Are you trying to hit all the dumbest argument ever in one day?
No, I was sarcastic.
Even if we abolished all religions, we would still slaughter ourselves for various reasons.
Agreed, and humans have been doing so. I don't think more people have died from religions. Seems more have died from other reasons. WW1, WW2, , various Euro wars, US Civil War, just to name a few. Communists killed a hundred million at least, and many other wars and conflicts that have nothing to do with religion.
This is such a bizarre attitude.
So...since humans kill each other for reasons other than religion, and maybe even kill each other for all other reasons combined more than they do for religion...therefore being concerned about the death toll from religious violence is unwarranted?
Huh?
So the only violence we can ever be concerned about is violence that results in more violence than all OTHER forms of violence combined?
WTF are you people babbling about? It makes no sense at all.
"Religious violence is bad, and something to be very concerned about"
That statement is not reliant on a presumption that religion is the sole, primary, or even most prevalent form of violence there is - and indeed, we DO worry about and act to prevent other kinds of violence all the time. We spend trillions trying to prevent wars, billions trying to prevent rape and murder, billions trying to decrease gun fatalities.
Why is religion special, such that anyone bringing up religious violence is immediately dismissed as if we cannot worry ourselves about it as long as there is any such thing as non-religious violence?
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 03:02:07 PM
Man both of the Paris attack threads got hijacked by religion.
Time to retaliate by hijacking the early Christian sects thread!
Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2015, 03:06:50 PM
Quote from: KRonn on November 18, 2015, 02:58:06 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2015, 02:18:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2015, 02:06:20 PM
Are you trying to hit all the dumbest argument ever in one day?
No, I was sarcastic.
Even if we abolished all religions, we would still slaughter ourselves for various reasons.
Agreed, and humans have been doing so. I don't think more people have died from religions. Seems more have died from other reasons. WW1, WW2, , various Euro wars, US Civil War, just to name a few. Communists killed a hundred million at least, and many other wars and conflicts that have nothing to do with religion.
This is such a bizarre attitude.
So...since humans kill each other for reasons other than religion, and maybe even kill each other for all other reasons combined more than they do for religion...therefore being concerned about the death toll from religious violence is unwarranted?
Huh?
So the only violence we can ever be concerned about is violence that results in more violence than all OTHER forms of violence combined?
WTF are you people babbling about? It makes no sense at all.
"Religious violence is bad, and something to be very concerned about"
That statement is not reliant on a presumption that religion is the sole, primary, or even most prevalent form of violence there is - and indeed, we DO worry about and act to prevent other kinds of violence all the time. We spend trillions trying to prevent wars, billions trying to prevent rape and murder, billions trying to decrease gun fatalities.
Why is religion special, such that anyone bringing up religious violence is immediately dismissed as if we cannot worry ourselves about it as long as there is any such thing as non-religious violence?
People kill each other for all sorts of reasons but you only seem to be concerned with those that died people inspired by religion. Kronn brings up communism, a materialist philosophy (like yours!), but you aren't interested in find out combating materialism despite the death toll being higher then religion. You bring up rape. Rape is a sexual act, but I don't see anyone trying to ban
sex in an effort to stop rape.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 18, 2015, 12:51:56 PM
I'm not sure the Byzantines or Sassanids or Arab Jews would agree.
The Jews would agree the Byzantines sucked and have no business pointing fingers at anyone else.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2015, 03:31:41 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 18, 2015, 12:51:56 PM
I'm not sure the Byzantines or Sassanids or Arab Jews would agree.
The Jews would agree the Byzantines sucked and have no business pointing fingers at anyone else.
The Byzantines would never have done any such thing anyway. They always believed their own sins were responsible.
Granted probably for being too tolerant of the Jews.
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2015, 02:22:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 01:48:38 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2015, 01:43:22 PM
the Bible calls for violence, Christians do a shitload of violence.
Israel's more militant factions relies on their sacred texts to justify Israel's expulsion of the Palestinians.
The New Testament most definitely does not call for violence. Exactly the opposite.
Matthew 10:34: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35"For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;..."
Plus the passages about peoples and entire nations being utterly destroyed for refusing to accept the gospel.
Deus vult.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2015, 03:38:17 PM
Plus the passages about peoples and entire nations being utterly destroyed for refusing to accept the gospel.
Deus vult.
Well that's different.
Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2015, 01:57:39 PM
Some religions, as they are understood and practiced today, are more accepting of violence than others.
Correct.
The key being how the religions are understood and practiced.
All the more reason we should take seriously the vast majority of practicing Muslims who insist that the violent interpretations of jihadist passages is wrong and even heretical.
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.
Well now you have to admit it is a pretty sizable minority. Entire groups of nations are being destabilized by them. Political parties supporting these interpretations have won democratic elections. They are not exactly a fringe, even if the are a minority.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2015, 03:42:40 PM
Correct.
The key being how the religions are understood and practiced.
All the more reason we should take seriously the vast majority of practicing Muslims who insist that the violent interpretations of jihadist passages is wrong and even heretical.
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 haven't heard millions of practicing Muslims say anything at all.
The Koran is not a series of parables or allegories; it's a list of commandments, of laws. As such interpretation in the way we understand it doesn't have much place. Allah told Mohammed not to drink booze. You either obey Allah's will or you don't.
The problem is that even those Muslims who do not support terrorism are pretty creepy and medieval.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 03:52:06 PM
The problem is that even those Muslims who do not support terrorism are pretty creepy and medieval.
Well to be fair that also applies to their non-Muslim neighbors around where said Muslims live.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 03:53:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 03:52:06 PM
The problem is that even those Muslims who do not support terrorism are pretty creepy and medieval.
Well to be fair that also applies to their non-Muslim neighbors around where said Muslims live.
True. Middle Eastern people are fucked up.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 03:51:21 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2015, 03:42:40 PM
Correct.
The key being how the religions are understood and practiced.
All the more reason we should take seriously the vast majority of practicing Muslims who insist that the violent interpretations of jihadist passages is wrong and even heretical.
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 haven't heard millions of practicing Muslims say anything at all.
The Koran is not a series of parables or allegories; it's a list of commandments, of laws. As such interpretation in the way we understand it doesn't have much place. Allah told Mohammed not to drink booze. You either obey Allah's will or you don't.
There is a long Islamic tradition of interpretation of the Koran ("Tafsir") based in part on an extra-Koranic corpus of sayings ("Hadiths") that vary and interpret how the Koran is to be understood.
It isn't a lot different from Judaism in that respect.
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2015, 03:58:05 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 03:51:21 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2015, 03:42:40 PM
Correct.
The key being how the religions are understood and practiced.
All the more reason we should take seriously the vast majority of practicing Muslims who insist that the violent interpretations of jihadist passages is wrong and even heretical.
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 haven't heard millions of practicing Muslims say anything at all.
The Koran is not a series of parables or allegories; it's a list of commandments, of laws. As such interpretation in the way we understand it doesn't have much place. Allah told Mohammed not to drink booze. You either obey Allah's will or you don't.
There is a long Islamic tradition of interpretation of the Koran ("Tafsir") based in part on an extra-Koranic corpus of sayings ("Hadiths") that vary and interpret how the Koran is to be understood.
It isn't a lot different from Judaism in that respect.
That how do you explain the fact that Jews have much much better comedians?
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 03:52:06 PM
The problem is that even those Muslims who do not support terrorism are pretty creepy and medieval.
Heh my experience of east European Catholics (having married into a family of 'em) was a bit of a trip in that respect, as well. :D
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 03:59:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2015, 03:58:05 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 03:51:21 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2015, 03:42:40 PM
Correct.
The key being how the religions are understood and practiced.
All the more reason we should take seriously the vast majority of practicing Muslims who insist that the violent interpretations of jihadist passages is wrong and even heretical.
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 haven't heard millions of practicing Muslims say anything at all.
The Koran is not a series of parables or allegories; it's a list of commandments, of laws. As such interpretation in the way we understand it doesn't have much place. Allah told Mohammed not to drink booze. You either obey Allah's will or you don't.
There is a long Islamic tradition of interpretation of the Koran ("Tafsir") based in part on an extra-Koranic corpus of sayings ("Hadiths") that vary and interpret how the Koran is to be understood.
It isn't a lot different from Judaism in that respect.
That how do you explain the fact that Jews have much much better comedians?
Well, our starting religion is that much more wacky. I mean, God commanded no eating shellfish? WTF? :P
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2015, 04:00:17 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 03:52:06 PM
The problem is that even those Muslims who do not support terrorism are pretty creepy and medieval.
Heh my experience of east European Catholics (having married into a family of 'em) was a bit of a trip in that respect, as well. :D
Yeah that's a problem. Catholic fundamentalists here are screaming their heads off about Muslim refugees but they are more similar to them than to French liberals.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 03:51:21 PM
I haven't heard millions of practicing Muslims say anything at all.
What attempts have you made to learn about what actual Muslims believe and practice?
QuoteThe Koran is not a series of parables or allegories; it's a list of commandments, of laws.
Based on this I think the rhetorical question above can be answered. The Qur'an is not a list of laws at all.
If I'm a little defensive here, it's because I happen to belong to a religion (Judaism) which probably takes the prize for the most violent-themed holy books. There are large swaths of the OT that are openly genocidal, including part of Judges and Samuel and pretty much the whole book of Joshua. There is one incident where Saul is commanded to kill every man, woman, and child of an enemy nation specifically including the babies. He is chastised later for sparing the sheep. (BTW these are holy scriptures for Christians as well . . .)
Given that background, one might say the Judaism is an inherently violent religion that must be suppressed. The reality is that for the most part, the religion evolved in a way as to minimize and contextualized these troubling passages and for many centuries the religion has promoted instead interpretations emphasizing peace and love. Of course every now and then there some crazed settler or a Baruch Goldstein commits some horrific atrocity and sure enough they can find scripture to cite for their lunacy. One could say that these episodes are far less common among Jews than among Muslims. Then again there are a hell of a lot more Muslims than Jews.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2015, 04:10:31 PM
If I'm a little defensive here, it's because I happen to belong to a religion (Judaism) which probably takes the prize for the most violent-themed holy books.
Interesting, I always thought you were an atheist.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2015, 04:07:19 PM
What attempts have you made to learn about what actual Muslims believe and practice?
I stopped well short of interviewing millions of practicing Muslims.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 04:07:18 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2015, 04:00:17 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 03:52:06 PM
The problem is that even those Muslims who do not support terrorism are pretty creepy and medieval.
Heh my experience of east European Catholics (having married into a family of 'em) was a bit of a trip in that respect, as well. :D
Yeah that's a problem. Catholic fundamentalists here are screaming their heads off about Muslim refugees but they are more similar to them than to French liberals.
I must have written before about my very first meeting with my wife's parents. It was - a freakshow. :lol: They are very nice people, though. ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2015, 04:10:31 PM
There is one incident where Saul is commanded to kill every man, woman, and child of an enemy nation specifically including the babies. He is chastised later for sparing the sheep. (BTW these are holy scriptures for Christians as well . . .)
Hey! He also let the King live. No wonder God abandoned him.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2015, 03:42:40 PM
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.
Everyone agrees that the Abrahamic religions are insane.
Quote from: The Brain on November 18, 2015, 04:28:36 PM
Everyone agrees that the Abrahamic religions are insane.
If you guys had just stuck with Odin everything would have been so much better.
Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2015, 04:28:16 PM
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.
As opposed to other, emotionally torn, extremists?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2015, 04:12:43 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2015, 04:10:31 PM
If I'm a little defensive here, it's because I happen to belong to a religion (Judaism) which probably takes the prize for the most violent-themed holy books.
Interesting, I always thought you were an atheist.
I was born into the religion. As to belief in God, I'm an ambiguist.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 04:14:00 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2015, 04:07:19 PM
What attempts have you made to learn about what actual Muslims believe and practice?
I stopped well short of interviewing millions of practicing Muslims.
Yes you stopped well short of having an informed opinion, but that didn't stop you from expressing one. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 04:40:03 PM
Yes you stopped well short of having an informed opinion, but that didn't stop you from expressing one. ;)
Well this is Languish. If we required that well...you know.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 04:41:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 04:40:03 PM
Yes you stopped well short of having an informed opinion, but that didn't stop you from expressing one. ;)
Well this is Languish. If we required that well...you know.
But we have at least reached the point where Hans is ostracized for saying that there are no legitimate climate scientists and Yi is called out for dumb comments about a religion he understands only through the lens of Fox News.
I would never ostracize my buddy Hans just for screaming probably untrue things about climate change :cool:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2015, 04:39:00 PM
I was born into the religion.
I was born into Protestant Christianity, but I would not say I belong to it. Though I suppose I am baptized and even became a member of a church back in sixth grade or so. :unsure:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2015, 04:53:15 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2015, 04:39:00 PM
I was born into the religion.
I was born into Protestant Christianity, but I would not say I belong to it. Though I suppose I am baptized and even became a member of a church back in sixth grade or so. :unsure:
Being a Jew is a little different.
Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2015, 04:28:16 PM
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.
The problem, as Minsky mentioned elsewhere in reference to Jewish violence, is one of numbers. When there are over 1.5 billion adherents to a religion, "lots" in the absolute sense can still be "some tiny minority" in the relative sense. Unfortunately, as various groups have demonstrated over the past several decades, it doesn't take many people in absolute terms to cause a shitload of death, destruction, and chaos.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 04:55:38 PM
Being a Jew is a little different.
But should it be?
At any rate, many ethnic Jews consider themselves non-religious.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2015, 04:59:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 04:55:38 PM
Being a Jew is a little different.
But should it be?
At any rate, many ethnic Jews consider themselves non-religious.
It doesn't stop people from ascribing various proclivities to Jews, be they religious or non-religious.
Well, sure, Malthus eats babies, but that's just because he likes the taste. ;)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2015, 05:04:38 PM
Well, sure, Malthus eats babies, but that's just because he likes the taste. ;)
The pain and sorrow of their parents is also an inducement. :)
Though that may be more a "lawyer" thing, than a "Jew" thing. :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2015, 05:06:21 PM
I'm not sure why that matters.
Because we're being a little too quick to discard our own cultural heritage.
Coming up: a baby who eats Jews...?!
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 03:52:06 PM
The problem is that even those Muslims who do not support terrorism are pretty creepy and medieval.
I dunno. The muslims that I actually know are all pretty cool. :)
Granted of course they're muslim-Canadians, but it still would seem to counter your point.
Quote from: The Brain on November 18, 2015, 05:12:15 PM
Coming up: a baby who eats Jews...?!
There's a statue of this heroic feat in the Vigeland sculpture park. :)
Quote from: DGuller on November 18, 2015, 04:33:07 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2015, 04:28:16 PM
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.
As opposed to other, emotionally torn, extremists?
As opposed to say any system of ideas. Should Yi have to apologize to the world every time someone adhering to Austrian economics runs a scam, or kills people through negligence? If someone believed the same thing as Yi (or at least thought they did), and did a bad thing because of those beliefs does this reflect poorly on Yi?
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2015, 05:24:19 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 03:52:06 PM
The problem is that even those Muslims who do not support terrorism are pretty creepy and medieval.
I dunno. The muslims that I actually know are all pretty cool. :)
Granted of course they're muslim-Canadians, but it still would seem to counter your point.
Yeah, I've known a variety of muslims, and a variety of Arabs some of whom were pretty secular, and they have all been pretty cool.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2015, 05:35:32 PM
As opposed to say any system of ideas. Should Yi have to apologize to the world every time someone adhering to Austrian economics runs a scam, or kills people through negligence? If someone believed the same thing as Yi (or at least thought they did), and did a bad thing because of those beliefs does this reflect poorly on Yi?
I would say yes. If I espouse a belief system that breeds a certain level of violence, then I think that belief system is problematic.
I think that is the dilemna confronting good Muslims, who are trying to raise their children to be good Muslims as well.
The starting line up of my son's basketball team includes - a Sikh, a Hindu and a Muslim. According to Viper the world should shake with fear! But not so much other teams because most will have a higher percentage of Sikhs on their teams.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 05:42:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2015, 05:35:32 PM
As opposed to say any system of ideas. Should Yi have to apologize to the world every time someone adhering to Austrian economics runs a scam, or kills people through negligence? If someone believed the same thing as Yi (or at least thought they did), and did a bad thing because of those beliefs does this reflect poorly on Yi?
I would say yes. If I espouse a belief system that breeds a certain level of violence, then I think that belief system is problematic.
I think that is the dilemna confronting good Muslims, who are trying to raise their children to be good Muslims as well.
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!)
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 05:46:04 PM
The starting line up of my son's basketball team includes - a Sikh, a Hindu and a Muslim. According to Viper the world should shake with fear!
Cause India is such a basketball powerhouse?
Quote from: dps on November 18, 2015, 05:47:49 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 05:42:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2015, 05:35:32 PM
As opposed to say any system of ideas. Should Yi have to apologize to the world every time someone adhering to Austrian economics runs a scam, or kills people through negligence? If someone believed the same thing as Yi (or at least thought they did), and did a bad thing because of those beliefs does this reflect poorly on Yi?
I would say yes. If I espouse a belief system that breeds a certain level of violence, then I think that belief system is problematic.
I think that is the dilemna confronting good Muslims, who are trying to raise their children to be good Muslims as well.
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!)
The only solution for Yi is to have no beliefs at all. Which given many of his amoral views is probably pretty close to his reality.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2015, 05:51:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 05:46:04 PM
The starting line up of my son's basketball team includes - a Sikh, a Hindu and a Muslim. According to Viper the world should shake with fear!
Cause India is such a basketball powerhouse?
Go up against a large Sikh player and he will wide the smirk off your face pretty fast. ;)
I don't know how valid it is to compare Canadian Muslim anecdotes to European ones. In both America and Canada the Muslim populations are pretty well integrated, although I do have to say Canada has a lot of stupid law relating to religion (faith-based tribunals, their imbecilic Human Rights Commissions calling in people for blasting radical Imams etc.) But in Europe they don't tend to have well integrated Muslims, and a lot of that is also probably because America and Canada get a "better class of Muslim." A lot of American Muslims didn't come here as refugees, for example, but as skilled workers or the family's of such. Then a lot of American Muslims also came from earlier refugee crises and are now in 2nd or 3rd generation status, and those individuals always tend to be better assimilated.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 05:52:06 PM
Quote from: dps on November 18, 2015, 05:47:49 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 05:42:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2015, 05:35:32 PM
As opposed to say any system of ideas. Should Yi have to apologize to the world every time someone adhering to Austrian economics runs a scam, or kills people through negligence? If someone believed the same thing as Yi (or at least thought they did), and did a bad thing because of those beliefs does this reflect poorly on Yi?
I would say yes. If I espouse a belief system that breeds a certain level of violence, then I think that belief system is problematic.
I think that is the dilemna confronting good Muslims, who are trying to raise their children to be good Muslims as well.
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!)
The only solution for Yi is to have no beliefs at all. Which given many of his amoral views is probably pretty close to his reality.
Are you sure you're not confusing him with Mono?
Quote from: Jacob on November 18, 2015, 05:40:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2015, 05:24:19 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 03:52:06 PM
The problem is that even those Muslims who do not support terrorism are pretty creepy and medieval.
I dunno. The muslims that I actually know are all pretty cool. :)
Granted of course they're muslim-Canadians, but it still would seem to counter your point.
Yeah, I've known a variety of muslims, and a variety of Arabs some of whom were pretty secular, and they have all been pretty cool.
Whenever I think about Marti's stance on muslims, I recall this fondly like it was yesterday.*
Quote from: Martinus on August 19, 2015, 07:20:50 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2015, 07:14:44 AM
Quote from: derspiess on August 19, 2015, 07:09:45 AM
Grabon doesn't care about white people who are victims of police violence.
So clearly that is a false statement.
Not sure about that but you are clearly selective in your outrage. For example, your profile picture features an ISIS murderess. Even if ironic, this seems bad taste - more than if, say, Derspiess had Zimmermann's pic in his profile, for example.
*and yes, I just pulled a Raz. So sue me. :cool:
Quote from: dps on November 18, 2015, 05:47:49 PM
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 18, 2015, 06:04:41 PM
I don't know how valid it is to compare Canadian Muslim anecdotes to European ones. In both America and Canada the Muslim populations are pretty well integrated, although I do have to say Canada has a lot of stupid law relating to religion (faith-based tribunals, their imbecilic Human Rights Commissions calling in people for blasting radical Imams etc.) But in Europe they don't tend to have well integrated Muslims, and a lot of that is also probably because America and Canada get a "better class of Muslim." A lot of American Muslims didn't come here as refugees, for example, but as skilled workers or the family's of such. Then a lot of American Muslims also came from earlier refugee crises and are now in 2nd or 3rd generation status, and those individuals always tend to be better assimilated.
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'. :hmm: Care to explain?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 06:10:48 PM
Quote from: dps on November 18, 2015, 05:47:49 PM
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.
Hmm. I see your point. Not entirely convinced, though, since arguably people's advocacy of any given cause
does usually stem from their belief systems (which may or may not be religious in nature).
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 18, 2015, 06:04:41 PM
I don't know how valid it is to compare Canadian Muslim anecdotes to European ones. In both America and Canada the Muslim populations are pretty well integrated, although I do have to say Canada has a lot of stupid law relating to religion (faith-based tribunals, their imbecilic Human Rights Commissions calling in people for blasting radical Imams etc.) But in Europe they don't tend to have well integrated Muslims, and a lot of that is also probably because America and Canada get a "better class of Muslim." A lot of American Muslims didn't come here as refugees, for example, but as skilled workers or the family's of such. Then a lot of American Muslims also came from earlier refugee crises and are now in 2nd or 3rd generation status, and those individuals always tend to be better assimilated.
I am beginning to think you and Viper get your Canadian news from the same source. :P
Anecdotal I know, but every Muslim family I know came here as refugees. The parents - the actual refugees are not what you portray and certainly their kids - first generation - are Canadians through and through.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 05:42:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2015, 05:35:32 PM
As opposed to say any system of ideas. Should Yi have to apologize to the world every time someone adhering to Austrian economics runs a scam, or kills people through negligence? If someone believed the same thing as Yi (or at least thought they did), and did a bad thing because of those beliefs does this reflect poorly on Yi?
I would say yes. If I espouse a belief system that breeds a certain level of violence, then I think that belief system is problematic.
I think that is the dilemna confronting good Muslims, who are trying to raise their children to be good Muslims as well.
Instead of violence what about negligence or risk taking? Say someone who adheres to economic theories you do avoided doing government mandated safety inspections and poisoned a customer or killed an employee?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2015, 06:53:01 PM
Instead of violence what about negligence or risk taking? Say someone who adheres to economic theories you do avoided doing government mandated safety inspections and poisoned a customer or killed an employee?
Then I would think you're trying to steer the discussion in a silly and uninteresting direction.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 06:34:01 PMI am beginning to think you and Viper get your Canadian news from the same source. :P
Anecdotal I know, but every Muslim family I know came here as refugees. The parents - the actual refugees are not what you portray and certainly their kids - first generation - are Canadians through and through.
If you parse the actual quote, look at where I never say anything about the refugee status of Canadian Muslims, because I don't know. I said "A lot of American Muslims don't come here as refugees." Most of the ones I've had direct contact with at work are IT guys/gals who are from Pakistan and India.
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2015, 06:11:54 PMMost 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'. :hmm: 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.
Quote from: Barrister on November 18, 2015, 05:24:19 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2015, 03:52:06 PM
The problem is that even those Muslims who do not support terrorism are pretty creepy and medieval.
I dunno. The muslims that I actually know are all pretty cool. :)
Granted of course they're muslim-Canadians, but it still would seem to counter your point.
most of them are ok. With regards to other Québécois, there's no significant differences outside of their religious zeal. But we do have a problem on how we integrate the first generation, those that studied abroad. But it ain't exclusive to arabs/muslims, all foreigners are treated like shit for that. Many diplomas are not recognized, so you have many doctors and engineers driving a taxi.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 18, 2015, 07:19:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 06:34:01 PMI am beginning to think you and Viper get your Canadian news from the same source. :P
Anecdotal I know, but every Muslim family I know came here as refugees. The parents - the actual refugees are not what you portray and certainly their kids - first generation - are Canadians through and through.
If you parse the actual quote, look at where I never say anything about the refugee status of Canadian Muslims, because I don't know. I said "A lot of American Muslims don't come here as refugees." Most of the ones I've had direct contact with at work are IT guys/gals who are from Pakistan and India.
It was this bit that my comment was directed to:
Quotealthough I do have to say Canada has a lot of stupid law relating to religion (faith-based tribunals, their imbecilic Human Rights Commissions calling in people for blasting radical Imams etc.)
I have no idea what you are talking about but the source seems consistent with Viper's view of the world.
As I said above, the faith based arbitration allowed under the 1991 Arbitration Act.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 07:17:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2015, 06:53:01 PM
Instead of violence what about negligence or risk taking? Say someone who adheres to economic theories you do avoided doing government mandated safety inspections and poisoned a customer or killed an employee?
Then I would think you're trying to steer the discussion in a silly and uninteresting direction.
Oh it's quite interesting. Can you find fault in a philosophy that if acted on has predictable negative outcome? What if someone warp those ideas beyond what you believe. Is that philosophy still deficient? Is it fair to oppose say Communism because economic disaster is a predictable outcome from attempting to implement it?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2015, 07:52:02 PM
Oh it's quite interesting.
Find someone who agrees with you and you have all the makings of the discussion.
Quote from: grumbler on November 18, 2015, 02:22:33 PM
Matthew 10:34: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35"For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;..."
And people say there's no proof that God exists.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 06:10:48 PM
Quote from: dps on November 18, 2015, 05:47:49 PM
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.
In response IS have executed two hostages, Norwegian and Chinese, photos apparently in their glossy 'in-house' magazine. <_<
Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2015, 09:39:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 06:10:48 PM
Quote from: dps on November 18, 2015, 05:47:49 PM
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.
well. there was a war with some 3/4 of a million victims. Or maybe it was a war about States rights? ;)
And there were slave rebellion elsewhere.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 05:46:04 PM
The starting line up of my son's basketball team includes - a Sikh, a Hindu and a Muslim. According to Viper the world should shake with fear! But not so much other teams because most will have a higher percentage of Sikhs on their teams.
Do any of them pray for things?
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2015, 09:47:05 PM
well. there was a war with some 3/4 of a million victims. Or maybe it was a war about States rights? ;)
And there were slave rebellion elsewhere.
Sure. A State's right to secede to protect the institution of slavery.
Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2015, 09:39:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 06:10:48 PM
Quote from: dps on November 18, 2015, 05:47:49 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 05:46:04 PM
The starting line up of my son's basketball team includes - a Sikh, a Hindu and a Muslim.
this sounds like a set up for a joke :D
Quote from: HVC on November 18, 2015, 10:14:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2015, 05:46:04 PM
The starting line up of my son's basketball team includes - a Sikh, a Hindu and a Muslim.
this sounds like a set up for a joke :D
A Sikh, a Hindu and a Muslim walk into Toronto customs and immigration.
Canadian border agent:
"Welcome, might I suggest you gentlemen enter Canada, find worthwhile jobs and encourage your children to form a noble basketball team, who'll be defeated by the sons of giants, but will conduct themselves in such a manner that will make all Canadians proud."
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2015, 10:04:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2015, 09:39:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 06:10:48 PM
Quote from: dps on November 18, 2015, 05:47:49 PM
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.
Caused :rolleyes:
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2015, 09:47:05 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2015, 09:39:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 06:10:48 PM
Quote from: dps on November 18, 2015, 05:47:49 PM
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.
well. there was a war with some 3/4 of a million victims. Or maybe it was a war about States rights? ;)
And there were slave rebellion elsewhere.
Are you fucking kidding me?
That is Raz level of intentionally missing the point.
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).
Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2015, 10:42:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 08:00:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2015, 07:52:02 PM
Oh it's quite interesting.
Find someone who agrees with you and you have all the makings of the discussion.
So it's only interesting when you get to gore someone else's ox? Gottcha.
The fact is, while a lot of Muslim violence is culturally motivated, it just so happens that the most illiberal and savage societies right now are those run by Muslims and Muslim regimes. You can say a lot about conservative Catholics, Hindus etc. in less developed parts of the world being creepy or backward, but none of them are beheading gays, stoning adulterers, punishing rape victims and the like (I don't mention female genital mutilation, as I am not sure if this is not practiced by non-Muslims). You can play "hide the ball" and try to obfuscate the issue by pointing out that there are moderate muslims and non-moderate Christians all you want, but that's a fact.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2015, 10:04:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2015, 09:39:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 06:10:48 PM
Quote from: dps on November 18, 2015, 05:47:49 PM
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? :mad:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 19, 2015, 01:03:31 AM
So it's only interesting when you get to gore someone else's ox? Gottcha.
So..hard..to..resist...bait. Must...remain...strong.
I LOVE this #JeSuisChien hashtag. If you thought people were going nuts about prayers for Paris, you should see how they flip out because people are mourning a dog over Palestinians, Syrians, etc...
Quote from: Jaron on November 19, 2015, 02:30:00 AM
I LOVE this #JeSuisChien hashtag. If you thought people were going nuts about prayers for Paris, you should see how they flip out because people are mourning a dog over Palestinians, Syrians, etc...
At first when I saw the hashtag, I thought it was a BDSM thing. :blush:
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 19, 2015, 01:26:46 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2015, 10:04:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2015, 09:39:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 06:10:48 PM
Quote from: dps on November 18, 2015, 05:47:49 PM
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? :mad:
Not sure if I'd count a fourth of Serbia dying as a win as a result of his actions a win?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2015, 11:46:57 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2015, 12:41:30 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 18, 2015, 12:32:50 AM
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).
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! :D)
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
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 19, 2015, 01:26:46 AM
No respect for Gavrilo Princip? :mad:
Right?
Really Tim?
Where is that 750,000 figure coming from? I've always seen Civil War deaths listed at 600,000.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 19, 2015, 08:36:03 AM
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 18, 2015, 07:23:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2015, 06:11:54 PMMost 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'. :hmm: 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. :hmm:
http://peacemaker.net/icc/
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2015, 08:53:04 AM
Such a thing as faith-based arbitration, of course, could never happen in the US. :hmm:
http://peacemaker.net/icc/
This is not an officially sanctioned government arm. This is basically the same as going to counseling.
Islamist terror attack in Bosnia including a suicide blast:
Quote'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 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34866890)
Damn, even Sarajevo is not safe from religious violence. :(
Quote from: DGuller on November 19, 2015, 09:02:03 AM
Damn, even Sarajevo is not safe from religious violence. :(
Not surprising. Most victims of Islamic terrorism are Muslims.
Quote from: Valmy on November 19, 2015, 08:57:59 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2015, 08:53:04 AM
Such a thing as faith-based arbitration, of course, could never happen in the US. :hmm:
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/
QuoteEncore 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.
Quote from: DGuller on November 19, 2015, 09:02:03 AM
Damn, even Sarajevo is not safe from religious violence. :(
Quote
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 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/19/us-bangladesh-foreigner-killing-claim-idUSKCN0T81U220151119?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter#yrr43bPx4yVqtXkr.97)
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2015, 09:06:06 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on November 19, 2015, 09:12:55 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2015, 09:06:06 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2015, 09:30:01 AM
It can be, and if he suggests the law specifically lists faiths, he's wrong.
Well what was the contents of this 1991 law then? Simply a helpful reminder these kinds of private agreements can be reached?
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 09:49:17 PM
You can say a lot about conservative Catholics, Hindus etc. in less developed parts of the world being creepy or backward, but none of them are beheading gays, stoning adulterers, punishing rape victims and the like (I don't mention female genital mutilation, as I am not sure if this is not practiced by non-Muslims).
Gay rights in Africa:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Africa#Legislation_by_country_or_territory
Most African countries have adultery laws, don't know about stoning. Rape victims are punished in many countries, muslim or not, or more simply, the crimes aren't taken seriously and the agressors rarely convicted; just look at India.
Quote from: Valmy on November 19, 2015, 09:31:57 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2015, 09:30:01 AM
It can be, and if he suggests the law specifically lists faiths, he's wrong.
Well what was the contents of this 1991 law then? Simply a helpful reminder these kinds of private agreements can be reached?
I added the link to it in my post above, so you can, if you like, read it for yourself ;) ... basically, it is nothing but bog-standard arbitration infrastructure. Stuff like: "9. If the arbitration agreement does not specify the number of arbitrators who are to form the arbitral tribunal, it shall be composed of one arbitrator.". Exciting! :w00t:
As pointed out above, the only thing remotely interesting about it is that it restricts "family arbitration" in various ways.
Point is, if Otto is trying to make an argument that this law is an example of Canadian stupidity, he's far out to lunch.
I had to look into this more, so it appears that since many years ago when I last debated this argument, Ontario actually banned faith based arbitration under its 1991 Arbitration Act. Meaning that Malthus' arguments saying it's all just fine and good is in contravention to what the political leadership of Ontario actually thought--it was done away with because Muslims were wanting to set up religious arbitration on Sharia law, so Ontario just decided to end all faith-based arbitration.
So yes, I was referring to an Ontario law as a "Canadian law" because I had forgot it was limited to one province. However, given how often "America" collectively gets blamed for things that are State laws I don't feel too bad about this mistake. Secondly, I wasn't aware that in the intervening years this practice had been stopped--but I cannot be expected to be up to date on countries as minimally important as Canada. It's frankly top 1% of Americans territory in terms of knowledge of Canada that I even knew this law had ever existed.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 19, 2015, 10:55:40 AM
I had to look into this more, so it appears that since many years ago when I last debated this argument, Ontario actually banned faith based arbitration under its 1991 Arbitration Act. Meaning that Malthus' arguments saying it's all just fine and good is in contravention to what the political leadership of Ontario actually thought--it was done away with because Muslims were wanting to set up religious arbitration on Sharia law, so Ontario just decided to end all faith-based arbitration.
No it didn't.
What it did was add significant restrictions to "family arbitration", in Ontario. You can still have "faith based arbitration" as much as you like on any other issue.
I mean, I quoted the specific law and everything.
QuoteSo yes, I was referring to an Ontario law as a "Canadian law" because I had forgot it was limited to one province. However, given how often "America" collectively gets blamed for things that are State laws I don't feel too bad about this mistake. Secondly, I wasn't aware that in the intervening years this practice had been stopped--but I cannot be expected to be up to date on countries as minimally important as Canada. It's frankly top 1% of Americans territory in terms of knowledge of Canada that I even knew this law had ever existed.
The practice hasn't stopped. All that has stopped is "family" arbitrations based on alternative laws. All other arbitrations - still going. Just as, it may be pointed out, in the US.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 19, 2015, 08:36:03 AM
Where is that 750,000 figure coming from? I've always seen Civil War deaths listed at 600,000.
It was updated a couple of years ago. I posted a thread about it, but it didn't get much notice.
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2015, 04:14:48 AM
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).
The Islamic regions of the world historically did not stand out for extreme levels of violence. Timur was an exception but he was a Mongol first, Muslim second. You could argue that the West "grew out of it" but its an argument that has to start pretty recently (certainly post 1945).
The Mahdi uprising was an anti-colonial uprising, one of many in all different parts of the world.
Terrorism in the Middle East has been a familiar phenomenon in recent decades but it for many years it was nationalist or pseudo-Marxist. The religious Islamic variety is a very recent development.
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2015, 11:13:09 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 19, 2015, 10:55:40 AM
I had to look into this more, so it appears that since many years ago when I last debated this argument, Ontario actually banned faith based arbitration under its 1991 Arbitration Act. Meaning that Malthus' arguments saying it's all just fine and good is in contravention to what the political leadership of Ontario actually thought--it was done away with because Muslims were wanting to set up religious arbitration on Sharia law, so Ontario just decided to end all faith-based arbitration.
No it didn't.
What it did was add significant restrictions to "family arbitration", in Ontario. You can still have "faith based arbitration" as much as you like on any other issue.
I mean, I quoted the specific law and everything.
QuoteSo yes, I was referring to an Ontario law as a "Canadian law" because I had forgot it was limited to one province. However, given how often "America" collectively gets blamed for things that are State laws I don't feel too bad about this mistake. Secondly, I wasn't aware that in the intervening years this practice had been stopped--but I cannot be expected to be up to date on countries as minimally important as Canada. It's frankly top 1% of Americans territory in terms of knowledge of Canada that I even knew this law had ever existed.
The practice hasn't stopped. All that has stopped is "family" arbitrations based on alternative laws. All other arbitrations - still going. Just as, it may be pointed out, in the US.
Nope.
Quote from: Valmy on November 19, 2015, 08:57:59 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2015, 08:53:04 AM
Such a thing as faith-based arbitration, of course, could never happen in the US. :hmm:
http://peacemaker.net/icc/
This is not an officially sanctioned government arm. This is basically the same as going to counseling.
No it is not the same - it is a full-fledged arbitral tribunal.
For example, a Christian school could include a requirement in its employment contracts that all employment disputes be adjudicated by the Peacemaker Ministries, with the principles of scripture to be applied.
In fact, some schools have done this and US courts have enforced the clause.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 19, 2015, 11:25:29 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2015, 11:13:09 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 19, 2015, 10:55:40 AM
I had to look into this more, so it appears that since many years ago when I last debated this argument, Ontario actually banned faith based arbitration under its 1991 Arbitration Act. Meaning that Malthus' arguments saying it's all just fine and good is in contravention to what the political leadership of Ontario actually thought--it was done away with because Muslims were wanting to set up religious arbitration on Sharia law, so Ontario just decided to end all faith-based arbitration.
No it didn't.
What it did was add significant restrictions to "family arbitration", in Ontario. You can still have "faith based arbitration" as much as you like on any other issue.
I mean, I quoted the specific law and everything.
QuoteSo yes, I was referring to an Ontario law as a "Canadian law" because I had forgot it was limited to one province. However, given how often "America" collectively gets blamed for things that are State laws I don't feel too bad about this mistake. Secondly, I wasn't aware that in the intervening years this practice had been stopped--but I cannot be expected to be up to date on countries as minimally important as Canada. It's frankly top 1% of Americans territory in terms of knowledge of Canada that I even knew this law had ever existed.
The practice hasn't stopped. All that has stopped is "family" arbitrations based on alternative laws. All other arbitrations - still going. Just as, it may be pointed out, in the US.
Nope.
Are you contending the US doesn't have faith-based arbitration? :hmm:
Again, I posted a link to a place offering it. So you may have to re-think that position.
U.S. Investigators Struggle to Track Homegrown ISIS Suspects (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/us/us-investigators-struggle-to-track-homegrown-isis-suspects.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=1)
QuoteFor F.B.I. agents, watching an Islamic State suspect in the United States is a study in anxiety. Being an Islamic State sympathizer is not against the law. Neither is expressing hatred for the United States on Twitter. Buying guns is also legal, and investigators have watched nervously as terrorism suspects passed background checks and purchased guns more than 2,000 times in the past decade, according to government data.
[...]
"They're targeting the school-shooter types, the mentally ill, people with dysfunctional families and those struggling to cope with different issues," said one senior law enforcement official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not allowed to speak to reporters. "We have been pretty successful in disrupting these cases because they are not very sophisticated or smart."
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2015, 04:14:48 AM
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.
Christianity and Judaism did not "grow out of it", they were dragged out of it kicking and screaming by the societies around them. The Jews were held in check by strings of external powers and the resulting Jewish Diaspora. The Christian world required a string of violent uprisings by "heretics" to break the Church's power over the lives of the people, and it really hasn't been all that long since that period ended.
The real problem is with the Irish. The Irish are inherently prone to violence. Their national epics celebrate brutal cattle raids and their entire national history is filled with endemic violence. Part of the problem is their adherence to the Catholic faith, which throughout most of European history has glorified the violence, torture and murder of heretics and unbelievers. Of course other European peoples are violent, but other than the similarly-inclined Basques, no other people has been so associated with the most horrific forms of terrorism. The Irish honed he techniques of modern political terrorism during their struggle for independence and home rule, and continued it for decades in the north. The clear linkage between the Irish and terrorism is a historically undeniable fact, and the principles of res ipsa locutur lead inevitably to the conclusion that the linkage is inherent in their culture and identification as Irish Catholics.
Some people may point to the peace accords and suggest that perhaps the Irish have changed and now can be trusted after all. Of course this is naïve - absent the renunciation of one's Irish heritage and culture and rejection of Catholicism, the tendency to violence will always exist, and it is just a matter of time before the Troubles resume. There is an old Irish tradition of tactical truces before the next round of violence begins and no doubt that is what is happening now.
I already mentioned the Irish as a death cult. They fool no one.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2015, 11:37:59 AM
The real problem is with the Irish.
I disagree. The Serbs are the guilty ones. I am enraged by the cultural relativism.
Good point Valmy, but Jonathan Swift was Irish.
Swift book veterans for truth? :yeahright:
Wouldn't res ipsa locutur be more like leaving detonators lying around?
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2015, 11:41:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2015, 10:42:57 PM
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 18, 2015, 07:36:11 PM
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?
Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2015, 04:28:16 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2015, 03:42:40 PM
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:
QuoteIn 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 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. :hmm:
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2015, 04:18:32 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2015, 04:28:16 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 18, 2015, 03:42:40 PM
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:
QuoteIn 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".
The punishment for failure to crop a quote shall be stoning.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 19, 2015, 04:26:11 PM
The punishment for failure to crop a quote shall be stoning.
Amen!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 19, 2015, 04:26:11 PM
The punishment for failure to crop a quote shall be stoning.
Sounds legit.
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2015, 04:20:12 PM
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. :hmm:
I'm willing to keep the muslims if we can get rid of the irish and serbs. Lets compromise!
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%.
We have to get rid of people who get on subway trains before people have a chance to get off.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2015, 04:45:01 PM
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%.
How many terrorists does the Pope have?
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2015, 04:20:12 PM
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. :hmm:
History teaches there is no way all those groups get wiped out without Poles and Jews coming first. :contract:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2015, 04:45:01 PM
there are about 50 million Muslims worldwide that identify with Salafism, or about 3%.
Still more than twice the total number of Jews.
But granted a lot of Salafis don't actually do anything violent.
Quote from: The Brain on November 19, 2015, 04:46:49 PM
How many terrorists does the Pope have?
Depends. How many people worked for Banco Ambrosiano? :P
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2015, 04:47:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2015, 04:20:12 PM
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. :hmm:
History teaches there is no way all those groups get wiped out without Poles and Jews coming first. :contract:
Okay, fine, the more the merrier.
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2015, 04:22:38 PM
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".
When Martinus is on the warpath, not one particle of straw is safe.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 19, 2015, 04:26:11 PM
The punishment for failure to crop a quote shall be stoning.
Berkut quoting himself threw me off.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2015, 04:45:01 PM
He does have 13 million twitter followers, placing him behind will.i.am, Paris Hilton, Ryan Seacrest and Ashton Kutcher.
Let's not demonize the guy like that... :rolleyes:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2015, 04:53:19 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2015, 04:22:38 PM
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".
When Martinus is on the warpath, not one particle of straw is safe.
He heard that guy on HBO say it. Not Oliver, the other guy.
Quote from: The Brain on November 19, 2015, 11:58:40 AM
Swift book veterans for truth? :yeahright:
:lol: Wish I'd said that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2015, 04:38:54 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 19, 2015, 04:29:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 19, 2015, 04:26:11 PM
The punishment for failure to crop a quote shall be stoning.
Amen!
Not that kind of getting stoned
* Stop that. Stop it, will you stop that. Now look, no one... is to stone anyone... until I blow this whistle. *Even*...and I want to make this absolutely clear...*even* if they *do* fail to "crop their quotes" *
[big rock]
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2015, 04:45:01 PM
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.
I'm not sure that the fact that a cleric preaching jihad only has a few million more Twitter followers than one preaching moderation really advances your argument. More like exactly the opposite I would say.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 19, 2015, 05:33:02 PM
I'm not sure that the fact that a cleric preaching jihad only has a few million more Twitter followers than one preaching moderation really advances your argument. More like exactly the opposite I would say.
How many twitter followers does that Republican candidate who claims that Obamacare is worse than slavery have?
Donald Trump has a lot of twitter followers, and the support of tens of millions of prospective primary voters. He wants to among other things, reinstate "Operation Wetback," and close mosques. I suppose one could conclude that the US must be a hotbed of fascism and racism because he has more twitter followers than Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio.
Quote from: grumbler on November 19, 2015, 05:36:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 19, 2015, 05:33:02 PM
I'm not sure that the fact that a cleric preaching jihad only has a few million more Twitter followers than one preaching moderation really advances your argument. More like exactly the opposite I would say.
How many twitter followers does that Republican candidate who claims that Obamacare is worse than slavery have?
;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2015, 05:38:51 PM
Donald Trump has a lot of twitter followers, and the support of tens of millions of prospective primary voters. He wants to among other things, reinstate "Operation Wetback," and close mosques. I suppose one could conclude that the US must be a hotbed of fascism and racism because he has more twitter followers than Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio.
Is that a wrong thing to conclude? I am not so sure with this damn election.
My only relief with all those State governors being dicks is that there were so many Texas was not especially exposed as having horrible people like we normally are. So thanks other states.
Quote from: grumbler on November 19, 2015, 05:36:32 PM
How many twitter followers does that Republican candidate who claims that Obamacare is worse than slavery have?
That isn't a fair way to judge his support, considering that many of his supporters can't read and among those that can, many have yet to discover the internets.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2015, 05:38:51 PM
Donald Trump has a lot of twitter followers, and the support of tens of millions of prospective primary voters. He wants to among other things, reinstate "Operation Wetback," and close mosques. I suppose one could conclude that the US must be a hotbed of fascism and racism because he has more twitter followers than Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio.
I'm not sure if you're trying to build a moral equivalence argument or one about the irrelevance of Twitter followers to ascertaining underlying beliefs.
I personally think that Trump's popularity tells us quite a bit about American attitudes towards illegal immigration and Islamic terrorism, just as the popularity of the Saudi cleric tells us quite a bit about Saudi attitudes towards religiously motivated violence.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 19, 2015, 05:50:47 PMI personally think that Trump's popularity tells us quite a bit about American attitudes towards illegal immigration and Islamic terrorism, just as the popularity of the Saudi cleric tells us quite a bit about Saudi attitudes towards religiously motivated violence.
There's a significant amount of subjectivity in those inferences of yours, though. Might it not as well be an indication of American disgust towards their political system, say, or a reflection of American fascination with bombastic personalities over substance for Trump? And conversely, might the Saudi cleric's number of follower's not be an indication of appreciation for his rhetorical style, for his stance on some local political contexts (be it challenging/ supporting the House of Saud, his stance on charity towards fellow Muslims, or some other issue or set of issues)?
I mean, I think we can have some discussions about Trump with some level of knowledge here since we're pretty exposed to his substance and to his followers, but I don't think we have enough information on the Saudi cleric or the other contexts he is speaking to to ascertain that religiously motivated violence is or is not a key driver for his number of followers.
Quote from: Jacob on November 19, 2015, 06:05:29 PM
There's a significant amount of subjectivity in those inferences of yours, though. Might it not as well be an indication of American disgust towards their political system, say, or a reflection of American fascination with bombastic personalities over substance for Trump? And conversely, might the Saudi cleric's number of follower's not be an indication of appreciation for his rhetorical style, for his stance on some local political contexts (be it challenging/ supporting the House of Saud, his stance on charity towards fellow Muslims, or some other issue or set of issues)?
I mean, I think we can have some discussions about Trump with some level of knowledge here since we're pretty exposed to his substance and to his followers, but I don't think we have enough information on the Saudi cleric or the other contexts he is speaking to to ascertain that religiously motivated violence is or is not a key driver for his number of followers.
Rather than subjectivity I think it's fairer to say they are only isolated data points, and need corroboration to create sustainable generalizations. Such corroboration might include things like Muslims killing the shit out of innocent people.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 19, 2015, 06:10:41 PM
Rather than subjectivity I think it's fairer to say they are only isolated data points, and need corroboration to create sustainable generalizations. Such corroboration might include things like Muslims killing the shit out of innocent people.
I still suspect your methodology is flawed. Be that as it may, what's your generalization for the tendency of white people killing the shit out of innocent people?
Quote from: Jacob on November 19, 2015, 06:16:17 PM
I still suspect your methodology is flawed. Be that as it may, what's your generalization for the tendency of white people killing the shit out of innocent people?
What is your suspicion based on?
I don't have a generalization for the tendency of white people to kill the shit out of innocent people.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 19, 2015, 06:18:19 PMWhat is your suspicion based on?
Dealing with internet data while working on online/mobile games I've found the correlation between "number of likes"/ "number of followers"/ "number of users" of any given thing/ person/ software and a specific prediction of behaviour based on subjective analysis of the thing/ person/ software to provide piss-poor results.
Saying "this person says [this one thing] (amongst many), and has many followers who belong to [some group], therefore we can say with confidence that [this one thing] appeals to [some group] in a specific way" seems pretty analogous to "this software has [this one feature] (amongst many), and has many users who belong to [some group], therefore we can say with confidence [this one feature] appeals to [some group] in a specific way."
The second line of reasoning has proven itself utterly unreliable as a matter of practical experience, so I suspect the first is equally unreliable.
QuoteI don't have a generalization for the tendency of white people to kill the shit out of innocent people.
Interesting. It seems we do it a fair bit, if you look at us as a "white people" group.
Quote from: Jacob on November 19, 2015, 06:28:23 PM
Interesting. It seems we do it a fair bit, if you look at us as a "white people" group.
You might want to be careful with your verb tense there.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 19, 2015, 06:35:43 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 19, 2015, 06:28:23 PM
Interesting. It seems we do it a fair bit, if you look at us as a "white people" group.
You might want to be careful with your verb tense there.
I used "we" as in "the group I belong to", with no intended implication either way about your affiliation or that of any other specific person.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 19, 2015, 05:50:47 PM
I personally think that Trump's popularity tells us quite a bit about American attitudes towards illegal immigration and Islamic terrorism, just as the popularity of the Saudi cleric tells us quite a bit about Saudi attitudes towards religiously motivated violence.
I would put it a bit differently.
I would say his popularity despite his enthusiasm for the Eisenhower-era "operation wetback" is suggestive of severe moral decadence, a willingness to embrace the use of violence, sometimes deadly violence, against an unpopular minority, which is exactly what happened at that time.
I would say his popularity despite his support for mosque closure demonstrates an attitude of blithe disregard towards the most fundamental rights of human beings and the very foundation of the US constitution.
The term "fascistic" doesn't seem too lightly used in this context (and knowing your own views on the Donald I suspect you don't entirely disagree).
I would also say that the Saudi cleric's popularity illustrates the severely retrograde nature of Saudi society and a willingness embrace violently xenophobic sentiments that echo the ones Trump is pushing here.
IF your point is that these are not equivalent, morally or otherwise, I would of course agree. The Saudi cleric is much worse. Saudi Arabia is a horrible place, where political discourse has been utterly twisted by a system that suppresses all forms of political expression other than support for the monarchy, with the exception of Wahhabist-dominated mosques. Wahhabism itself is a deviant sect that openly places itself in opposition to over 1000 years of Islamic tradition. To use that as the example of the inherent ills of Islam doesn't make sense, any more than holding up Fred Phelps as the exemplar of Christianity.
Quote from: Jacob on November 19, 2015, 06:54:48 PM
I used "we" as in "the group I belong to", with no intended implication either way about your affiliation or that of any other specific person.
You missed my point, which is that whites are not currently killing the shit out of innocent people.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2015, 07:03:08 PM
I would put it a bit differently.
I would say his popularity despite his enthusiasm for the Eisenhower-era "operation wetback" is suggestive of severe moral decadence, a willingness to embrace the use of violence, sometimes deadly violence, against an unpopular minority, which is exactly what happened at that time.
I would say his popularity despite his support for mosque closure demonstrates an attitude of blithe disregard towards the most fundamental rights of human beings and the very foundation of the US constitution.
The term "fascistic" doesn't seem too lightly used in this context (and knowing your own views on the Donald I suspect you don't entirely disagree).
I would also say that the Saudi cleric's popularity illustrates the severely retrograde nature of Saudi society and a willingness embrace violently xenophobic sentiments that echo the ones Trump is pushing here.
IF your point is that these are not equivalent, morally or otherwise, I would of course agree. The Saudi cleric is much worse. Saudi Arabia is a horrible place, where political discourse has been utterly twisted by a system that suppresses all forms of political expression other than support for the monarchy, with the exception of Wahhabist-dominated mosques. Wahhabism itself is a deviant sect that openly places itself in opposition to over 1000 years of Islamic tradition. To use that as the example of the inherent ills of Islam doesn't make sense, any more than holding up Fred Phelps as the exemplar of Christianity.
If you agree that they are not morally equivalent then I am not sure what your point was in bringing up Trump in the first place.
One can claim that Saudis are special because of their political environment; then the difficulty become devising the special circumstances that explain the support for and contribution to violence undertaken by Muslims in other countries, including the US and Western Europe. At what point does this search for alternative explanations become an exercise in excuse-making?
I think Fred Phelps is perfect example of the excesses that can be created by the prohibitionist/Calvinist strain of Christianity. Then what?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 19, 2015, 07:12:22 PM
You missed my point, which is that whites are not currently killing the shit out of innocent people.
Ah, I see. I missed that yes, probably because I don't think that's particularly true.
Domestically in the US, Chris Harper-Mercer and Dylan Roof certainly killed the shit out of innocent people not very long ago, and it seems pretty well accepted that it's a matter of "when" not "if" it happens again.
I don't know on what grounds you may exclude the civilians killed in the Ukraine, but I'm reasonably certain their killers were white, that the dead were innocent, and that it isn't over quite yet. The passengers on Malaysia Air Flight 17 where innocent, and though there's no specific killers established, we can reasonably assume that they're white.
I think there's been a significant number of innocent people dying as the result of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and elsewhere in in the Middle East - carried out primarily at the behest of and by white people - and terming them "collateral damage" does not make them any less innocent or any less dead.
I also see no reason to exclude the deaths of innocents during the Troubles in the UK, or the disintegration of Yugoslavia, from the pattern of fact either.
Query: Is this last decade more deadly for people in the Middle East then say the 1960's or the 1970's (decades before the rise of Political radical Islam)?
I was reading up on Operation Wetback a few weeks ago and was struck by the irony that it was largely done due to pressure from the Mexican government. Mexican farm owners had crops rotting in the fields because so much of the labor force had migrated northward.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2015, 07:03:08 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 19, 2015, 05:50:47 PM
I personally think that Trump's popularity tells us quite a bit about American attitudes towards illegal immigration and Islamic terrorism, just as the popularity of the Saudi cleric tells us quite a bit about Saudi attitudes towards religiously motivated violence.
I would put it a bit differently.
I would say his popularity despite his enthusiasm for the Eisenhower-era "operation wetback" is suggestive of severe moral decadence, a willingness to embrace the use of violence, sometimes deadly violence, against an unpopular minority, which is exactly what happened at that time.
I would say his popularity despite his support for mosque closure demonstrates an attitude of blithe disregard towards the most fundamental rights of human beings and the very foundation of the US constitution.
The term "fascistic" doesn't seem too lightly used in this context (and knowing your own views on the Donald I suspect you don't entirely disagree).
I would also say that the Saudi cleric's popularity illustrates the severely retrograde nature of Saudi society and a willingness embrace violently xenophobic sentiments that echo the ones Trump is pushing here.
IF your point is that these are not equivalent, morally or otherwise, I would of course agree. The Saudi cleric is much worse. Saudi Arabia is a horrible place, where political discourse has been utterly twisted by a system that suppresses all forms of political expression other than support for the monarchy, with the exception of Wahhabist-dominated mosques. Wahhabism itself is a deviant sect that openly places itself in opposition to over 1000 years of Islamic tradition. To use that as the example of the inherent ills of Islam doesn't make sense, any more than holding up Fred Phelps as the exemplar of Christianity.
OK, this is starting to piss me off.
I AM NOT HOLDING IT UP AS REPRESENTATIVE OF ISLAM.
I am saying that there are a shitload of Islamic people who think that the use of violence is awesome. That killing gay people is the will of god. That executing women for adultery is a religious duty. That the death penalty for apostasy is in fact moral and just.
There are many who do not think any of those things, and those people are not a problem, and in fact we need to figure out how to make those peoples voices win out.
That the idea that the people who think this are some tiny minority of Muslims, akin to Fred Phelps, is completely bullshit. Phelps does not have millions of people listening to his every word, and taking action on his teachings - rather he is seen as a kook by 99.9% of Christians.
Most Muslims are not a problem. But plenty of them ARE a problem, and this insistence, this apologism, this refusal to see what is happening is going to make it a lot harder to win this war of ideas that they represent one side of, since we cannot even accept that there is a real war happening, and instead we pretend like the radical jihadists are some sliver of the Islamic population akin to Fred Phelps.
It simply is not true.
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2015, 09:43:12 PM
Most Muslims are not a problem. But plenty of them ARE a problem, and this insistence, this apologism, this refusal to see what is happening is going to make it a lot harder to win this war of ideas that they represent one side of, since we cannot even accept that there is a real war happening, and instead we pretend like the radical jihadists are some sliver of the Islamic population akin to Fred Phelps.
It simply is not true.
I guess the question is, how does this change things? Is the difference between very few and some enough to by default treat Muslims differently? Should we, as some Republicans have said, use religion as a filter for Syrian refugees? Shouldn't it be possible to be more selective than that?
Quote from: frunk on November 19, 2015, 10:06:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2015, 09:43:12 PM
Most Muslims are not a problem. But plenty of them ARE a problem, and this insistence, this apologism, this refusal to see what is happening is going to make it a lot harder to win this war of ideas that they represent one side of, since we cannot even accept that there is a real war happening, and instead we pretend like the radical jihadists are some sliver of the Islamic population akin to Fred Phelps.
It simply is not true.
I guess the question is, how does this change things? Is the difference between very few and some enough to by default treat Muslims differently? Should we, as some Republicans have said, use religion as a filter for Syrian refugees? Shouldn't it be possible to be more selective than that?
No, I do not think we should treat Muslims differently at all.
I do think we should treat jihadists, and those who espouse jihadists ideas differently though.
I don't think it changes how we treat refugees on bit. We should, of course, take reasonable precautions to do our best to make sure we are not letting radicals in along with them, but we should do that regardless.
The difference, as I see it, is that we need to recognize that islamic fundamentalism is not some splinter of Islam - rather it is a significant factor in the Islamic world, and we need to recognize that this war of ideas is happening RIGHT NOW, and we need to understand how to win it - but we are going to fail (or rather, not succeed as quickly as we should) if we villify anyone who recognizes that this is a poison that must be excised.
The Jakes and Minsky's work incredibly hard to cast this as a trivial issue - some tiny percentage, like judaic extremists, or Christian fundamentalists.
But there are many Islamic countries where the penalty for apostasy is death. And there is widespread support for such beliefs:
Quote
A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2010 found relatively widespread popular support for the death penalty as a punishment for apostasy in Egypt (84% of respondents in favor of death penalty), Jordan (86% in favor), Indonesia (30%), Pakistan (76%), Nigeria (51%)
This idea that the radical view of Islam are held by a tiny minority is simply not true.
Quote from: frunk on November 19, 2015, 10:06:13 PM
I guess the question is, how does this change things? Is the difference between very few and some enough to by default treat Muslims differently? Should we, as some Republicans have said, use religion as a filter for Syrian refugees? Shouldn't it be possible to be more selective than that?
Do you have anything specific in mind?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 19, 2015, 10:50:53 PM
Quote from: frunk on November 19, 2015, 10:06:13 PM
I guess the question is, how does this change things? Is the difference between very few and some enough to by default treat Muslims differently? Should we, as some Republicans have said, use religion as a filter for Syrian refugees? Shouldn't it be possible to be more selective than that?
Do you have anything specific in mind?
Pick engineers and doctors.
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2015, 10:18:22 PMNo, I do not think we should treat Muslims differently at all.
I do think we should treat jihadists, and those who espouse jihadists ideas differently though.
I don't think it changes how we treat refugees on bit. We should, of course, take reasonable precautions to do our best to make sure we are not letting radicals in along with them, but we should do that regardless.
The difference, as I see it, is that we need to recognize that islamic fundamentalism is not some splinter of Islam - rather it is a significant factor in the Islamic world, and we need to recognize that this war of ideas is happening RIGHT NOW, and we need to understand how to win it - but we are going to fail (or rather, not succeed as quickly as we should) if we villify anyone who recognizes that this is a poison that must be excised.
The Jakes and Minsky's work incredibly hard to cast this as a trivial issue - some tiny percentage, like judaic extremists, or Christian fundamentalists.
But there are many Islamic countries where the penalty for apostasy is death. And there is widespread support for such beliefs:
This idea that the radical view of Islam are held by a tiny minority is simply not true.
what are you suggesting, then? you say "I AM NOT HOLDING [islamic fundamentalism] UP AS REPRESENTATIVE OF ISLAM," then you say "islamic fundamentalism is not some splinter of Islam - rather it is a significant factor in the Islamic world." i get you don't think islam = islamic fundamentalism, but what exactly are you saying? that we should distrust islam? persecute against islam? work to "fight" islam? whatever it is, how do you fight "islamic fundamentalism as a significant factor of islam" without, in reality, fighting islam?
Fred Phelps got over 30% of the vote in a Kansas senate primary. 50,000 votes.
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?
Quote from: LaCroix on November 19, 2015, 11:24:36 PM
what are you suggesting, then? you say "I AM NOT HOLDING [islamic fundamentalism] UP AS REPRESENTATIVE OF ISLAM," then you say "islamic fundamentalism is not some splinter of Islam - rather it is a significant factor in the Islamic world." i get you don't think islam = islamic fundamentalism, but what exactly are you saying? that we should distrust islam? persecute against islam? work to "fight" islam? whatever it is, how do you fight "islamic fundamentalism as a significant factor of islam" without, in reality, fighting islam?
I think he is suggesting that policies and opinions that assume that Islamic fundamentalism is a tiny splinter fraction of Islam should be reconsidered. That seemed pretty clear to me. What part of that did you not understand?
Quote from: LaCroix on November 19, 2015, 11:32:55 PM
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?
Is that the choice? Either assume all Islamic countries, or all sub-"level of civilization/or whatever other factor" (whatever that means) is responsible? No chance whatever that Islam plus some outside factors combine to create Islamic fundamentalist violence?
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2015, 09:43:12 PM
Most Muslims are not a problem. But plenty of them ARE a problem, and this insistence, this apologism, this refusal to see what is happening is going to make it a lot harder to win this war of ideas that they represent one side of, since we cannot even accept that there is a real war happening, and instead we pretend like the radical jihadists are some sliver of the Islamic population akin to Fred Phelps.
I don't think that's the counter-argument to the proposition you're making.
I agree, there are whole bunch of radical and violent Muslims who think violence is just great, and they're a problem. No argument there from me. These people self-evidently exist, and just as obviously they do horrendous things.
The proposition I have a problem with is the one that claims that the radical violence of the radical violent Muslims is clearly something that is inherent in Islam and that we thus need to approach Islam - and Muslims - with a special kind of suspicion due to some sort of enhanced innate predisposition towards radical violence.
Instead, when looking at radical violent Muslims I see plenty of commonalities with other violent radicals who have drawn their justification for their radical violence from other non-Muslim systems of belief - some of them religious, some of them secular. While each flavour of radical violence of course takes on some characteristic of the ideology it uses to justify the radical violence, I think there are other much more significant factors - primarily economical and political - that can be used to explain the phenomena more accurately.
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.
Quote from: grumbler on November 19, 2015, 11:36:12 PMI think he is suggesting that policies and opinions that assume that Islamic fundamentalism is a tiny splinter fraction of Islam should be reconsidered. That seemed pretty clear to me. What part of that did you not understand?
reconsidered in what way though? that's what i mean. what happens if this reconsideration occurred?
QuoteNo chance whatever that Islam plus some outside factors combine to create Islamic fundamentalist violence?
well, i concede that you need islam to have islamic fundamentalism. but you don't need islam to have fundamentalism and barbaric views.
Quote from: grumbler on November 19, 2015, 11:38:48 PMNo chance whatever that Islam plus some outside factors combine to create Islamic fundamentalist violence?
There's a pretty high chance, but I think it's eminently reasonable to posit that the key part of that creation process is what you call "some outside factors" rather than Islam; at least if it's the violence you're concerned about rather than the Islamic part.
And when we're in a time where a major news outlet uses scurrying rats to portray Muslim refugees, and where national stage politicians suggest that five year old orphans should be turned away because of fears of Islamic fundamentalist violence, I personally would consider pursuing the "Islam is inherently violent" argument with less vehemence.
Quote from: Jacob on November 20, 2015, 12:26:31 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 19, 2015, 11:38:48 PMNo chance whatever that Islam plus some outside factors combine to create Islamic fundamentalist violence?
And when we're in a time where a major news outlet uses scurrying rats to portray Muslim refugees, and where national stage politicians suggest that five year old orphans should be turned away because of fears of Islamic fundamentalist violence, I personally would consider pursuing the "Islam is inherently violent" argument with less vehemence.
I find this argument to be bullshit. You can just as well turn it around and say that when people are being slaughtered by Muslims in cultural and leisure venues in one of the world's greatest centres of culture, I personally would consider pursuing the "Islam is inherently violent" argument with more vehemence.
The argument from your portion of liberal left is in fact not very different from that of the NRA, in the wake of every school shooting in America.
It's combined of two elements:
1. Islam doesn't kill people. People kill people; and
2. This is not the right time to talk about it.
I would have thought intelligent people are capable to have their minds hold two thoughts at the same time. So I am not sure why we can't believe we need to help the refugees and at the same time think how to make sure they integrate into the society and accept our values. Especially as our indifference is actually hurting moderate muslims in the poorer communities - because they find themselves between a rock and a hard place when we are willing to tolerate muslim barbaric customs within their own ranks.
Quote from: Jacob on November 19, 2015, 11:41:00 PM
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 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.
ideal world? no borders. acceptable? the US is pretty OK, except for all those governors recently.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 20, 2015, 01:38:12 AM
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?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 20, 2015, 02:26:31 AMAnd 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.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 20, 2015, 02:37:55 AM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 20, 2015, 02:56:08 AMThe 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
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 19, 2015, 11:31:57 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: LaCroix on November 19, 2015, 11:32:55 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 20, 2015, 02:56:08 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 20, 2015, 02:37:55 AM
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.
Quote from: mongers on November 20, 2015, 06:36:54 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 20, 2015, 06:55:16 AM
Quote from: mongers on November 20, 2015, 06:36:54 AM
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
Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2015, 01:23:55 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 19, 2015, 11:41:00 PM
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?
Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2015, 07:20:58 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2015, 01:23:55 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 19, 2015, 11:41:00 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2015, 07:20:58 AM
What is different here?
And I will now answer myself! :P
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.
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2015, 07:33:59 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2015, 07:20:58 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2015, 01:23:55 AM
Quote from: Jacob on November 19, 2015, 11:41:00 PM
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.
Just saw this, somewhat applies:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fuser3303%2Fimageroot%2F2015%2F01%2F20150123_saudi.jpg&hash=30073e27c776352a00edd28553308ef84f47127d)
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!
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2015, 07:33:59 AM
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.
:yes: "Soft bigotry of low expectations". One of the better phrases uttered by George W. Bush.
Quote from: Berkut on November 20, 2015, 06:55:16 AM
Quote from: mongers on November 20, 2015, 06:36:54 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2015, 09:11:15 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2015, 07:33:59 AM
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.
:yes: "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.
Quote from: mongers on November 20, 2015, 06:36:54 AM
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. ;)
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.
Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2015, 01:29:42 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2015, 10:37:04 AM
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?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2015, 10:37:04 AM
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.
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2015, 11:00:06 AM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 20, 2015, 11:03:38 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2015, 10:37:04 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 19, 2015, 09:43:12 PM
OK, this is starting to piss me off.
I AM NOT HOLDING IT UP AS REPRESENTATIVE OF ISLAM.
I am saying that there are a shitload of Islamic people who think that the use of violence is awesome. That killing gay people is the will of god. That executing women for adultery is a religious duty. That the death penalty for apostasy is in fact moral and just.
There are many who do not think any of those things, and those people are not a problem, and in fact we need to figure out how to make those peoples voices win out.
QuoteWe 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.
I really don't want to piss you off, but there is a fundamental tension here that can't be glided over.
You can't simultaneously hold that Islam is inherently flawed and prone to violence in a way fundamentally different from other religions, and still engage with those Muslims who want to resist the terrorists and extremists in their mist. Because your message to them is that while we are prepared to tolerate you for the time being, the only viable solution long term is to reject your religion. Not only will people not accept that, it undermines their will to resist.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 19, 2015, 11:48:08 PM
reconsidered in what way though? that's what i mean. what happens if this reconsideration occurred?
Then we understand the causes of the violence better, and we seek solutions where they might actually exist, rather than where we prefer they exist.
Quotewell, i concede that you need islam to have islamic fundamentalism. but you don't need islam to have fundamentalism and barbaric views.
Well, I concede your trivial and obvious point.
I think you guys are talking past each other.
The Canadian Dove Brigade says that the majoriy of Muslims living in the developed world are nowhere near extremist status.
Berkut and the rest are saying -in essence- that a significant portion of the muslim population WORLDWIDE either actively support violent and opressive regimes and violent solutions, or at least agree with such methods being the desired ones to rule society. That does qualify as extremists compared to our own moral compass.
I find both statements to be true.
Since I don't give a flying fuck about any religion, any religion that makes an ass of itself can be eliminated as far as I am concerned.
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2015, 11:19:42 AM
I think you guys are talking past each other.
The Canadian Dove Brigade says that the majoriy of Muslims living in the developed world are nowhere near extremist status.
Berkut and the rest are saying -in essence- that a significant portion of the muslim population WORLDWIDE either actively support violent and opressive regimes and violent solutions, or at least agree with such methods being the desired ones to rule society. That does qualify as extremists compared to our own moral compass.
I find both statements to be true.
Not really. In addition to acknowledging that there are ok Muslims in the world there is a clear express sentiment that there is something wrong with Islamic beliefs. As a result the notion expressed by the others is that while the moderates stay moderate they are ok but there is something not quite right about them.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2015, 11:04:20 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2015, 11:00:06 AM
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?*
Not that many young Christian men commit violent crimes in the name of Christ today. Of those that commit cri
Many young muslims worldwide join the Jihad and extremist groups like ISIS, Boko-Haram, Al-Queida&co, etc and many muslims express approval if not for their methods, for their beliefs.
As a Canadian, I sure want to know why a young Canadian is seduced by such an ideology. If a significant proportion of Quebecers were racists and assaulting arabs&jews, I'd like to know why it happens, what needs to change in my society for this to stop. Isolated incidents are one thing. 10 youths from the same school trying to leave for Jihad is something else.
Quote
Guys, you cant hold the majority of a religious belief culpable for the acts of minority extremes.
And I am not, and you would see it if you took the time to read my comments.
There is a myth that Israel created Hamas as a way of combating Fatah.
Like many myths, there is a tiny kernel of truth to it. From the Israeli POV c. the late 70s/80s the early Hamas organization did not seem a serious threat or priority. Because EVERYONE KNEW that Arab terrorism was a nationalist and ideological phenomenon, not a religious one. Yes there was political Islam - the Muslim Brotherhood organization that early Hamas was affiliated with - but it was well understood that political Islam de-emphasized violent confrontation. So the Israelis by and large adopted a strategy of benign neglect to Hamas, while pursuing an aggressive strategy of isolation and co-option of Fattah/PLO, ultimately culminating in the uneasy cooperation of the peace process and the Palestinian Authority. At which point Hamas then emerged as the leading edge of violence.
The forces that lead to extreme violence and terrorism in the Middle East have been around for decades. They haven't changed or gone away. What has changed is that the traditional channels for that terroristic violence -- like Nasserite nationalism or pan-Arabism or revolutionary socialism -- have been discredited or co-opted, leaving the mosque as the only avenue for radical, political dissent. It is a demand side phenomenon not a supply side.
There is a natural tendency to focus on the problem or headline of the day and view everything through the distorting lens of the immediate, without regard to context or history. In the 1980s, what mattered to Israel was isolating Arafat and they had zero concern about a small band of bearded religious scholars with a few guns. In the 1980s, the single highest priority of the US in the region was to unseat Najibullah in Afghanistan; right now I bet we'd love to have him back in control.
Right now the problem of the day is Islamic terrorists, and so there is a tendency to see everything - past, present, and future - through that lens.
Back up and get perspective
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 20, 2015, 11:03:38 AM
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.
:yes: The point of terrorism is to provoke a disastrous allergic reaction in societies being targeted. This whole business with refugees, that's really attacking our fabric of society.
That's not to say that we should engage in moral relativism. Many of the Muslim countries' cultures should be disdained for promoting values that are in direct contrast to the concept of liberty. That should be the case regardless of the whole terrorism issue, which in the large scheme of things isn't really such a big deal unless you live in Israel.
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2015, 11:00:06 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2015, 10:37:04 AM
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?
It will happen in due time, viper. In due time. Be patient. 3rd and 4th generations of immigrants, in Canada atleast, won't be religious extremists.
You are missing the different scales in different countries, for one.
As Berkut mentioned, this really is a conflict within the Muslim world. I believe we are the "fringes" of it. The terror attacks against the West are to reinforce their positions in their own societies.
However, while this means it is next to impossible for Muslim extremism to be anything worse than the threat of isolated rare incidents of attacks in the US and Canada, you have countries like France.
As far as I can judge, something has decidedly gone wrong with the integration of their Muslim population there. I am not blaming the Muslims for that. I am quite ready to blame the French :P Seriously though, the truth in these matters is usually in the middle, but you can't deny that France has more trouble in this regard than, say, the UK.
My point is, it is easy to sanctimonious about this from Canada - there is no risk involved for you. If you misjudge the situation, then you MIGHT get one more terrorist attack a year. In the US it would hardly register next to all the school shootings :P
However, if France mis-manages the apparent and obvious increased popularity of extremist Islamist views within his society, then the stakes are much, much higher. And by mis-manage I am not necessarily mean being too lenient on extremists or not being fascist enough in their response. It is very possible that trying to tackle this via force and guns is just making things worse. I do not know.
But the worry and the aggrevation is warranted.
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2015, 12:26:30 PM
You are missing the different scales in different countries, for one.
As Berkut mentioned, this really is a conflict within the Muslim world. I believe we are the "fringes" of it. The terror attacks against the West are to reinforce their positions in their own societies.
However, while this means it is next to impossible for Muslim extremism to be anything worse than the threat of isolated rare incidents of attacks in the US and Canada, you have countries like France.
As far as I can judge, something has decidedly gone wrong with the integration of their Muslim population there. I am not blaming the Muslims for that. I am quite ready to blame the French :P Seriously though, the truth in these matters is usually in the middle, but you can't deny that France has more trouble in this regard than, say, the UK.
My point is, it is easy to sanctimonious about this from Canada - there is no risk involved for you. If you misjudge the situation, then you MIGHT get one more terrorist attack a year. In the US it would hardly register next to all the school shootings :P
I appreciate the scale is different, but Canada has been hit by terrorist attacks as well, some quite recently. Remember we had an islamic-inspired shooter loose on Parliament a year ago.
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2015, 12:26:30 PM
My point is, it is easy to sanctimonious about this from Canada - there is no risk involved for you.
I have a short fuse for ignorance at the best of times. But this kind of ignorance is startling. Go google the people that have died in Canada because of acts by Muslim extremists in Canada. Google the face of the boy who lost his father. Then google the attacks that were stopped in Canada over the last two years. Then come back and apologize for being such an ass.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2015, 10:37:04 AM
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.
I hope you are not trying to ascribe these views to me as they do not describe me.
I think the onus is not on moderate Muslims but on Western liberals to decry the oppressive treatment of minority groups and women in Muslim countries at the hands of the conservative regimes (and frequently conservative majority).
We are not asking where the moderate Muslims are because we know that - they are in Saudi, Pakistani and Bahraini prisons. But Western left prefers to be outraged about some kid in Texas who was detained for few hours at school for constructing a clock, and not about a blogger getting lashed or hacked to pieces.
Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2015, 12:40:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2015, 10:37:04 AM
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.
I hope you are not trying to ascribe these views to me as they do not describe me.
I think the onus is not on moderate Muslims but on Western liberals to decry the oppressive treatment of minority groups and women in Muslim countries at the hands of the conservative regimes (and frequently conservative majority).
We are not asking where the moderate Muslims are because we know that - they are in Saudi, Pakistani and Bahraini prisons. But Western left prefers to fight for some kid in Texas who was detained for few hours at school for constructing a clock, and not on a blogger getting lashed or hacked to pieces.
You are right to correct me. I don't think anyone else has taken the Yi view. I think your view is closer to that taken by Viper.
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2015, 12:26:30 PM
You are missing the different scales in different countries, for one.
As Berkut mentioned, this really is a conflict within the Muslim world. I believe we are the "fringes" of it. The terror attacks against the West are to reinforce their positions in their own societies.
However, while this means it is next to impossible for Muslim extremism to be anything worse than the threat of isolated rare incidents of attacks in the US and Canada, you have countries like France.
As far as I can judge, something has decidedly gone wrong with the integration of their Muslim population there. I am not blaming the Muslims for that. I am quite ready to blame the French :P Seriously though, the truth in these matters is usually in the middle, but you can't deny that France has more trouble in this regard than, say, the UK.
My point is, it is easy to sanctimonious about this from Canada - there is no risk involved for you. If you misjudge the situation, then you MIGHT get one more terrorist attack a year. In the US it would hardly register next to all the school shootings :P
However, if France mis-manages the apparent and obvious increased popularity of extremist Islamist views within his society, then the stakes are much, much higher. And by mis-manage I am not necessarily mean being too lenient on extremists or not being fascist enough in their response. It is very possible that trying to tackle this via force and guns is just making things worse. I do not know.
But the worry and the aggrevation is warranted.
Heh, our cops a couple of years ago foiled a terror attack designed to derail passenger trains. So we do have risk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_VIA_Rail_Canada_terrorism_plot
Interestingly, the terrorists were turned in ... by people in the Muslim community.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2015, 12:40:09 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2015, 12:26:30 PM
My point is, it is easy to sanctimonious about this from Canada - there is no risk involved for you.
I have a short fuse for ignorance at the best of times. But this kind of ignorance is startling. Go google the people that have died in Canada because of acts by Muslim extremists in Canada. Google the face of the boy who lost his father. Then google the attacks that were stopped in Canada over the last two years. Then come back and apologize for being such an ass.
:rolleyes:
What I mean is, there is no (seemingly) imminent danger to the very fabric of Canadian society due to the spread of Islamist extremism. Having to change what Canada is as a state, is not among the possible scenarios, despite the face of the boy who lost his father.
In France, decades of mismanagement seems to be on collision course with the spread of Islamist extremism. If mismanagement continues, the parallel societies within France (the majority one and the Muslim minorities who feel left out) can end up in open conflict.
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2015, 12:45:43 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2015, 12:26:30 PM
You are missing the different scales in different countries, for one.
As Berkut mentioned, this really is a conflict within the Muslim world. I believe we are the "fringes" of it. The terror attacks against the West are to reinforce their positions in their own societies.
However, while this means it is next to impossible for Muslim extremism to be anything worse than the threat of isolated rare incidents of attacks in the US and Canada, you have countries like France.
As far as I can judge, something has decidedly gone wrong with the integration of their Muslim population there. I am not blaming the Muslims for that. I am quite ready to blame the French :P Seriously though, the truth in these matters is usually in the middle, but you can't deny that France has more trouble in this regard than, say, the UK.
My point is, it is easy to sanctimonious about this from Canada - there is no risk involved for you. If you misjudge the situation, then you MIGHT get one more terrorist attack a year. In the US it would hardly register next to all the school shootings :P
However, if France mis-manages the apparent and obvious increased popularity of extremist Islamist views within his society, then the stakes are much, much higher. And by mis-manage I am not necessarily mean being too lenient on extremists or not being fascist enough in their response. It is very possible that trying to tackle this via force and guns is just making things worse. I do not know.
But the worry and the aggrevation is warranted.
Heh, our cops a couple of years ago foiled a terror attack designed to derail passenger trains. So we do have risk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_VIA_Rail_Canada_terrorism_plot
Interestingly, the terrorists were turned in ... by people in the Muslim community.
See my post above. And congrats for missing my point like CC did.
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2015, 12:46:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2015, 12:40:09 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2015, 12:26:30 PM
My point is, it is easy to sanctimonious about this from Canada - there is no risk involved for you.
I have a short fuse for ignorance at the best of times. But this kind of ignorance is startling. Go google the people that have died in Canada because of acts by Muslim extremists in Canada. Google the face of the boy who lost his father. Then google the attacks that were stopped in Canada over the last two years. Then come back and apologize for being such an ass.
:rolleyes:
What I mean is, there is no (seemingly) imminent danger to the very fabric of Canadian society due to the spread of Islamist extremism. Having to change what Canada is as a state, is not among the possible scenarios, despite the face of the boy who lost his father.
In France, decades of mismanagement seems to be on collision course with the spread of Islamist extremism. If mismanagement continues, the parallel societies within France (the majority one and the Muslim minorities who feel left out) can end up in open conflict.
There is no danger to the "very fabric" of any Western Democracy. That is the point Minsky is making. Your analysis is based on overblown rhetoric.
Ok case closed then!
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2015, 12:48:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2015, 12:45:43 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2015, 12:26:30 PM
You are missing the different scales in different countries, for one.
As Berkut mentioned, this really is a conflict within the Muslim world. I believe we are the "fringes" of it. The terror attacks against the West are to reinforce their positions in their own societies.
However, while this means it is next to impossible for Muslim extremism to be anything worse than the threat of isolated rare incidents of attacks in the US and Canada, you have countries like France.
As far as I can judge, something has decidedly gone wrong with the integration of their Muslim population there. I am not blaming the Muslims for that. I am quite ready to blame the French :P Seriously though, the truth in these matters is usually in the middle, but you can't deny that France has more trouble in this regard than, say, the UK.
My point is, it is easy to sanctimonious about this from Canada - there is no risk involved for you. If you misjudge the situation, then you MIGHT get one more terrorist attack a year. In the US it would hardly register next to all the school shootings :P
However, if France mis-manages the apparent and obvious increased popularity of extremist Islamist views within his society, then the stakes are much, much higher. And by mis-manage I am not necessarily mean being too lenient on extremists or not being fascist enough in their response. It is very possible that trying to tackle this via force and guns is just making things worse. I do not know.
But the worry and the aggrevation is warranted.
Heh, our cops a couple of years ago foiled a terror attack designed to derail passenger trains. So we do have risk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_VIA_Rail_Canada_terrorism_plot
Interestingly, the terrorists were turned in ... by people in the Muslim community.
See my post above. And congrats for missing my point like CC did.
Not sure what point you were making. Are you alleging that France is on the verge of some sort of religious war? Seems rather rash and unsupported by evidence. France, like Canada, like the US, has been targeted by terrorist attacks ...
Now it is true that France has a rather greater problem with integration than Canada or the US, and that this leads to the disaffection that may help terrorists to recruit - but the lack of disaffection in Canada did not (for example) prevent their ability to find people willing to derail passenger trains.
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2015, 12:54:39 PM
Ok case closed then!
Or at the very least you will attempt make a more persuasive argument about why we should fear the Muslims.
Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2015, 12:40:58 PM
I think the onus is not on moderate Muslims but on Western liberals to decry the oppressive treatment of minority groups and women in Muslim countries at the hands of the conservative regimes (and frequently conservative majority).
Western liberals are doing that; one of the reasons we know about that oppressive treatment is because of the dedicated and courageous efforts of NGOs and human rights organizations founded and staffed to a great extent by Western liberals. ANd for the same reason we know about the oppressive treatment meted out by Hindu fundamentalists in India, by military dictators throughout the world, by NK communists, the PRC, and so on. Muslim countries have no monopoly on human rights violations.
Here you go Tamas, et al. If you are looking for a good strategic reason to accept the refugees and stop alienating other Muslims read this.
Quote
The strategic value of compassion: Welcoming refugees is devastating to IS
Aisha Ahmad
Contributed to The Globe and Mail
Aisha Ahmad is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Toronto, specializing in jihadist financing.
In the aftermath of the deadly attacks in Paris last week, we have learned that the organizers were "homegrown terrorists" with Islamic State links. They were not refugees. And yet, officials across Europe and the United States have called for a moratorium on refugee flows from Syria, claiming that migrants pose a security threat.
For IS, the attack was not just about killing 130 people; it was a chess move in its global game, aimed at provoking exactly this reaction. But those of us who have studied jihadist extremists for years are not fooled. We have analyzed their internal messages in every language, tracked their financial resources, and dissected their strategies across the world. This move was predictable. We have known for several months that IS has been trying to seal European borders and incite hostilities against refugees as part of its broader strategy.
How we react to the Paris attack is therefore critical. It will not only determine the fate of the refugees, but will also tip the balance of power on the battlefield. If we take the bait, we will enrich and empower IS even further. But if we respond strategically, we have the ability to undercut the financial base of IS, disrupt its recruitment, and prove that its toxic ideology holds no weight. Saving the refugees is not just a moral issue; it is an inseparable part of the strategic plan to destroy IS.
The fact is that the refugee crisis hurts IS badly. The compassionate response of many Western nations toward refugees undercuts the so-called caliphate in three key ways: money, men and messaging.
The first factor is financial. IS is the richest terrorist organization in the world with assets estimated at $2-billion, and almost all of that revenue is internally generated. Recent estimates indicate that the extremists collect nearly $1-million a day through taxation and extortion of businesses and households, arguably even more than profits from oil and antiquities smuggling.
The refugee exodus undercuts this gain. The more families that escape their violence, the fewer people the so-called caliphate has to extort. The nearly 12 million refugees who have already fled the battlefield therefore constitute a tremendous financial loss. Leading IS operatives are well aware of these costs, and are trying to force people to remain inside their turf.
To stop the flow, IS has directly threatened refugees through its media wing, explains Christopher Anzalone, an expert on jihadist information operations. In one document, IS states: "it should be known that voluntarily leaving Darul-Islam [land of Islam] for darul-kufr [land of disbelief] is a dangerous major sin [kaba'ir]".
The second reason is recruitment. We know that IS relies heavily on foreign fighters and devotes considerable effort both finding and cultivating new conscripts. With air strikes hammering rebel strongholds across Syria and Iraq, IS needs as much new cannon fodder as possible to stay in the fight.
To accomplish this goal, IS has repeatedly stated that it wants Muslims in Western countries to face increased persecution, because they believe this will catalyze a hijra (migration) to their lands. Official IS statements are unequivocal on this point – attacks like those in Paris are designed to incite violence against local Muslim communities in order to facilitate recruitment and force migration.
The third issue is message control. IS has invested tremendous resources into constructing a narrative that portrays itself as a sanctuary for Muslims. When millions of Muslim families run for their lives, IS loses this legitimacy battle on the world stage. Every horror story told by a refugee family shows these claims of being an idyllic caliphate to be utterly ludicrous.
To compensate for this damage to its image, IS has ramped up its propaganda machine, explicitly targeting the refugees. Its media wing has released 12 heavily produced propaganda films, each warning people to remain in Syria. "These media materials portray Western xenophobia, racism and indifference toward refugees" says Mr. Anzalone. These messages aim to tell potential refugees that non-Muslims hate them and that running away will result in abuse and exploitation at the hands of foreigners.
The fact that people across the Western world have reached out to help refugees has been incredibly damaging to this jihadist narrative.
Nothing has countered the message of hate more effectively than the countless church groups, community centres and humanitarian aid organizations that have welcomed Syrian refugees from all backgrounds with kindness, respect and goodwill. Our compassion and empathy have exposed the terrorist narrative as fraudulent.
Realizing these trends, IS is using the refugees as pawns in its global game. Believing the world will betray the migrants, it has bet heavily that a post-Paris xenophobic backlash will seal off the borders and leave the refugees stranded. Our next move is therefore critical. If we react as they hoped, we will have kept IS's tax base under its control, fed its recruitment campaign and reinforced its ideological message.
But we can both save the refugees and tip the balance of power on the battlefield in our favour. We can deplete their resources and disable their propaganda machine.
The strategic move in this case is to stand firm on providing assistance in the refugee crisis. By holding onto the moral high ground, we can also win this war.
Yeah ISIS is melting away now that we're taking refugees.
Quote from: Berkut on November 20, 2015, 06:47:01 AMThose 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.
yeah, lots of cultures support morally abhorrent things. and as those cultures civilize, they tend to reject those views.
Quote from: Tamasbut it is The Tool by which the extremists grab and above all, hold, power.
see, this i agree with
CC, that is a bit over-stated, but I agree with 100% of the basic message it is sending.
This is all related, and we need a consistent, thought out response to the Islamic Jihadist war in general. Refugees, attacks, all of it needs to be thought of in some consistent manner that encompasses an overall strategy.
Right now, my suspicion is that we are basically just knee-jerk reacting from one stimulus to the next. And the argument that there really isn't anything significant going on anyway feeds into that purely reactionary "policy".
Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2015, 11:13:32 AMThen we understand the causes of the violence better, and we seek solutions where they might actually exist, rather than where we prefer they exist.
that's what i mean. how do you seek a solution that avoids attacking all of islam if you think islam causes a fundamental problem?
Quote from: LaCroix on November 20, 2015, 01:43:30 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2015, 11:13:32 AMThen we understand the causes of the violence better, and we seek solutions where they might actually exist, rather than where we prefer they exist.
that's what i mean. how do you seek a solution that avoids attacking all of islam if you think islam causes a fundamental problem?
If you think Islam causes the fundamental problem, then, frankly you are playing directly into the ISIS strategy. The person I sat next to at a basketball game last night would argue very strenuously that all the good he does in society (and he does a significant amount) is due to his religious beliefs. As would all other people who are religious and who do good in the world. The kind of bigoted idiocy that contends a whole religion and everyone who practices it are in some way flawed is one of the significant issues we need to address head on.
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2015, 11:19:42 AM
The Canadian Dove Brigade says that the majoriy of Muslims living in the developed world are nowhere near extremist status.
they have some weird vision of the world:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fygreck.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00d8341c5dd653ef01b7c7edc4a0970b-800wi&hash=f1713312a3912441ae5f3f797b35a1a060682d8f)
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2015, 12:16:51 PM
It will happen in due time, viper. In due time. Be patient. 3rd and 4th generations of immigrants, in Canada atleast, won't be religious extremists.
with a Federal government promoting exclusion and choosing the rights of fanatics over the rights of the moderates, I have my doubt. I think we will instead see extreme ghettoisation of these communities, akin to the situation in Europe. And each subsequent terrorist attack will drive a wedge between our communities, because of the failures of such silly policies.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2015, 12:56:15 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2015, 12:54:39 PM
Ok case closed then!
Or at the very least you will attempt make a more persuasive argument about why we should fear the Muslims.
You grossly oversimplify my point as well as Berkut's. I think largely because this question is a tool/sideshow of bitter and asinine political struggles in Canada and the US. So I am just done.
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2015, 02:07:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2015, 12:56:15 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 20, 2015, 12:54:39 PM
Ok case closed then!
Or at the very least you will attempt make a more persuasive argument about why we should fear the Muslims.
You grossly oversimplify my point as well as Berkut's. I think largely because this question is a tool/sideshow of bitter and asinine political struggles in Canada and the US. So I am just done.
:huh:
You were the one that said the very fabric of French society was at risk. How is my repeating what you said an oversimplification of your point? Put another way, if you want to use hyperbole like that, then at least be prepared to back it up with some cogent argument and not just retreat when you get called on it. An alternative is to admit that your turn of phrase was just hyperbole.
And to clarify, Berkut did not make that argument.
Yeah, I actually don't think the fabric of any Western society is at risk at all.
In fact, I don't think that Islamic extremism represents any kind of real threat at all...in the long run*.
Reason and rationality will certainly win out - if I have "faith" in anything, I have faith in the eventual triumph of the truth and rational thought over superstition and fear.
However, the cost and pain to get there can be considerable, even monumental. And the human cost in death, oppression, and misery can be extreme.
Someone earlier brought up Communism. In a similar manner, I don't doubt the eventual triumph of the Western liberal ideal over Islamic medieval thinking - in the same fashion that Communism has clearly failed. But here is the thing - even though the failure of Communism is complete, undeniable, and thorough...there are still millions of people living in North Korea under horrific conditions. Thousands die, and millions live in relative misery, even though the conflict itself has long since been resolved.
Islamic extremism has not been defeated yet, and in fact is growing in power, strength, and reach. It's capacity to create truly astonishing levels of human misery before it is finally put in the dustbin of history is, I suspect, considerable.
* - the nasty caveat to this, of course, is technology. Modern technology allows relatively powerless actors the ability to create massive havoc - the dangers in a power like ISIS getting its hands on WMDs is considerable, and the very real and terrifying possibility that they can (and would) use them cannot be understated. it scares the shit out of me that countries like Pakistan have nukes, for example.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 20, 2015, 01:43:30 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2015, 11:13:32 AMThen we understand the causes of the violence better, and we seek solutions where they might actually exist, rather than where we prefer they exist.
that's what i mean. how do you seek a solution that avoids attacking all of islam if you think islam causes a fundamental problem?
I understand what you mean, but submit that the solution to be sought dos not involve either ignoring the Islamic elements of the violence, nor does it involve attacking all of Islam. You insist that these are our only choices, and I reject your insistence.
Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2015, 02:38:04 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 20, 2015, 01:43:30 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2015, 11:13:32 AMThen we understand the causes of the violence better, and we seek solutions where they might actually exist, rather than where we prefer they exist.
that's what i mean. how do you seek a solution that avoids attacking all of islam if you think islam causes a fundamental problem?
I understand what you mean, but submit that the solution to be sought dos not involve either ignoring the Islamic elements of the violence, nor does it involve attacking all of Islam. You insist that these are our only choices, and I reject your insistence.
What's more, the fact that the Western left presents the alternative in this, binary way, will be what leads to it ultimately losing the issue to the right - because more and more people will become convinced that if this is the only alternative, and the left's refusal to take any action is moronic, the right becomes the only sensible choice.
Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2015, 03:04:34 PM
What's more, the fact that the Western left presents the alternative in this, binary way, will be what leads to it ultimately losing the issue to the right - because more and more people will become convinced that if this is the only alternative, and the left's refusal to take any action is moronic, the right becomes the only sensible choice.
Right now in the USA, the alternative being proposed by the right is to violate our treaty obligations by putting a nationality qualifier on asylum applications and to keep repeating the two word phrase "Islamic terrorism" over and over on TV and radio talk shows.
My alternative, as a self-proclaimed member of the Western left, would be to let to French invoke the NATO treaty obligation, get some NATO troops in the field alongside the Kurdish-Arab force in the north, and clear Daesh out of the region. Then we can debate at our leisure about the textual and subtextual messages of the Qur'an.
I leave it you to decide which is more effective.
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2015, 02:06:17 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 20, 2015, 12:16:51 PM
It will happen in due time, viper. In due time. Be patient. 3rd and 4th generations of immigrants, in Canada atleast, won't be religious extremists.
with a Federal government promoting exclusion and choosing the rights of fanatics over the rights of the moderates, I have my doubt. I think we will instead see extreme ghettoisation of these communities, akin to the situation in Europe. And each subsequent terrorist attack will drive a wedge between our communities, because of the failures of such silly policies.
You and I have a very different look at how the Federal government works.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 20, 2015, 03:21:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2015, 03:04:34 PM
What's more, the fact that the Western left presents the alternative in this, binary way, will be what leads to it ultimately losing the issue to the right - because more and more people will become convinced that if this is the only alternative, and the left's refusal to take any action is moronic, the right becomes the only sensible choice.
Right now in the USA, the alternative being proposed by the right is to violate our treaty obligations by putting a nationality qualifier on asylum applications and to keep repeating the two word phrase "Islamic terrorism" over and over on TV and radio talk shows.
My alternative, as a self-proclaimed member of the Western left, would be to let to French invoke the NATO treaty obligation, get some NATO troops in the field alongside the Kurdish-Arab force in the north, and clear Daesh out of the region. Then we can debate at our leisure about the textual and subtextual messages of the Qur'an.
I leave it you to decide which is more effective.
I think there is more in common between our positions than you think. I am simply concerned that LaCroix represents the majority on the left (of which I consider myself a part as well, so would like it to succeed by following reason, not dogma).
I guess where we differ is that I believe we should ally with Kurds more closely (and the likes of Jordan) but distance ourselves from the Saudis and their ilk. I think the alliance with the House of Saud is one of the more shameful parts of the Western foreign policy right now.
Also, just to be clear, I never argued against welcoming the refugees. I think we should just be more vocal about our values.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 20, 2015, 11:03:38 AM
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.
Describing my and other's comments as knee-jerk and xenophobic tells me you are no longer interested in discussing this issue in a civil, adult manner.
How long did it take your knee to get to it's present position? I honestly don't get a lot of your guys position. You don't want any actual action taken against Muslims you just want them to know their religion is bad?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 20, 2015, 04:49:08 PM
How long did it take your knee to get to it's present position? I honestly don't get a lot of your guys position. You don't want any actual action taken against Muslims you just want them to know their religion is bad?
No. I want to support moderate Muslims more vocally, and I want our governments to stop coddling up to conservative Muslim countries. There is also an element of reaction to idiot left which believes that vocally opposing female genital mutilation is "islamophobia" and "racism".
Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2015, 04:54:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 20, 2015, 04:49:08 PM
How long did it take your knee to get to it's present position? I honestly don't get a lot of your guys position. You don't want any actual action taken against Muslims you just want them to know their religion is bad?
No. I want to support moderate Muslims more vocally, and I want our governments to stop coddling up to conservative Muslim countries. There is also an element of reaction to idiot left which believes that vocally opposing female genital mutilation is "islamophobia" and "racism".
This is fair to some extent. I don't know what else the West can do in regards to Saudi Arabia. The alternative seems much worse. Tamas posted an Image that showed the similarities to ISIS and the Saudi State, but it ignored the most salient points. ISIS runs slave markets, aggressively attacks the people around it, and sends terrorists to attack countries out of its reach. That makes the worse then the Saudis, and I fear that what ever the place of the House of Saud is going to be like ISIS.
As for the "moderate Muslims", that covers people like Erdogan, and he's not that popular 'round these parts.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 20, 2015, 05:06:09 PM
, and sends terrorists to attack countries out of its reach.
:wacko:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 20, 2015, 05:06:09 PM
As for the "moderate Muslims", that covers people like Erdogan, and he's not that popular 'round these parts.
erdogan is not a moderate.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 20, 2015, 05:06:09 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2015, 04:54:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 20, 2015, 04:49:08 PM
How long did it take your knee to get to it's present position? I honestly don't get a lot of your guys position. You don't want any actual action taken against Muslims you just want them to know their religion is bad?
No. I want to support moderate Muslims more vocally, and I want our governments to stop coddling up to conservative Muslim countries. There is also an element of reaction to idiot left which believes that vocally opposing female genital mutilation is "islamophobia" and "racism".
This is fair to some extent. I don't know what else the West can do in regards to Saudi Arabia. The alternative seems much worse. Tamas posted an Image that showed the similarities to ISIS and the Saudi State, but it ignored the most salient points. ISIS runs slave markets, aggressively attacks the people around it, and sends terrorists to attack countries out of its reach. That makes the worse then the Saudis, and I fear that what ever the place of the House of Saud is going to be like ISIS.
As for the "moderate Muslims", that covers people like Erdogan, and he's not that popular 'round these parts.
Not really, no. I'd rather not take a Putin-wannabe for a "moderate Muslim".
I'd rather speak of Raif Badawi, Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Asra Nomani. These are the kind of people we should be supporting.
And yes, it's a long haul. Like supporting the likes of Havel and Walesa was for half a century after WWII. And, interestingly enough, despite all their moral failings, these were Reagan, Thatcher and Kohl who won the moral highground in that fight, too - and not Sartre and others who coddled up to Stalin.
Damn, perhaps I am becoming a conservative in my dotage. :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2015, 03:04:34 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2015, 02:38:04 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 20, 2015, 01:43:30 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 20, 2015, 11:13:32 AMThen we understand the causes of the violence better, and we seek solutions where they might actually exist, rather than where we prefer they exist.
that's what i mean. how do you seek a solution that avoids attacking all of islam if you think islam causes a fundamental problem?
I understand what you mean, but submit that the solution to be sought dos not involve either ignoring the Islamic elements of the violence, nor does it involve attacking all of Islam. You insist that these are our only choices, and I reject your insistence.
What's more, the fact that the Western left presents the alternative in this, binary way, will be what leads to it ultimately losing the issue to the right - because more and more people will become convinced that if this is the only alternative, and the left's refusal to take any action is moronic, the right becomes the only sensible choice.
indeed: the left has totally mishandled this situation over the past 20 to 25 years (mileage may vary depending on country): By tarring everyone who wasn't in full agreement with their multi-culti po-co idea of the world as racist, nationalist, fascist or any combination of these they abandoned the issue -and ironically many of their core voters- to the right. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.
The man who wrote the opinion-piece (though it's more his personal experiences) is a case in point:
http://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/wie-sluipende-radicalisering-in-brussel-aankaartte-was-een-racistische-islamofoob/article-opinion-626813.html
The author is Luckas Vander Taelen, a flemish-brussels politician for Groen (the greens, very leftist) who was pilloried because a few years ago he said that there was increasing islamisation in Brussels.
Quote
"Who creeping radicalization in Brussels broached was a racist Islamophobic '
"Who formulated in recent years concerns about the creeping radicalization in Brussels, was immediately dismissed as racist Islamophobic. Now it appears that devised the attacks in Paris in Molenbeek. It would Philippe Moureaux adorn if he admitted that he had underestimated the phenomenon, "writes Luckas Vander Taelen
Five years ago I started writing about what I saw happening around me, in my city of Brussels. I was talking about Vorst and the multicultural neighborhood where to live. What I saw there grow a generation of youth that I "rebels without a cause" and called those "Belge" used as a swearword. And I was in a column wondering why so little dared "to stand up for the laws and values of the country in which we live." I told the story of a French-Moroccan artist who placed a pair of women's shoes with high heels on a prayer mat, to raise the role of women in Islam. The gallery which exhibited his work, received so many threats that the artwork was quickly removed.
Parts
Who creeping radicalization in Brussels broached was a racist Islamophobic
I was at that time the Flemish Parliament for Green and my articles were me within the party not appreciated. Ecolo (the francophone greens, even more leftwing -CI80) was even less amused and looked at me from then on as a racist. The then mayor of Molenbeek, Philippe Moureaux (PS) my ideology was equally abject and he pushed me without any nuance in the right corner.
Jew-hatred
That happened to just about everyone who has even one dared to speak out critical word about the multicultural society. However saw every journalist who withdrew without prejudice to the research, there was still something wrong. As RTBF journalist Frédéric Deborsu. He showed how the radical Islamic literature was released for sale in Molenbeek. But Mayor Philippe Moureaux Deborsu found an Islamophobic and said there was nothing going on in his church. "The Islamophobia is today, what anti-Semitism in the years was thirty", it sounded with the mayor.
That outrageous comparison is now made so many times, that it is for many young people in Brussels for true respect. The success of the anti-Semitic French comedian Dieudonné which several illegal appearances gave in Brussels to packed houses, is therefore not surprising. Just as the anti-Semitic slogans during demonstrations against Israel or the giant banner in my neighborhood "Gaza = Auschwitz". Three years later, four people died in an attack on the Brussels Jewish Museum.
Syriëstrijders recruit
But not only in Molenbeek, in other Brussels municipalities, raging and raging Islamism. Sam Gheyskens, a student at the RITS, made last year a revealing portrait of Younes Deleforterie. The appointment had to give this better displayed instead of the dangerous scatterbrain fifteen minutes of talk time. In the film we see how Deleforterie in Schaerbeek bookstore shows the book that put him on the path of radicalism. Furthermore the meantime he met there arrested man calling himself "le soumis" (the subjected) called and accused of being recruited near the North Station Syriëstrijders have.
And Anderlecht is not beyond reproach. There was recently the town hall with the firebombing. Frédéric Deborsu showed in his report how Anderlecht in a mosque in a particular way mysogene on women was being discussed. I had already heard that in my own community of Forest radical Imman smoothly in an Islamic cultural center could posit that AIDS is a punishment for our immoral behavior and that women stoning God's will. When the French Islam-critic Caroline Fourest came to give a lecture at the ULB was prevented by aggressive chants.
Underestimate
But all the signs on the wall did not lead to new insights and political will to tackle the growing religious radicalism. On the contrary, Bert Anciaux (SP.A) explained in the Senate even a proposal means that Islamophobia would make punishable. A few weeks ago Anciaux reproached me that my criticism of the fundamentalist extreme right strengthened. There Anciaux had a hard time with it, not with what his party Ahidar ready played was: who was on his Facebook page a picture of a proud with machine gun posing Syriëstrijder placed with the accompanying text: "Someone has to do it, unfortunately ... our prayers are with you! "
Who formulated in recent years concerns about the creeping radicalization in Brussels, has been haughty by right-thinking immediately denounced as racist Islamophobic. Now it appears that devised the attacks in Paris in Molenbeek. It would Philippe Moureaux adorn if he admitted that he underestimated the phenomenon. Otherwise, I hope that he is silent for the rest of his life.
More or less the same happened to Peter Calluy, a social worker, who notified the politians of the town where he worked (Boom) that radicalisation was going on. He was hounded out of his work and made suspect by tarring him as racist. A few years later the people he warned about (Fouad Belcacem et al) formed Sharia4Belgium. Some if which are now in Syria -ideally dead-, others were recruiting and are now in prison, or not...
Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2015, 05:18:37 PM
Not really, no. I'd rather not take a Putin-wannabe for a "moderate Muslim".
I'd rather speak of Raif Badawi, Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Asra Nomani. These are the kind of people we should be supporting.
Wanting to be Putin does not have relation on him being a moderate Muslim, and picking a few activists as your example of "moderate Muslims" is unhelpful. We have to deal with the leaders that exist now. Is Erdogan an Islamist? Well, no. His political enemies say that about him, but doesn't make that so. It's a bit like all those people who claim Obama is a communist. Let's look at the other middle Eastern countries. Who else do we call "Moderate"? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Iraq? Syria? The newest state, ISIS? Our list grows thin. Pretty much every Muslim majority country you are going to find something you don't like. Sometimes you gotta take what you can get.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 20, 2015, 05:18:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 20, 2015, 05:06:09 PM
As for the "moderate Muslims", that covers people like Erdogan, and he's not that popular 'round these parts.
erdogan is not a moderate.
He's more moderate than the Saudis or Iran or Hezbollah or ISIS.
QuoteFollowing last week's deadly Paris attacks and numerous other violent incidents perpetrated by the terror group ISIS, many governments and populations worldwide are wondering how we can eliminate this threat. Here are some strategies to defeat the Islamic State:
Publish a long-form article detailing the challenges involved in fighting an enemy that does not value human life
Refuse to appear terrorized by this constant, worldwide threat of violence and death
Organize a coup, leaving the U.S. free to prop up the ISIS leader of their choice
Spend $1.7 trillion
Attempt to compromise with our adversary by meeting them halfway on their demand to spill the blood of all apostates
Stop flow of new ISIS recruits from West by encouraging disaffected youth to join violent extremist groups back home
Maybe draw them out to sea?
Simply coordinate with our allies on a comprehensive strategy that targets ISIS militants while limiting civilian casualties, while simultaneously addressing the longstanding socioeconomic struggles that drive young Arab men to embrace radicalism, reaching out to liberal and moderate factions within Syria, and addressing our own prejudices that galvanize support for terror around the Islamic world
Train and arm somebody else's kids to go over there and shoot them
http://www.theonion.com/graphic/strategies-defeat-isis-51877
Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2015, 05:21:49 PM
And yes, it's a long haul. Like supporting the likes of Havel and Walesa was for half a century after WWII. And, interestingly enough, despite all their moral failings, these were Reagan, Thatcher and Kohl who won the moral highground in that fight, too - and not Sartre and others who coddled up to Stalin.
Damn, perhaps I am becoming a conservative in my dotage. :hmm:
I had to look up your moderate Muslims. One isn't. Another lives in the US. The third is a bit more promising as a Dissident living in Saudi Arabia. Still, not a kiss to build a dream on. If you have free elections in most Muslim countries the moderate candidates are going to look like ... Erdogan. So really your choices are shaky dictators that can hold the people down for limited amount of time, such as in Egypt, actual Islamic fundamentalists who are either elected or seize power, or religious conservatives like Erdogan.
Oh, it seems as if the Russians are up to something. http://www.vox.com/2015/11/20/9769878/russia-lebanon-airspace
Quote
Reports: Russia demands Lebanon shut down airspace for Russian military drills
- Russia is demanding that Lebanon suspend flights in and out of Beirut's international airport for three days, reports in both Lebanon's state media (http://nna-leb.gov.lb/en/show-news/53074/Russian-naval-training-paralyzes-Lebanon-39-airspace-in-upcoming-three-days) and the Daily Star (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2015/Nov-20/323928-lebanon-airspace-to-close-for-3-days-due-to-russian-military-drills-starting-midnight-airport.ashx) newspaper say — effectively shutting down all commercial flights in and out of the country from Saturday to Monday.
- Russia will run a naval exercise in the Mediterranean that it claims will endanger commercial aircraft. The location of these exercises, Lebanon's official National News Agency (http://nna-leb.gov.lb/en/show-news/53074/Russian-naval-training-paralyzes-Lebanon-39-airspace-in-upcoming-three-days) says, "will bring air traffic to and from Beirut's airport to a complete halt."
- According to journalist Nour Samaha (https://twitter.com/Nour_Samaha/status/667744393441361920), Lebanon's transport minister has rejected Russia's request. Middle East Airlines, Lebanon's national carrier, says flights are going as normal (per BuzzFeed (https://twitter.com/borzou/status/667749576900788228)'s Borzou Daragahi). It is unclear how Russia will respond if these reports are correct.
Russia is trying to force Lebanon to close its airspace on Lebanese Independence Day
Russia is reportedly telling Lebanon to shut down air travel for its only commercial airport while it runs what it says are military drills — a very unusual demand for one country to make of another, especially with only hours of notice.
There aren't a lot of details about the Russian military exercise, but it seems likely that it has something to do with Russia's bombing campaign in Syria. Whether Russia will continue with the exercise if Lebanon definitively denies the request to shut down its airspace remains to be seen.
If Russia eventually does strong-arm Lebanon into shutting down air travel for a few days, it probably won't endear many Lebanese to Moscow. Especially since the second day of the Russian request — November 22 — is Lebanese Independence Day. The irony isn't lost on anyone.
Walid Joumblatt, a well-known political figure in Lebanon, shared some thoughts about this development on Twitter: Some crap on Twitter I'm not reposting. Go look for yourselves you work shy gits.
Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2015, 05:18:37 PM
I'd rather speak of Raif Badawi, Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Asra Nomani. These are the kind of people we should be supporting.
Not sure who those other two are, but Ayaan Hirsi Ali seems to be intensely hated by most European leftists, at least from what I've seen.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on November 20, 2015, 08:16:41 PM
Not sure who those other two are, but Ayaan Hirsi Ali seems to be intensely hated by most European leftists, at least from what I've seen.
Is that the Somali (Sudanese?) chick who says Islam sucks?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 20, 2015, 08:25:59 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on November 20, 2015, 08:16:41 PM
Not sure who those other two are, but Ayaan Hirsi Ali seems to be intensely hated by most European leftists, at least from what I've seen.
Is that the Somali (Sudanese?) chick who says Islam sucks?
Yep. She is also a victim of female genital mutilation.
Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2015, 04:18:10 PMI think there is more in common between our positions than you think. I am simply concerned that LaCroix represents the majority on the left (of which I consider myself a part as well, so would like it to succeed by following reason, not dogma).
:D did you think people were saying "there's nothing wrong with islam as a religion, so let's ignore terrorist groups and let them be"?
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on November 20, 2015, 08:34:56 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 20, 2015, 08:25:59 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on November 20, 2015, 08:16:41 PM
Not sure who those other two are, but Ayaan Hirsi Ali seems to be intensely hated by most European leftists, at least from what I've seen.
Is that the Somali (Sudanese?) chick who says Islam sucks?
Yep. She is also a victim of female genital mutilation.
It would seem that an Atheist is not the best candidate for "moderate Muslim". That's a bit like calling Yi, "a moderate Marxist".
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2015, 12:44:40 AM
It would seem that an Atheist is not the best candidate for "moderate Muslim".
:huh: Seems like the best kind of a moderate Muslim.
Yes, Yes, you are eliminationist in mood towards them, I get it.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 20, 2015, 09:22:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2015, 04:18:10 PMI think there is more in common between our positions than you think. I am simply concerned that LaCroix represents the majority on the left (of which I consider myself a part as well, so would like it to succeed by following reason, not dogma).
:D did you think people were saying "there's nothing wrong with islam as a religion, so let's ignore terrorist groups and let them be"?
No, but as I said numerous times, even if there wasn't a single islamist terrorist, there would be a lot that is wrong with islam, as practiced by the majority of its followers around the globe.
You know, I find it interesting that Marty, Tamas, Solymr and DG all carry a little bit of old regime with them. A little bit of the old hatreds, and a little bit of the old paranoia. The Red Banner still lives so long as it lives in the hearts of the workers.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2015, 01:43:12 AM
You know, I find it interesting that Marty, Tamas, Solymr and DG all carry a little bit of old regime with them. A little bit of the old hatreds, and a little bit of the old paranoia. The Red Banner still lives so long as it lives in the hearts of the workers.
It has nothing to do with regime. When you're raised without the notion of some invisible yet all-powerful being, and don't fall full monty for some religion during your formative young adulthood years, it's really just difficult to fathom how people can seriously believe in this stuff, especially believe in this stuff enough to kill others who believe differently. I personally was never told there was no God, in school or anywhere else, I just wasn't told there was one. Well, in the last couple of years at school I was repeatedly told by teachers that there was God, and even had a class that was based on the assumption that there was God, but luckily by then I was old enough to see that for what it was.
You're a pretty bright guy, I'm sure that like with many bright people who are also religious, you must be struggling with some cognitive dissonance. Painting people who were brought up without the concept of God as brainwashed may suppress that conflict for a while, but it won't resolve it. There is only one way to resolve it, and you know what it is. Hopefully at some point you're focus your energies inward towards resolving that conflict instead of latching on onto every absurd pro-religion argument you come across.
I think Raz is simply a type of a SJW, only his shtick is religion, especially Islam. He is just lashing out at the world and everyone around him because he is a sad depressed individual with no prospects of successful, happy life - but if he was just a school-shooter-wannabe weirdo brooding in some dark corner of his basement, and posting manifestos about "snobs", he wouldn't be able to hide his resentment under the guise of fighting for the today's cause celebre.
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2015, 02:13:12 AM
There is only one way to resolve it, and you know what it is.
A sexy party?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 20, 2015, 05:47:27 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 20, 2015, 05:18:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 20, 2015, 05:06:09 PM
As for the "moderate Muslims", that covers people like Erdogan, and he's not that popular 'round these parts.
erdogan is not a moderate.
He's more moderate than the Saudis or Iran or Hezbollah or ISIS.
So was Mussolini compared to Hitler.
Rather than compare Islam to Communism I compare it to the Left.
So we have the muslim equivalents of Stalin, the Khmer Rouges or the Red Brigades/Baader-Meinhof types.
We also have underperforming muslim states, such as Morocco or Bangladesh, similar to poor countries of any religious/ideological slant.
Then there are the apologists; they are not going to bomb or shoot anyone, but they make excuses for groups like ISIS and believe that the MSM is not being fair to them. Back in Cold War days I knew many on the British left who would favour the Soviet Union over the USA, maybe a third of the left, it is incredible what people can will themselves to believe.
Finally we have the majority of muslims, pretty similar really to social democrats; they want the world to be a more Islamic place but would abhor terrorist methods.
OK, it is just an analogy, but it clears away the race and religious angles and helps me to see things with greater clarity. To blame your typical muslim for ISIS and Islamist terrorism would be like blaming Minsky for Stalin or associating syt or zanza with Nazism. On the other hand, the problems within the Islamic world greatly exceed the "tiny minority" that some talk about, there is a sickness reminiscent of the sickness in Europe back in the first half of the 20th century.
I don't blame your typical Muslim for ISIS. I do, however, think it's fair to blame them for raising their children in a belief system that has a non-trivial chance of leading them to terrorism.
I'd add that, like the left, it seems to me that Islam is an ideology where there is always a tendency towards extremism. The "more muslim than thou" sort of thing; "you associate with people who drink alcohol", "your wife dresses immodestly" etc etc therefore you are not a real muslim. The moderates are on the defensive and can easily be outflanked by extremists in the war of ideas.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 21, 2015, 04:09:43 AM
Finally we have the majority of muslims, pretty similar really to social democrats; they want the world to be a more Islamic place but would abhor terrorist methods.
Are you talking about Western Muslims, or Muslims globally?
Globally, though I would point out that 60%..........for example........ is a majority.
Senegal, Chad and Cameroon; for example, have all banned the burka in their fight against Islamist terror......all three are muslim majority states.
Correction : Cameroon is mainly Christian with maybe 20% Muslims. I thought that claim was dodgy, glad I checked, bloody Guardian journalists :mad:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 21, 2015, 04:28:20 AM
Globally, though I would point out that 60%..........for example........ is a majority.
Senegal, Chad and Cameroon; for example, have all banned the burka in their fight against Islamist terror......all three are muslim majority states.
Again, I will repeat perhaps for the last time - this is not just about Islamic terror. It is about systemic oppression of women, about jail or death penalty for gays, flogging, jail or death penalty for "blasphemers" and apostates.
Homosexuality is punishable by jail in Senegal. 45% of women in Chad and 28% in Senegal undergo genital mutilation. Cameroon is not a Muslim country - 40% of people are Catholic and 30% Protestant...
I like you, RH, but comparing that to social democrats is not just intellectually dishonest, it's one of the most disgusting cases of moral equivalency I have ever seen.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 21, 2015, 04:34:34 AM
Correction : Cameroon is mainly Christian with maybe 20% Muslims. I thought that claim was dodgy, glad I checked, bloody Guardian journalists :mad:
Ok, I am no longer mad at you then - it's just Guardian who needs to burn. :P
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 21, 2015, 04:34:34 AM
Correction : Cameroon is mainly Christian with maybe 20% Muslims. I thought that claim was dodgy, glad I checked, bloody Guardian journalists :mad:
Plus 5 % of animists, and the degree of syncretism of animism with Christianity or even Islam, is not even mentioned. Well done indeed, Guardian. :)
Similar to social democrats in that they do not intend to use or support terror tactics to promote their agenda.
I'd also add that oppression of women, FGM and anti-gay legislation are not exclusive to muslim countries.
The basis of our discussion on this thread is the attack on Paris and the jihadists who want to make similar attacks elsewhere. If we broaden it to include countries that have unsatisfactory treatment of women and gays then it is maybe 80% of the world, with even the "enlightened" 20% still needing progress on those fronts.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 21, 2015, 09:01:02 AM
Similar to social democrats in that they do not intend to use or support terror tactics to promote their agenda.
But the actual agenda probably matters, doesn't it? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 21, 2015, 09:01:02 AM
The basis of our discussion on this thread is the attack on Paris and the jihadists who want to make similar attacks elsewhere. If we broaden it to include countries that have unsatisfactory treatment of women and gays then it is maybe 80% of the world, with even the "enlightened" 20% still needing progress on those fronts.
Ok, sorry I withdraw my withdrawal of opposition to your views. This is some of the shittiest moral equivalency I have ever seen. Not having full recognition of gay marriage is not the same as beheading gay people. I feel silly I even have to point this out...
Incidentally, there are 10 countries in the world that penalise homosexuality with death penalty. Every single of them is Muslim.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2015, 04:13:32 AM
I don't blame your typical Muslim for ISIS. I do, however, think it's fair to blame them for raising their children in a belief system that has a non-trivial chance of leading them to terrorism.
That's a pretty stupid chain of logic.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 21, 2015, 04:21:05 AM
I'd add that, like the left, it seems to me that Islam is an ideology where there is always a tendency towards extremism. The "more muslim than thou" sort of thing; "you associate with people who drink alcohol", "your wife dresses immodestly" etc etc therefore you are not a real muslim. The moderates are on the defensive and can easily be outflanked by extremists in the war of ideas.
I'm not sure if it's a tendency towards extremism. It's more of an interaction with material and political grievances over many years. There have been plenty of secular extremists in the Middle East.
Where I believe Islam could be "construed" as a problem, if you have to call it that, in relation to the issue of radicalisation is that it provides a global community of believers to plug into. Now, the key here is that a large proportion of this community of believers live in polities that have been marred in the last seven decades by cultures of extreme political violence (perpetrated as much by, if not more so, by secular regimes) and significant social alienation and economic marginalisation.
SO whereas the angry young American man or Norwegian can shoot up a local college or gathering of Young Socialists, the angry young Muslim can plug into a worldwide network of seasoned radical militants. They can provide motivation, coordination, training, equipment - and a destination to go fight.
There has also been a huge collapse in the legitimacy of traditional Islamic institutions because of their association with the secular dictatorships of the past decades, which is one of the reasons the whole "counter-narrative" argument falls flat in practice. If you want to solve the ISIS problem, you can't do it with jurisprudence. You need to solve the deeper problem of extreme Sunni Arab marginalisation in Syria and Iraq.
Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2015, 02:38:05 AM
I think Raz is simply a type of a SJW, only his shtick is religion, especially Islam. He is just lashing out at the world and everyone around him because he is a sad depressed individual with no prospects of successful, happy life - but if he was just a school-shooter-wannabe weirdo brooding in some dark corner of his basement, and posting manifestos about "snobs", he wouldn't be able to hide his resentment under the guise of fighting for the today's cause celebre.
Did you work at theater at one time, because there is a lot of projection going on.
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2015, 02:13:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2015, 01:43:12 AM
You know, I find it interesting that Marty, Tamas, Solymr and DG all carry a little bit of old regime with them. A little bit of the old hatreds, and a little bit of the old paranoia. The Red Banner still lives so long as it lives in the hearts of the workers.
It has nothing to do with regime. When you're raised without the notion of some invisible yet all-powerful being, and don't fall full monty for some religion during your formative young adulthood years, it's really just difficult to fathom how people can seriously believe in this stuff, especially believe in this stuff enough to kill others who believe differently. I personally was never told there was no God, in school or anywhere else, I just wasn't told there was one. Well, in the last couple of years at school I was repeatedly told by teachers that there was God, and even had a class that was based on the assumption that there was God, but luckily by then I was old enough to see that for what it was.
You're a pretty bright guy, I'm sure that like with many bright people who are also religious, you must be struggling with some cognitive dissonance. Painting people who were brought up without the concept of God as brainwashed may suppress that conflict for a while, but it won't resolve it. There is only one way to resolve it, and you know what it is. Hopefully at some point you're focus your energies inward towards resolving that conflict instead of latching on onto every absurd pro-religion argument you come across.
Why were you lucky to not be taught this? Are you so deep in your position that you can't see any benefit of thinking otherwise? It's funny because what say about me I've seen from your eastern European crowd time and time again. Those clever American leaders, scientists and politicians who claim to have a religious spark
must be secretly atheist, because what right thinking person wouldn't be? Personally I don't see any much benefit in the materialist worldview. It is nihilist and eventually anti-humanist. Your life and everything you ever do is pointless. There is nothing objectively positive, all things are subjective. That we don't mutilate a baby girls genitals has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong, it is just happenstance that we are born to a culture that does not. We see it as wrong, if we were born in a culture that thought it was right for whatever reason then it would be right. Right and wrong are simply the consensus view point. Your life is worthless. You are simply an ephemeral chemical reaction occupying a tiny speck of the universe. There is no real difference between you and a gnat. All our culture, science and accomplishments are the work of gnats trying to impress other gnats. You will die and be totally obliterated. In 20 years old a few people will be able to even remember you. In 100 no one will. In a million human kind will likely be extinct so not even any genes you pass on will exist. Hell, you may not even have a mind. Or mental states. They may be just as fictional as God.
Really, the one can't have a meaningful life, a morality system without religion? :yeahright:
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2015, 11:28:35 AM
Really, the one can't have a meaningful life, a morality system without religion? :yeahright:
Define "meaningful".
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2015, 11:29:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2015, 11:28:35 AM
Really, the one can't have a meaningful life, a morality system without religion? :yeahright:
Define "meaningful".
You can choose to give your live meaning.
Quote from: mongers on November 21, 2015, 12:11:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2015, 11:29:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2015, 11:28:35 AM
Really, the one can't have a meaningful life, a morality system without religion? :yeahright:
Define "meaningful".
You can choose to give your live meaning.
That's not really a definition, it's still subjective, and it is questionable if you even can do this. From a materialist stand point the concept of "choose" may be itself meaningless. You don't really "want" to do thing things you "love" because "want" and "love" may not have any meaning. These words may simply be inaccurate folk descriptions of chemical reactions. We lack the words to properly describe what is happening just as the Aztecs lacked the vocabulary to describe quantum physics. So instead of saying something like "I give my life meaning through charity" it is perhaps more accurately understood as, "I continually engage in "w" activity because it triggers x, y, and z brain activities." This might strike you as absurd, but seems like the logical end point of materialism.
:D
Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2015, 09:27:31 AM
Incidentally, there are 10 countries in the world that penalise homosexuality with death penalty. Every single of them is Muslim.
:yes: This is what we should focus on when discussing the merits of Islam as a religion, not proclivity towards terrorism. For whatever reason, Muslim countries seem far more prone towards using religion as a basis for their laws. So even if the Bible and Koran contain equal amounts of fucked up shit, the fact that Muslims codify it in legal code while Christians may lip service to it or effectively renounce it is a very significant and relevant difference.
Quote from: Martinus on November 21, 2015, 09:27:31 AM
Incidentally, there are 10 countries in the world that penalise homosexuality with death penalty. Every single of them is Muslim.
Their parents were mean to them.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2015, 11:06:43 AM
Why were you lucky to not be taught this? Are you so deep in your position that you can't see any benefit of thinking otherwise?
I can see the benefits of thinking in both ways, precisely because I wasn't brainwashed at the age when I couldn't think for myself. I generally don't subscribe to the notion that fooling oneself is a long-term winning strategy. Try to be objective about everything, your mind will get used to it, and you'll be making decisions based on the best information.
QuoteIt's funny because what say about me I've seen from your eastern European crowd time and time again. Those clever American leaders, scientists and politicians who claim to have a religious spark must be secretly atheist, because what right thinking person wouldn't be?
They are disproportionally atheist, though. Why not 100% of them? I don't know. How in the world could Ben Carson know so much about brain surgery and think so little about anything else in his life?
Quote
Personally I don't see any much benefit in the materialist worldview. It is nihilist and eventually anti-humanist. Your life and everything you ever do is pointless. There is nothing objectively positive, all things are subjective. That we don't mutilate a baby girls genitals has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong, it is just happenstance that we are born to a culture that does not. We see it as wrong, if we were born in a culture that thought it was right for whatever reason then it would be right. Right and wrong are simply the consensus view point. Your life is worthless. You are simply an ephemeral chemical reaction occupying a tiny speck of the universe. There is no real difference between you and a gnat. All our culture, science and accomplishments are the work of gnats trying to impress other gnats. You will die and be totally obliterated. In 20 years old a few people will be able to even remember you. In 100 no one will. In a million human kind will likely be extinct so not even any genes you pass on will exist. Hell, you may not even have a mind. Or mental states. They may be just as fictional as God.
Yeah, most of this is true. I will quibble about morality, I'm not sure about how different what you described for atheist is for religious people. Different religions teach you sometimes radically different absolute truths, so how are you any better in that regard when it comes to the luck of place of birth?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2015, 12:34:17 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 21, 2015, 12:11:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2015, 11:29:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2015, 11:28:35 AM
Really, the one can't have a meaningful life, a morality system without religion? :yeahright:
Define "meaningful".
You can choose to give your life meaning.
That's not really a definition, it's still subjective, and it is questionable if you even can do this. From a materialist stand point the concept of "choose" may be itself meaningless. You don't really "want" to do thing things you "love" because "want" and "love" may not have any meaning. These words may simply be inaccurate folk descriptions of chemical reactions. We lack the words to properly describe what is happening just as the Aztecs lacked the vocabulary to describe quantum physics. So instead of saying something like "I give my life meaning through charity" it is perhaps more accurately understood as, "I continually engage in "w" activity because it triggers x, y, and z brain activities." This might strike you as absurd, but seems like the logical end point of materialism.
It wasn't meant as a definition.
My point was yourself can choose to find meaning in life without necessarily needing to refer to any external definition, be it a god or any other elaborately worked out theory about how humans operate or should behave.
My advice people, spend more time in the outside world, there less opportunity to fixate on what X or Y might be causing Z or me to do, think or feel. Often the environment you find yourself in causes you to do things or experience things which aren't solely or even largely the product of an interior life.
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2015, 01:52:42 PM:yes: This is what we should focus on when discussing the merits of Islam as a religion, not proclivity towards terrorism. For whatever reason, Muslim countries seem far more prone towards using religion as a basis for their laws. So even if the Bible and Koran contain equal amounts of fucked up shit, the fact that Muslims codify it in legal code while Christians may lip service to it or effectively renounce it is a very significant and relevant difference.
QuoteFor whatever reason
what if the reason is culture and not religion? some backward cultures really hate gays and have anti-gay laws:
(https://76crimes.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/world-map-640p-2-2015-of-78-countries.jpg?w=640)
and when some of these backward cultures are controlled by certain religious extremists, you get death penalty for gays:
Mauritania, Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Yemen (countries where death penalty is actually implemented across the nation rather than simply existing on the books)
seems to be less about religion and more about backwater countries. there are tons of backwater ideas littered throughout every religion that more civilized cultures have rejected. less civilized cultures have yet to reject those backwater ideas. what a surprise
Iran is pretty advanced compared to the rest of those countries and it is actually ruled by religious figures.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 21, 2015, 03:10:45 PM
Iran is pretty advanced compared to the rest of those countries and it is actually ruled by religious figures.
it's ruled by religious extremists, isn't it?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2015, 04:13:32 AM
I don't blame your typical Muslim for ISIS. I do, however, think it's fair to blame them for raising their children in a belief system that has a non-trivial chance of leading them to terrorism.
Okay, so if I understand your position correctly you hold that:
1) There's something about Islam as a religion that make it especially prone to violence, compared to other religions or ideologies people may subscribe to.
2) It is fair to blame average Muslims for raising their children in a belief system that has a non-trivial chance of leading them to terrorism.
What do we do with that?
If we accept that Islam is inherently more prone to violence, where do we go from there? Are there actions and policies that we should take and implement as a result of accepting that as a fact? What do we do differently once we've agreed that Muslims are inherently more violent due to their faith?
One thing you've said is that it's fair to blame Muslims for raising their children in a belief system that has a non-trivial chance of leading them to terrorism. What does blaming them mean? Are we talking about thinking or saying "you jerks, look how your child has grown up to be a terrorist - you would have raised him as a 7th Day Adventist or an Atheist or neo-Pagan if you'd been responsible parents" and leaving it at that? Do we look askance at people raising their children as Muslims the same way we look at people who have the wrong (in our view) opinion on other parenting issues? Or do we attach some sort of legal sanction to that blame which we can fairly assign?
Basically, are there any further conclusions we can get to from agreeing that Muslims are inherently violent and they are to blame for raising their children as Muslims if those children become terrorists one day? Or do we just leave it at "yeah, we agree on those facts, but we are drawing no conclusions from them"?
If grumbler or Berkut read this I'm curious about their take on that too. I've read your guys positions as being that there is some sort of inherent proneness to violence in Islam that is absent from other religions and ideologies (or at least most of them). Once we agree on that, where do we go from there? Are there any new conclusions we can draw or actions we ought to take as a result of determining that Muslims are more prone to violence than others?
Quote from: Jacob on November 21, 2015, 04:02:40 PM
What do we do with that?
I don't know. No response that I can think of is a pleasant one. But that isn't a reason to pretend something isn't true.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 21, 2015, 02:46:44 PM
what if the reason is culture and not religion? some backward cultures really hate gays and have anti-gay laws:
What if the reason those backwaters have backward cultures is religion?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2015, 07:11:50 PMWhat if the reason those backwaters have backward cultures is religion?
because culture shapes religion, not the other way around.
hundreds of years ago, western countries were backwater nations from today's perspective. those backwater countries were christian, and they had backward cultures that promoted abhorrent things. as those christian backwater countries began civilizing, the culture changed from backward to progressive(!) and so the totally abhorrent things stopped.* islam differs from christianity because, by and large, islamic nations suffered under imperialism for a long time, which has kept the islamic nations pretty backwater.
for the argument "or they got rid of christianity," first - christianity is very prevalent in europe despite what languish posters say. second, look at other western christian nations, like the US.
...and here we arrive at the crux of the matter. It is all the fault of the West, of course.
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2015, 02:06:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2015, 11:06:43 AM
Why were you lucky to not be taught this? Are you so deep in your position that you can't see any benefit of thinking otherwise?
I can see the benefits of thinking in both ways, precisely because I wasn't brainwashed at the age when I couldn't think for myself. I generally don't subscribe to the notion that fooling oneself is a long-term winning strategy. Try to be objective about everything, your mind will get used to it, and you'll be making decisions based on the best information.
QuoteIt's funny because what say about me I've seen from your eastern European crowd time and time again. Those clever American leaders, scientists and politicians who claim to have a religious spark must be secretly atheist, because what right thinking person wouldn't be?
They are disproportionally atheist, though. Why not 100% of them? I don't know. How in the world could Ben Carson know so much about brain surgery and think so little about anything else in his life?
Quote
Personally I don't see any much benefit in the materialist worldview. It is nihilist and eventually anti-humanist. Your life and everything you ever do is pointless. There is nothing objectively positive, all things are subjective. That we don't mutilate a baby girls genitals has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong, it is just happenstance that we are born to a culture that does not. We see it as wrong, if we were born in a culture that thought it was right for whatever reason then it would be right. Right and wrong are simply the consensus view point. Your life is worthless. You are simply an ephemeral chemical reaction occupying a tiny speck of the universe. There is no real difference between you and a gnat. All our culture, science and accomplishments are the work of gnats trying to impress other gnats. You will die and be totally obliterated. In 20 years old a few people will be able to even remember you. In 100 no one will. In a million human kind will likely be extinct so not even any genes you pass on will exist. Hell, you may not even have a mind. Or mental states. They may be just as fictional as God.
Yeah, most of this is true. I will quibble about morality, I'm not sure about how different what you described for atheist is for religious people. Different religions teach you sometimes radically different absolute truths, so how are you any better in that regard when it comes to the luck of place of birth?
Okay, just for you, I'm going to reveal the big secret. I don't believe in God. Well not completely. I want to, but I find it extremely difficult. When I argue about religion I'm arguing with myself just as much as any of you. The idea that we won't be obliterated, that there are objective rules even if they are strict and strange, the idea our choices have meaning, that we are part of something, I
want to believe this. But I am beset by doubt. I doubt everything. I doubt myself, I doubt God, I doubt that I'm even the same person in the morning as I was in the evening. There are times I think to myself if there is a God, would I really want to meet it? Doing anything for eternity is also terrifying. And there in lies the source of madness. The doubt and fear that has crushed me for 20 years. You talk to me of Cognitive Dissonance, but I know first hand the cognitive dissonance of those who reject religion. They must have it or they would be all crazy. You can't just wake every morning and look at the waiting void, that at any time you go from here to irreversibly destroyed. You have to drive it to the back of your mind, something I can't do. The superiority of a philosophy that requires you don't examine it too carefully without becoming depressed seems pretty flawed.
I hate the doubt, but I also dislike Atheism. The smug elitism, the pretentiousness, when some arrogant clod lectures me on Darwinism and gets it fundamentally wrong. When some idiot says that smart religious people have to be lying because atheist is what smart people are. I dislike the illiberalism of it, I dislike when some pompous atheist fail to understand not only where religious ideas come from but the history of their own ideas. When an Atheist values the work of Charles Darwin not for it's scientific value but as a fetish to drive away religion. When they cherry pick religious scripture, quote antiquated sociological theories, or can't internalize basic facts like when the fucking Iron age is.
So yeah, I have a aversion to Atheism. When some smug asshole comes to me talking about "Mind viruses" or other such nonsense, I want to shove their face into the Abyss and say, "Look! Look at the emptiness of your future! Look at the futility! Look how meaningless all your cleverness is! I want you to see how the smartest dead man on earth is equal to a dead cockroach. I want you to keep it in the front of your mind for weeks, months with no reprieve. I want you to understand what you say, I want it always be there ready to come unbidden into your mind, I want it to drag on you for the rest of your life and no amount of drugs or distraction or cognitive dissonance will make it go away.".
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2015, 08:03:59 PM
...and here we arrive at the crux of the matter. It is all the fault of the West, of course.
:wacko:
do you really think imperialism had little consequence on how the world exists today? this is a fact, and i figured most people here knew this...
Quote from: LaCroix on November 21, 2015, 08:10:23 PM
:wacko:
do you really think imperialism had little consequence on how the world exists today? this is a fact, and i figured most people here knew this...
Many of these places had brutal or little to no governments before imperialism, and many of the horrible laws being complained about were commonplace back then. Imperialism may not have helped them, but it is ridiculous to say that without imperialism they would be enlightened and peaceful places.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2015, 08:06:37 PM
Okay, just for you, I'm going to reveal the big secret. I don't believe in God. Well not completely. I want to, but I find it extremely difficult. When I argue about religion I'm arguing with myself just as much as any of you. The idea that we won't be obliterated, that there are objective rules even if they are strict and strange, the idea our choices have meaning, that we are part of something, I want to believe this. But I am beset by doubt. I doubt everything. I doubt myself, I doubt God, I doubt that I'm even the same person in the morning as I was in the evening. There are times I think to myself if there is a God, would I really want to meet it? Doing anything for eternity is also terrifying. And there in lies the source of madness. The doubt and fear that has crushed me for 20 years. You talk to me of Cognitive Dissonance, but I know first hand the cognitive dissonance of those who reject religion. They must have it or they would be all crazy. You can't just wake every morning and look at the waiting void, that at any time you go from here to irreversibly destroyed. You have to drive it to the back of your mind, something I can't do. The superiority of a philosophy that requires you don't examine it too carefully without becoming depressed seems pretty flawed.
I hate the doubt, but I also dislike Atheism. The smug elitism, the pretentiousness, when some arrogant clod lectures me on Darwinism and gets it fundamentally wrong. When some idiot says that smart religious people have to be lying because atheist is what smart people are. I dislike the illiberalism of it, I dislike when some pompous atheist fail to understand not only where religious ideas come from but the history of their own ideas. When an Atheist values the work of Charles Darwin not for it's scientific value but as a fetish to drive away religion. When they cherry pick religious scripture, quote antiquated sociological theories, or can't internalize basic facts like when the fucking Iron age is.
So yeah, I have a aversion to Atheism. When some smug asshole comes to me talking about "Mind viruses" or other such nonsense, I want to shove their face into the Abyss and say, "Look! Look at the emptiness of your future! Look at the futility! Look how meaningless all your cleverness is! I want you to see how the smartest dead man on earth is equal to a dead cockroach. I want you to keep it in the front of your mind for weeks, months with no reprieve. I want you to understand what you say, I want it always be there ready to come unbidden into your mind, I want it to drag on you for the rest of your life and no amount of drugs or distraction or cognitive dissonance will make it go away.".
:hmm: Okay, I may have been wrong, maybe you in particular do not need to look any more inward.
Quote from: frunk on November 21, 2015, 08:35:37 PMMany of these places had brutal or little to no governments before imperialism, and many of the horrible laws being complained about were commonplace back then. Imperialism may not have helped them, but it is ridiculous to say that without imperialism they would be enlightened and peaceful places.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-LT5yTYqsLqc%2FUfID1I6XMyI%2FAAAAAAAAAg8%2FWGkpQsFD9h8%2Fs1600%2FChristendom.png&hash=fe97ae89d6cf3c54f3a4cde0c34e3d7941692df9)
you're going to have to be more specific on which of these "places had brutal or little to no governments." i'm sure some of these green countries did have "little to no government" pre-1800s, just like their non-islamic neighbors. others, however, had governments that didn't really differ. and, pre-imperialism era... tons of christian nations had incredibly brutal governments compared to today.
Quotebut it is ridiculous to say that without imperialism they would be enlightened and peaceful places.
without imperialism, they'd have had an opportunity to develop through normal means. they didn't have that opportunity, however, and now they're essentially being criticized for it. or at least, islam is, i guess.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 21, 2015, 08:10:23 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2015, 08:03:59 PM
...and here we arrive at the crux of the matter. It is all the fault of the West, of course.
:wacko:
do you really think imperialism had little consequence on how the world exists today?
Yes, clearly that must be what I think. If I reject that Islamic terrorism is the fault of the West, then of course I must think that "imperialism had little consequence on how the world exists today:.
Because that is clearly the only other possible option, Mr. Chomsky.
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2015, 09:24:23 PMYes, clearly that must be what I think. If I reject that Islamic terrorism is the fault of the West, then of course I must think that "imperialism had little consequence on how the world exists today:.
Because that is clearly the only other possible option, Mr. Chomsky.
how else could i possibly read your very cryptic response to my post and conclude anything other than "he doesn't think imperialism stunted islamic nations' growth?" the sarcasm is uncalled for in this case because any misunderstanding on my part was entirely your fault
Quote from: LaCroix on November 21, 2015, 09:33:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2015, 09:24:23 PMYes, clearly that must be what I think. If I reject that Islamic terrorism is the fault of the West, then of course I must think that "imperialism had little consequence on how the world exists today:.
Because that is clearly the only other possible option, Mr. Chomsky.
how else could i possibly read your very cryptic response to my post and conclude anything other than "he doesn't think imperialism stunted islamic nations' growth?" the sarcasm is uncalled for in this case because any misunderstanding on my part was entirely your fault
Of course it was my fault, just like Islamic terrorism is not the fault of the Islamic terrorists.
I take complete responsibility for your use of obvious logical fallacies. Your actions are clearly not under your control, but rather under my control.
Just like suicide bombers are not under their own control, but rather the control of "imperialists".
Quote from: LaCroix on November 21, 2015, 07:57:53 PM
because culture shapes religion, not the other way around.
When Islam conquered places like Egypt, North Africa, Persia, and Syria, how did the existing cultures of those places shape Islam?
Quoteislam differs from christianity because, by and large, islamic nations suffered under imperialism for a long time, which has kept the islamic nations pretty backwater.
Leaving aside the dubious claim that imperialism retarded organic cultural progress, what is the statue of limitations on imperialism?
Quote from: LaCroix on November 21, 2015, 09:04:35 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-LT5yTYqsLqc%2FUfID1I6XMyI%2FAAAAAAAAAg8%2FWGkpQsFD9h8%2Fs1600%2FChristendom.png&hash=fe97ae89d6cf3c54f3a4cde0c34e3d7941692df9)
you're going to have to be more specific on which of these "places had brutal or little to no governments." i'm sure some of these green countries did have "little to no government" pre-1800s, just like their non-islamic neighbors. others, however, had governments that didn't really differ. and, pre-imperialism era... tons of christian nations had incredibly brutal governments compared to today.
without imperialism, they'd have had an opportunity to develop through normal means. they didn't have that opportunity, however, and now they're essentially being criticized for it. or at least, islam is, i guess.
I have no idea what this map means, but it is full of pretty colors. I don't suppose you'd like to share what the coding indicates. Is Russia the victim of Imperialism? I'm also having a hard time correlating the level of Imperialism with the level of brutality of the current regime. India got screwed over harder by Imperialism than most countries but is in much better shape than many others. Western Imperialism in the Middle East was for only a relatively short period compared to India, parts of Asia and Africa and yet the regimes are among the worst in the world. How does that correlate? Yes, many Christian nations had brutal governments in the past but now they don't, as with many other non-Christian nations whether they suffered under Imperialism or not. That's my point.
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2015, 10:11:12 PMOf course it was my fault, just like Islamic terrorism is not the fault of the Islamic terrorists.
I take complete responsibility for your use of obvious logical fallacies. Your actions are clearly not under your control, but rather under my control.
Just like suicide bombers are not under their own control, but rather the control of "imperialists".
i don't think the backhanded comments are necessary, but it's become clear you really have no interest in continuing this discussion with me. half the time you ignore my posts, and the other times you're throwing in some jab. (edit) and, apparently, taking something i've never argued and using it to mock me in other threads (http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,13528.msg928407.html#msg928407)...?
Quote from: Admiral YiWhen Islam conquered places like Egypt, North Africa, Persia, and Syria, how did the existing cultures of those places shape Islam?
Leaving aside the dubious claim that imperialism retarded organic cultural progress, what is the statue of limitations on imperialism?
(1) that's more of a question for spellus. (2) "islam" didn't conquer those places. people carrying banners of islam invaded and took over. whatever those invaders introduced to those regions... that's what shaped the culture there. but, usually invaders who settle in get shaped by local culture after awhile and some mix occurs. again, spellus or someone else can give you a better answer.
i dunno, 1000 years?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2015, 12:34:17 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 21, 2015, 12:11:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2015, 11:29:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2015, 11:28:35 AM
Really, the one can't have a meaningful life, a morality system without religion? :yeahright:
Define "meaningful".
You can choose to give your live meaning.
That's not really a definition, it's still subjective, and it is questionable if you even can do this. From a materialist stand point the concept of "choose" may be itself meaningless. You don't really "want" to do thing things you "love" because "want" and "love" may not have any meaning. These words may simply be inaccurate folk descriptions of chemical reactions. We lack the words to properly describe what is happening just as the Aztecs lacked the vocabulary to describe quantum physics. So instead of saying something like "I give my life meaning through charity" it is perhaps more accurately understood as, "I continually engage in "w" activity because it triggers x, y, and z brain activities." This might strike you as absurd, but seems like the logical end point of materialism.
We are not getting into a definitive debate on what gives life meaning and what doesn't, are we? Because if we do, that's a bit of a tall order, given that thousands of philosophers, theologists and artists who have been trying to do it from the dawn of civilization failed to do so so far. :D
Quote from: frunk on November 22, 2015, 01:22:33 AMI have no idea what this map means, but it is full of pretty colors. I don't suppose you'd like to share what the coding indicates. Is Russia the victim of Imperialism? I'm also having a hard time correlating the level of Imperialism with the level of brutality of the current regime. India got screwed over harder by Imperialism than most countries but is in much better shape than many others. Western Imperialism in the Middle East was for only a relatively short period compared to India, parts of Asia and Africa and yet the regimes are among the worst in the world. How does that correlate? Yes, many Christian nations had brutal governments in the past but now they don't, as with many other non-Christian nations whether they suffered under Imperialism or not. That's my point.
green = islam. blue = christianity. i think the purple in africa = half muslim, half christian.
yeah, some countries have managed to get their shit together, and some haven't. you'll have to look at each nation and analyze why. for some, maybe a charismatic warlord took over in post-colonialism and wrecked everything. for others, maybe a colonial state had sufficient infrastructure so it could stay on its feat.
western imperialism wasn't the only imperialism that happened in the middle east. plus, a large number of third world countries that exist today have borders that were shaped during colonialism/afterward. this causes a lot of problems that further mucked things up immediately after. how does it correlate? again, look at the countries and figure out why. "islam did it" seems like a poor excuse to not look into what happened throughout those areas and figure out a real cause
and some christian and non-christian nations are still nuts
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2015, 05:24:23 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 21, 2015, 04:02:40 PM
What do we do with that?
I don't know. No response that I can think of is a pleasant one. But that isn't a reason to pretend something isn't true.
Yeah, only because there is no good answer it does not mean we should ignore the facts. And again, this is the problem of the left - because left doesn't believe there is a good solution, they are refusing to acknowledge that there even is a problem. And this is what is driving more and more voters into the arms of the extreme right.
And I posted earlier Zizek's article - which, broadly, is what we should do about it.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 22, 2015, 01:31:54 AM
(1) that's more of a question for spellus. (2) "islam" didn't conquer those places. people carrying banners of islam invaded and took over. whatever those invaders introduced to those regions... that's what shaped the culture there. but, usually invaders who settle in get shaped by local culture after awhile and some mix occurs. again, spellus or someone else can give you a better answer.
i dunno, 1000 years?
What those invaders introduced to those regions was Islam.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2015, 02:02:02 AMWhat those invaders introduced to those regions was Islam.
yes, they did introduce islam. but they probably also introduced a helluva lot more. look at the norman conquest and its lasting consequences in england for something, besides religion, that an invading group can impose on a country
Quote from: LaCroix on November 22, 2015, 02:06:52 AM
yes, they did introduce islam. but they also introduced a helluva lot more. look at the norman conquest and its lasting consequences in england for something, besides religion, that an invading group can impose on a country
What else, besides a language and a religion, did the Muslim conquerors introduce in Egypt?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 22, 2015, 02:11:45 AMWhat else, besides a language and a religion, did the Muslim conquerors introduce in Egypt?
i added "probably" before your post. :D i don't know, that's a question for someone else. but this is going away from my earlier point that cultures influence religion. you may have taken that too literally - a culture won't change the scripture, but it certainly changes the interpretation of scripture. islamic nations today aren't as brutal as they were a thousand years ago, same with christian nations. but christian nations largely comprise of the west, which has enjoyed a pretty nice dominance over the world.
Yes, and criminals murder people because they had bad childhood. Jesus Christ, can you be more of a caricature, LaCroix? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on November 22, 2015, 02:17:15 AM
Yes, and criminals murder people because they had bad childhood. Jesus Christ, can you be more of a caricature, LaCroix? :rolleyes:
not always! some are just nuts, heat of passion, etc. a caricature of what? the left? leftist stereotypes usually say all cultures are on equal footing
Quote from: LaCroix on November 22, 2015, 01:31:54 AM
i dunno, 1000 years?
in that case these muslim countries should blame themselves/arabs instead of the west since during those 1000 years they were ruled by muslim empires for about 900 of them.
People killed by terrorist attacks in Western Europe:
(https://scontent-vie1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlt1/v/t1.0-9/12274432_1122786341066567_8706790921773059157_n.jpg?oh=8d0658fa1eed1fd30a9c4054b7e1b895&oe=56F0422D)
The "whatever reason" why Muslim countries are more prone to use religion in legislation is the very specific reason of their religion being quite clear on how to apply it in legislation. Unlike Christianity.
I think this was a HUGE advantage in the early times for Islam and offered huge benefits. But the laws and rulings have gradually become obsolete compared to changing circumstances and level of civilisation. Christianity was able to adjust because the teachings can be very flexibly bended to suit whatever material needs, without invoking a lot of valid criticism. Doesn't seem to be true for Islam.
Quote from: Tamas on November 22, 2015, 06:11:22 AM
The "whatever reason" why Muslim countries are more prone to use religion in legislation is the very specific reason of their religion being quite clear on how to apply it in legislation.
Really? I thought that a lot of the legislative rules is in hadiths not the quran and is up for interpretation by muftis who then issue fatwas on how they interpret the scripture.
Quote from: Zanza on November 22, 2015, 06:41:08 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 22, 2015, 06:11:22 AM
The "whatever reason" why Muslim countries are more prone to use religion in legislation is the very specific reason of their religion being quite clear on how to apply it in legislation.
Really? I thought that a lot of the legislative rules is in hadiths not the quran and is up for interpretation by muftis who then issue fatwas on how they interpret the scripture.
Still, the hadits are claimed to be from Mohamed, and you do not have quotes from Jesus on how to run minute affairs of society. Not in the hundreds, anyways.
Quote from: Tamas on November 22, 2015, 07:35:47 AM
Quote from: Zanza on November 22, 2015, 06:41:08 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 22, 2015, 06:11:22 AM
The "whatever reason" why Muslim countries are more prone to use religion in legislation is the very specific reason of their religion being quite clear on how to apply it in legislation.
Really? I thought that a lot of the legislative rules is in hadiths not the quran and is up for interpretation by muftis who then issue fatwas on how they interpret the scripture.
Still, the hadits are claimed to be from Mohamed, and you do not have quotes from Jesus on how to run minute affairs of society. Not in the hundreds, anyways.
I think you are grasping at straws. Judaism has a lot of laws for society, tons of which can be found in the Old Testament.
Islam is also quite capable of shedding laws when it wants to. There's a fair amount in the Quran about the rights of women that often seems disregarded.
Islam being more practical when guiding and ruling everyday life is hardly my unique theory.
And Judaism didn't actually conquer the world or founded modern society either.
Very convincing stuff. ;)
If you want to dismiss the claim that Islam's more practical and micro-managing approach to everyday life has made it too rigid to keep up with the constant change of Christianity-based societies, you will have to do better than pointing to Judaism. Much better.
Quote from: garbon on November 22, 2015, 07:49:41 AM
I think you are grasping at straws. Judaism has a lot of laws for society, tons of which can be found in the Old Testament.
Islam is also quite capable of shedding laws when it wants to. There's a fair amount in the Quran about the rights of women that often seems disregarded.
Judaism has lots of laws, but judaism is contained in ways that Christianity and Islam are not--it is a nationality based religion that isn't out to convert the world.
Christianity inherited the old testament from Judaism which contains those laws, but the basic theology of all but a tiny minority of christian denominations is that the purpose of those laws were fulfilled by the coming of Jesus and no longer need to be followed. The acts of the apostles in the new testament documents the discarding of old testament jewish law in early church tradition, and christians trying to follow jewish old testament have at times been persecuted as heretics. Since the new testament is rather vague, and jesus in particular says very little in the new testament, there isn't much to go off of.
Quote from: Tamas on November 22, 2015, 08:34:33 AM
If you want to dismiss the claim that Islam's more practical and micro-managing approach to everyday life has made it too rigid to keep up with the constant change of Christianity-based societies, you will have to do better than pointing to Judaism. Much better.
I think you were the one making an assertion, so seems like the onus would be on you to show that Islam's scripture makes it "quite clear on how to apply it in legislation." Somehow, I don't think you know enough about Islam to actually make your case.
Ok grumbler
Quote from: garbon on November 22, 2015, 09:27:27 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 22, 2015, 08:34:33 AM
If you want to dismiss the claim that Islam's more practical and micro-managing approach to everyday life has made it too rigid to keep up with the constant change of Christianity-based societies, you will have to do better than pointing to Judaism. Much better.
I think you were the one making an assertion, so seems like the onus would be on you to show that Islam's scripture makes it "quite clear on how to apply it in legislation." Somehow, I don't think you know enough about Islam to actually make your case.
Does Islam go into details about how to overcome gridlock and filibuster? If so, then maybe we could give it a shot here in US? :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on November 22, 2015, 09:35:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 22, 2015, 09:27:27 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 22, 2015, 08:34:33 AM
If you want to dismiss the claim that Islam's more practical and micro-managing approach to everyday life has made it too rigid to keep up with the constant change of Christianity-based societies, you will have to do better than pointing to Judaism. Much better.
I think you were the one making an assertion, so seems like the onus would be on you to show that Islam's scripture makes it "quite clear on how to apply it in legislation." Somehow, I don't think you know enough about Islam to actually make your case.
Does Islam go into details about how to overcome gridlock and filibuster? If so, then maybe we could give it a shot here in US? :hmm:
Suicide bombers?
Quote from: garbon on November 22, 2015, 07:49:41 AM
Islam is also quite capable of shedding laws when it wants to. There's a fair amount in the Quran about the rights of women that often seems disregarded.
But it hasn't so far. I think we are getting off the topic here though. It's not about a theological dispute about what each of the three Abrahamic religions, when taken in abstract, is capable of. It's about whether, in this day and age, and at this particular point of its development, each of them is to be seen as harmless or harmful.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 22, 2015, 10:21:57 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 22, 2015, 09:35:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 22, 2015, 09:27:27 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 22, 2015, 08:34:33 AM
If you want to dismiss the claim that Islam's more practical and micro-managing approach to everyday life has made it too rigid to keep up with the constant change of Christianity-based societies, you will have to do better than pointing to Judaism. Much better.
I think you were the one making an assertion, so seems like the onus would be on you to show that Islam's scripture makes it "quite clear on how to apply it in legislation." Somehow, I don't think you know enough about Islam to actually make your case.
Does Islam go into details about how to overcome gridlock and filibuster? If so, then maybe we could give it a shot here in US? :hmm:
Suicide bombers?
Subscribed
Quote from: Tamas on November 22, 2015, 09:34:43 AM
Ok grumbler
Alright cool, so you were talking out of your ass. :D
Quote from: Martinus on November 22, 2015, 10:27:09 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 22, 2015, 07:49:41 AM
Islam is also quite capable of shedding laws when it wants to. There's a fair amount in the Quran about the rights of women that often seems disregarded.
But it hasn't so far. I think we are getting off the topic here though. It's not about a theological dispute about what each of the three Abrahamic religions, when taken in abstract, is capable of. It's about whether, in this day and age, and at this particular point of its development, each of them is to be seen as harmless or harmful.
No, I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about Tamas's assertion that Islam blends so easy into the legal/political sphere as it is set up to be so specifically clear about what should be done. I don't think that is actually true.
Quote from: garbon on November 22, 2015, 11:04:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 22, 2015, 10:27:09 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 22, 2015, 07:49:41 AM
Islam is also quite capable of shedding laws when it wants to. There's a fair amount in the Quran about the rights of women that often seems disregarded.
But it hasn't so far. I think we are getting off the topic here though. It's not about a theological dispute about what each of the three Abrahamic religions, when taken in abstract, is capable of. It's about whether, in this day and age, and at this particular point of its development, each of them is to be seen as harmless or harmful.
No, I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about Tamas's assertion that Islam blends so easy into the legal/political sphere as it is set up to be so specifically clear about what should be done. I don't think that is actually true.
I said, actually, repeated what I read on several occasions at different places (a few times no doubt quoted on this very forum), that a potential explanation to the Christian world's quicker advancement past a stage compared to the Muslim one is that Christianity's holy text did not establish rules for society to follow, apart from moral guidelines. Which guidelines, BTW, were so unrealistic as to be a driving force behind progress, if anything.
Now I don't necessarily agree with that fully, but it does make sense in the present world's context. When somebody in Europe wanted to change human rights situation for the better (more lenient laws, gender equality etc) conservatives couldn't throw a perfectly applicable direct Jesus-quote at it to prevent it. Not so much with Islam, where for many centuries if you wanted a legislation to stick, you either had to allign it to a quote by Mohamed, OR pretend it was a quote and thus create a Hadith.
This is not a full-blown explanation of the Muslim world's troubles: you need a critical mass of backward people to have somebody who actually want to use these opportunities to prevent societal progress. But I am quite ready to believe that the different religions contributed in that factor.
Quote from: Tamas on November 22, 2015, 07:35:47 AM
Quote from: Zanza on November 22, 2015, 06:41:08 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 22, 2015, 06:11:22 AM
The "whatever reason" why Muslim countries are more prone to use religion in legislation is the very specific reason of their religion being quite clear on how to apply it in legislation.
Really? I thought that a lot of the legislative rules is in hadiths not the quran and is up for interpretation by muftis who then issue fatwas on how they interpret the scripture.
Still, the hadits are claimed to be from Mohamed, and you do not have quotes from Jesus on how to run minute affairs of society. Not in the hundreds, anyways.
Key phrase "are claimed to be"
Islamic law is developed considerably later.
As it exists now, there is a strong legal aspect to the religion but not more so than say Judaism, which is the most similar analogue.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 22, 2015, 12:01:30 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 22, 2015, 07:35:47 AM
Quote from: Zanza on November 22, 2015, 06:41:08 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 22, 2015, 06:11:22 AM
The "whatever reason" why Muslim countries are more prone to use religion in legislation is the very specific reason of their religion being quite clear on how to apply it in legislation.
Really? I thought that a lot of the legislative rules is in hadiths not the quran and is up for interpretation by muftis who then issue fatwas on how they interpret the scripture.
Still, the hadits are claimed to be from Mohamed, and you do not have quotes from Jesus on how to run minute affairs of society. Not in the hundreds, anyways.
Key phrase "are claimed to be"
Islamic law is developed considerably later.
As it exists now, there is a strong legal aspect to the religion but not more so than say Judaism, which is the most similar analogue.
But Judaism is an outlier. Because it is a purely ethnic, non-evengelical non-universalistic religion, it did not create a state (and, consequently, a state legal system) until mid-20th century by which time it has already become pretty Westernised and secularised so it is not really comparable to Islam or Christianity, that had many states and governments for most of the modern and pre-modern era.
And even despite the fact that it is a Western democracy and was heavily influenced by liberal/atheist thinkers, Israel is still pretty backward when it comes to some of its laws - it just isn't as backward as Muslim states.
So yes, I would say this supports Tamas's point quite well.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2015, 10:27:50 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on November 21, 2015, 07:57:53 PM
because culture shapes religion, not the other way around.
When Islam conquered places like Egypt, North Africa, Persia, and Syria, how did the existing cultures of those places shape Islam?
Quite a bit of what now passes as Islamic law is not Quranic but developed out of customary pre-Islamic practices and law of the conquered areas. The political structure of Islam and Islamic regime also was shaped by Persian and Byzantine examples.
Quote from: Martinus on November 22, 2015, 12:11:17 PM
But Judaism is an outlier. Because it is a purely ethnic, non-evengelical non-universalistic religion, it did not create a state (and, consequently, a state legal system) until mid-20th century by which time it has already become pretty Westernised and secularised so it is not really comparable to Islam or Christianity, that had many states and governments for most of the modern and pre-modern era.
And even despite the fact that it is a Western democracy and was heavily influenced by liberal/atheist thinkers, Israel is still pretty backward when it comes to some of its laws - it just isn't as backward as Muslim states.
So yes, I would say this supports Tamas's point quite well.
Except that until recently you could say the same for the Muslim world. Modern Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Iran (pre 79) were secular states run under secular Westernized principles.
Problem is those regimes became delegitimized but at the same time suppressed and crushed liberal oppositions that might have provided a secular alternative. The loyal opposition didn't exist. Dissent was forced into the mosque. "Islam is the solution" takes on persuasive resonance because it seems clear there is no other viable solution out there.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 22, 2015, 01:31:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2015, 10:11:12 PMOf course it was my fault, just like Islamic terrorism is not the fault of the Islamic terrorists.
I take complete responsibility for your use of obvious logical fallacies. Your actions are clearly not under your control, but rather under my control.
Just like suicide bombers are not under their own control, but rather the control of "imperialists".
i don't think the backhanded comments are necessary, but it's become clear you really have no interest in continuing this discussion with me. half the time you ignore my posts, and the other times you're throwing in some jab. (edit) and, apparently, taking something i've never argued and using it to mock me in other
I will admit that my interest level in discussing this with you declined considerabl once you started channeling Noam Chomsky, and jsut went full on logical fallacy. There really isn't much discussion to be had at that point.
Quote from: garbon on November 22, 2015, 07:49:41 AM
Islam is also quite capable of shedding laws when it wants to. There's a fair amount in the Quran about the rights of women that often seems disregarded.
The only specific rights I'm familiar with are the right to own property (not disregarded AFAIK), the right to divorce (not disregarded AFAIK), and a very generalized "equality."
What rights are being disregarded?
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2015, 08:56:57 PM
:hmm: Okay, I may have been wrong, maybe you in particular do not need to look any more inward.
It might be extend this courtesy to the general rather then the particular. And perhaps as a warning don't look inward much toward your own religious views that you were so fortunate to bestowed on you. From where I sit an Atheist who isn't at least vaguely suicidal is a bit of a poser.
Your above-stated concerns about oblivion should, if anything, keep an atheist from every contemplating suicide.
Why should an atheist be suicidal? It's the theist who is the plaything of a powerful, capricious being.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on November 22, 2015, 03:42:36 PM
Your above-stated concerns about oblivion should, if anything, keep an atheist from every contemplating suicide.
Then you really haven't thought enough about the subject. Go ahead, think about it some. Think about it for three months straight and come back and tell what you think.
Dang! I'm already on a three month think about how kamikazes weren't suicide bombers.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 22, 2015, 03:44:18 PM
Why should an atheist be suicidal? It's the theist who is the plaything of a powerful, capricious being.
Because his living body and and his dead one have the exactly the same intrinsic value.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 03:35:04 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 21, 2015, 08:56:57 PM
:hmm: Okay, I may have been wrong, maybe you in particular do not need to look any more inward.
It might be extend this courtesy to the general rather then the particular. And perhaps as a warning don't look inward much toward your own religious views that you were so fortunate to bestowed on you. From where I sit an Atheist who isn't at least vaguely suicidal is a bit of a poser.
And they call you crazy.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 03:59:14 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 22, 2015, 03:44:18 PM
Why should an atheist be suicidal? It's the theist who is the plaything of a powerful, capricious being.
Because his living body and and his dead one have the exactly the same intrinsic value.
The dead body can be used for food, lampshades and soap.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 03:59:14 PM
Because his living body and and his dead one have the exactly the same intrinsic value.
If that's so, why make an effort to change its state?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 22, 2015, 04:05:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 03:59:14 PM
Because his living body and and his dead one have the exactly the same intrinsic value.
If that's so, why make an effort to change its state?
Ask yourself why people kill themselves and you have your answer.
They kill themselves because they're unhappy and don't enjoy the experience of living. Nobody kills themselves because life is "meaningless". Expressing oneself like that is a symptom, not a cause.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 22, 2015, 04:11:44 PM
They kill themselves because they're unhappy and don't enjoy the experience of living.
Bingo. Now pain and unhappiness don't happen to dead people in the materialist viewpoint and because life has no intrinsic value it is better to be dead then to be unhappy or in pain particularly if you don't see a way alleviate those circumstances.
So then the atheists who aren't suicidal- perhaps they're just not unhappy?
Value is more important than intrinsic value.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 22, 2015, 04:20:54 PM
So then the atheists who aren't suicidal- perhaps they're just not unhappy?
Yet. Once you take a serious look at the void, you become unhappy. Hence my original statement. Anyone who claims to be an atheist without being a little suicidal is something of a poser. The Euphoric Fedora crowd. Quite a few philosophers spilled a lot of ink on why you shouldn't kill yourself in an uncaring universe. That was like half of Sarte's output.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 03:59:14 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 22, 2015, 03:44:18 PM
Why should an atheist be suicidal? It's the theist who is the plaything of a powerful, capricious being.
Because his living body and and his dead one have the exactly the same intrinsic value.
Is this the answer? I just cleared my calendar and was about to resign my job and stock up on food and toilet paper so I could devote 3 months to properly contemplate this, but I guess I don't need to anymore. Thanks Raz!
You can live 3 months without toilet paper.
Speaking from experience?
Quote from: alfred russel on November 22, 2015, 04:37:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 03:59:14 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 22, 2015, 03:44:18 PM
Why should an atheist be suicidal? It's the theist who is the plaything of a powerful, capricious being.
Because his living body and and his dead one have the exactly the same intrinsic value.
Is this the answer? I just cleared my calendar and was about to resign my job and stock up on food and toilet paper so I could devote 3 months to properly contemplate this, but I guess I don't need to anymore. Thanks Raz!
No, you don't need to clear your calendar. You just need to keep in your mind at every waking hour. At work, at home, in the morning, at night, all the time. Imagine being in an elevator for all eternity. Imagine your desperation to get out, and how you can't. Imagine screaming, clawing at the door, imagine crying. Imagine your own skull, old and dry and yellowing. Imagine that all you ever were in confines of that funny little bone. Imagine how people walking by it not giving it a second thought. Imagine the atoms of your body floating in space billions of years from now all floating separately across the cosmos for eternity. Now think about those things at least every half hour for three months no matter what else you are doing. Good luck!
Yes, thank God for the sweet release of Death.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 04:47:50 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 22, 2015, 04:37:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 03:59:14 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 22, 2015, 03:44:18 PM
Why should an atheist be suicidal? It's the theist who is the plaything of a powerful, capricious being.
Because his living body and and his dead one have the exactly the same intrinsic value.
Is this the answer? I just cleared my calendar and was about to resign my job and stock up on food and toilet paper so I could devote 3 months to properly contemplate this, but I guess I don't need to anymore. Thanks Raz!
No, you don't need to clear your calendar. You just need to keep in your mind at every waking hour. At work, at home, in the morning, at night, all the time. Imagine being in an elevator for all eternity. Imagine your desperation to get out, and how you can't. Imagine screaming, clawing at the door, imagine crying. Imagine your own skull, old and dry and yellowing. Imagine that all you ever were in confines of that funny little bone. Imagine how people walking by it not giving it a second thought. Imagine the atoms of your body floating in space billions of years from now all floating separately across the cosmos for eternity. Now think about those things at least every half hour for three months no matter what else you are doing. Good luck!
Is it okay if I imagine that there is a really cute lady stuck in this elevator with me?
Nope. Actually you should totally not do what I just said. It's a very, very bad idea.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 04:16:15 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 22, 2015, 04:11:44 PM
They kill themselves because they're unhappy and don't enjoy the experience of living.
Bingo. Now pain and unhappiness don't happen to dead people in the materialist viewpoint and because life has no intrinsic value it is better to be dead then to be unhappy or in pain particularly if you don't see a way alleviate those circumstances.
You could have an intrinsic feeling of empathy, and imagine how your suicide will affect the people you know. You could also have the intrinsic feeling of self-preservation, and just not actively fight it.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 03:52:24 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on November 22, 2015, 03:42:36 PM
Your above-stated concerns about oblivion should, if anything, keep an atheist from every contemplating suicide.
Then you really haven't thought enough about the subject. Go ahead, think about it some. Think about it for three months straight and come back and tell what you think.
I am no stranger to existential anxiety, believe me. Those episodes invariably lead me to look for ways to cheat death. Existence is infinitely better than the alternative; There's no room for hope in oblivion.
I'd guess most of the people killed the Friday before last had some notion about the meaning in their lives/of life, but seems to me people with a distaste for lives that are different or that they couldn't appreciate took it away from them.
It's rumoured those that carried out the slaughter believed in an all powerful, compassionate god. :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on November 22, 2015, 05:40:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 04:16:15 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 22, 2015, 04:11:44 PM
They kill themselves because they're unhappy and don't enjoy the experience of living.
Bingo. Now pain and unhappiness don't happen to dead people in the materialist viewpoint and because life has no intrinsic value it is better to be dead then to be unhappy or in pain particularly if you don't see a way alleviate those circumstances.
You could have an intrinsic feeling of empathy, and imagine how your suicide will affect the people you know. You could also have the intrinsic feeling of self-preservation, and just not actively fight it.
Yes, but those are still subjective feelings. Chemical reactions. Are they objectively worth anything? Not really.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on November 22, 2015, 05:51:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 03:52:24 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on November 22, 2015, 03:42:36 PM
Your above-stated concerns about oblivion should, if anything, keep an atheist from every contemplating suicide.
Then you really haven't thought enough about the subject. Go ahead, think about it some. Think about it for three months straight and come back and tell what you think.
I am no stranger to existential anxiety, believe me. Those episodes invariably lead me to look for ways to cheat death. Existence is infinitely better than the alternative; There's no room for hope in oblivion.
There is no room for hope, period. You will die. The Earth will die. All free energy will die. There's a reason why there's a link between suicide and atheism. It's why I want to believe in a God. It is a hope, however slim.
Very odd.
Quote from: garbon on November 22, 2015, 06:13:19 PM
Very odd.
That's what they said at Fulton State Hospital.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 06:10:34 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on November 22, 2015, 05:51:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 03:52:24 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on November 22, 2015, 03:42:36 PM
Your above-stated concerns about oblivion should, if anything, keep an atheist from every contemplating suicide.
Then you really haven't thought enough about the subject. Go ahead, think about it some. Think about it for three months straight and come back and tell what you think.
I am no stranger to existential anxiety, believe me. Those episodes invariably lead me to look for ways to cheat death. Existence is infinitely better than the alternative; There's no room for hope in oblivion.
There is no room for hope, period. You will die. The Earth will die. All free energy will die. There's a reason why there's a link between suicide and atheism. It's why I want to believe in a God. It is a hope, however slim.
These will occur on very different timescales. And we might be able to think something up in a billion years.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 06:10:34 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on November 22, 2015, 05:51:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 03:52:24 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on November 22, 2015, 03:42:36 PM
Your above-stated concerns about oblivion should, if anything, keep an atheist from every contemplating suicide.
Then you really haven't thought enough about the subject. Go ahead, think about it some. Think about it for three months straight and come back and tell what you think.
I am no stranger to existential anxiety, believe me. Those episodes invariably lead me to look for ways to cheat death. Existence is infinitely better than the alternative; There's no room for hope in oblivion.
There is no room for hope, period. You will die. The Earth will die. All free energy will die. There's a reason why there's a link between suicide and atheism. It's why I want to believe in a God. It is a hope, however slim.
So these suicide bombers and terrorists did have some slim hope that there really will be 72 virgin brides awaiting each of them?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 06:04:11 PMYes, but those are still subjective feelings. Chemical reactions. Are they objectively worth anything? Not really.
your notions on existence being worthless is also a chemical reaction.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 06:04:11 PM
Yes, but those are still subjective feelings. Chemical reactions. Are they objectively worth anything? Not really.
Is the feeling of hunger worth anything? I don't know, I just fucking eat when I get it.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 06:14:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 22, 2015, 06:13:19 PM
Very odd.
That's what they said at Fulton State Hospital.
What you've described sounds far less bleak than say if I die, I get to spend an eternity in Hell. :D
Quote from: garbon on November 22, 2015, 07:04:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 06:14:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 22, 2015, 06:13:19 PM
Very odd.
That's what they said at Fulton State Hospital.
What you've described sounds far less bleak than say if I die, I get to spend an eternity in Hell. :D
You know, you still have to time to get that homosexuality taken care of. I'm sure there are plenty of non-suicidal religious leaders willing to work with you on that.
Quote from: garbon on November 22, 2015, 07:04:09 PM
What you've described sounds far less bleak than say if I die, I get to spend an eternity in Hell. :D
It kinda sounded like it *was* hell. I'm not sure how there'd be an afterlife with no God, yet there you are silently screaming in an elevator for eternity. :hmm:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 03:59:14 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 22, 2015, 03:44:18 PM
Why should an atheist be suicidal? It's the theist who is the plaything of a powerful, capricious being.
Because his living body and and his dead one have the exactly the same intrinsic value.
Given that your conception of what atheism must lead to, and the observation that atheists are not off killing themselves left and right, you might consider that perhaps your conception might have some flaws in it.
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2015, 09:43:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 03:59:14 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 22, 2015, 03:44:18 PM
Why should an atheist be suicidal? It's the theist who is the plaything of a powerful, capricious being.
Because his living body and and his dead one have the exactly the same intrinsic value.
Given that your conception of what atheism must lead to, and the observation that atheists are not off killing themselves left and right, you might consider that perhaps your conception might have some flaws in it.
No true atheist doesn't kill himself.
Quote from: Berkut on November 22, 2015, 09:43:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 03:59:14 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 22, 2015, 03:44:18 PM
Why should an atheist be suicidal? It's the theist who is the plaything of a powerful, capricious being.
Because his living body and and his dead one have the exactly the same intrinsic value.
Given that your conception of what atheism must lead to, and the observation that atheists are not off killing themselves left and right, you might consider that perhaps your conception might have some flaws in it.
I didn't say they were going to kill themselves, I said they were at least vaguely suicidal. Some of course are atheists because it makes them feel superior to others. The ones that I call "posers". The observation that atheists are not killing themselves "left and right", is not a very stringent one. Care you clarify what you mean?
Quote from: mongers on November 22, 2015, 06:29:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 06:10:34 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on November 22, 2015, 05:51:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 03:52:24 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on November 22, 2015, 03:42:36 PM
Your above-stated concerns about oblivion should, if anything, keep an atheist from every contemplating suicide.
Then you really haven't thought enough about the subject. Go ahead, think about it some. Think about it for three months straight and come back and tell what you think.
I am no stranger to existential anxiety, believe me. Those episodes invariably lead me to look for ways to cheat death. Existence is infinitely better than the alternative; There's no room for hope in oblivion.
There is no room for hope, period. You will die. The Earth will die. All free energy will die. There's a reason why there's a link between suicide and atheism. It's why I want to believe in a God. It is a hope, however slim.
So these suicide bombers and terrorists did have some slim hope that there really will be 72 virgin brides awaiting each of them?
In a materialist universe not at all. In such a universe the idea that you can shoot up music venue to get to a higher plane of existence is objectively wrong. Here's the kicker, though. Going on a shooting rampage is
not objectively wrong. It is no more right or wrong then winning the Nobel prize in peace.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 22, 2015, 06:48:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 06:04:11 PMYes, but those are still subjective feelings. Chemical reactions. Are they objectively worth anything? Not really.
your notions on existence being worthless is also a chemical reaction.
This is true, my understanding of it and my reaction to it is a chemical reaction. The reality of it is also true. I can have an understanding of the sun that is close to objective reality, that the sun is a big ball hydrogen fusion. This is fairly close to what the sun actually is. If I understand it as a the shield of warrior marching across the sky or as a chariot of Ra, this is a also a chemical reaction but my understanding is not very close to the reality of the sun.
Quote from: garbon on November 22, 2015, 07:04:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 06:14:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 22, 2015, 06:13:19 PM
Very odd.
That's what they said at Fulton State Hospital.
What you've described sounds far less bleak than say if I die, I get to spend an eternity in Hell. :D
Good for you. I imagine that coping mechanism is common among a lot people. Especially ones that do things that are prohibited by a religion, like murder or theft.
Personally I find Atheism much more comforting than the idea of an intelligent being designing a capricious and violent universe for individuals to suffer in, and in which there is no physical evidence that there is anything after death. However awful nothing is an all powerful being out to cause pain is much worse, even if redemption is supposedly possible.
The idea of dying and all of my existence going away doesn't bother me, it's an intrinsic part of life. Whatever minimal point my life has it would be diminished if by continuing to exist I prevented something else from having its chance at life. To be bothered by the idea of the universe ceasing to exist billions of years from now strikes me as silly, I'm much more bothered by the idea that there are incredible and amazing things going on in other places and times of the universe that I'll never get to see.
I get to choose the point of my life, it only matters to me and it won't matter at all once I'm dead. I don't have the ego or hubris to think my life should matter more than that.
The implications of a materialist universe are quite dire, and likely to send a mind reeling, looking for alternatives. Recent history (the last century or two) is, I think, the story of humanity grappling those implications, either by writing new values on new tablets, or distracting ourselves with striving and consumption, or clinging to old cosmologies with ferocious desperation. So this digression is actually quite relevant: Raqqa is a product of the Enlightenment as much as is New York or Pyongyang.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 04:47:50 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 22, 2015, 04:37:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 03:59:14 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 22, 2015, 03:44:18 PM
Why should an atheist be suicidal? It's the theist who is the plaything of a powerful, capricious being.
Because his living body and and his dead one have the exactly the same intrinsic value.
Is this the answer? I just cleared my calendar and was about to resign my job and stock up on food and toilet paper so I could devote 3 months to properly contemplate this, but I guess I don't need to anymore. Thanks Raz!
No, you don't need to clear your calendar. You just need to keep in your mind at every waking hour. At work, at home, in the morning, at night, all the time. Imagine being in an elevator for all eternity. Imagine your desperation to get out, and how you can't. Imagine screaming, clawing at the door, imagine crying. Imagine your own skull, old and dry and yellowing. Imagine that all you ever were in confines of that funny little bone. Imagine how people walking by it not giving it a second thought. Imagine the atoms of your body floating in space billions of years from now all floating separately across the cosmos for eternity. Now think about those things at least every half hour for three months no matter what else you are doing. Good luck!
Ok, Raz can say this, but when I told him the same (just in fewer words) I got banned. :mad:
Quote from: DGuller on November 22, 2015, 05:40:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 04:16:15 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 22, 2015, 04:11:44 PM
They kill themselves because they're unhappy and don't enjoy the experience of living.
Bingo. Now pain and unhappiness don't happen to dead people in the materialist viewpoint and because life has no intrinsic value it is better to be dead then to be unhappy or in pain particularly if you don't see a way alleviate those circumstances.
You could have an intrinsic feeling of empathy, and imagine how your suicide will affect the people you know. You could also have the intrinsic feeling of self-preservation, and just not actively fight it.
You could also think about how what you will do will affect people who will live after you.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2015, 12:25:01 AM
In a materialist universe not at all. In such a universe the idea that you can shoot up music venue to get to a higher plane of existence is objectively wrong. Here's the kicker, though. Going on a shooting rampage is not objectively wrong. It is no more right or wrong then winning the Nobel prize in peace.
I told you guys - Raz fits the school shooter profile. However, thanks to the SJW phenomenon, he has found a "healthy" outlet for his hatred for humanity, and that is lashing at people about how intolerant and smallminded they are.
P.S. Can we all agree that not cropping your quotes is objectively wrong?
Quote from: Martinus on November 23, 2015, 01:24:35 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 04:47:50 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 22, 2015, 04:37:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 03:59:14 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 22, 2015, 03:44:18 PM
Why should an atheist be suicidal? It's the theist who is the plaything of a powerful, capricious being.
Because his living body and and his dead one have the exactly the same intrinsic value.
Is this the answer? I just cleared my calendar and was about to resign my job and stock up on food and toilet paper so I could devote 3 months to properly contemplate this, but I guess I don't need to anymore. Thanks Raz!
No, you don't need to clear your calendar. You just need to keep in your mind at every waking hour. At work, at home, in the morning, at night, all the time. Imagine being in an elevator for all eternity. Imagine your desperation to get out, and how you can't. Imagine screaming, clawing at the door, imagine crying. Imagine your own skull, old and dry and yellowing. Imagine that all you ever were in confines of that funny little bone. Imagine how people walking by it not giving it a second thought. Imagine the atoms of your body floating in space billions of years from now all floating separately across the cosmos for eternity. Now think about those things at least every half hour for three months no matter what else you are doing. Good luck!
Ok, Raz can say this, but when I told him the same (just in fewer words) I got banned. :mad:
Except you didn't. You told me to kill myself. Or more precisely
QuoteAnd kill yourself.
Blow your brains out, overdose on pills, hang yourself, anything.
I told someone to think about something depressing. Poor dumb Marty, I don't even know what a SJW is. Did you ever figure out when the Bronze age is? Maybe you can tell us how, like, you just figured out God can't exist because God can't create a rock so big that God couldn't lift it!
Quote from: Martinus on November 23, 2015, 01:30:18 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2015, 12:25:01 AM
In a materialist universe not at all. In such a universe the idea that you can shoot up music venue to get to a higher plane of existence is objectively wrong. Here's the kicker, though. Going on a shooting rampage is not objectively wrong. It is no more right or wrong then winning the Nobel prize in peace.
I told you guys - Raz fits the school shooter profile. However, thanks to the SJW phenomenon, he has found a "healthy" outlet for his hatred for humanity, and that is lashing at people about how intolerant and smallminded they are.
P.S. Can we all agree that not cropping your quotes is objectively wrong?
http://homelandsecurity.iowa.gov/documents/misc/FBI_School_Shooter_Guide.pdf
Apparently there isn't a "profile" for a school shooter. Since the FBI doesn't have one, why don't you send one in.
SJW = social justice warrior. Somebody who hectors people on the internet for not being progressive (enough).
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 23, 2015, 02:02:59 AM
SJW = social justice warrior. Somebody who hectors people on the internet for not being progressive (enough).
Must be my impeccable record on Transsexual rights or my deep concern over the institutional racism at MU.
Quote from: Martinus on November 23, 2015, 01:24:35 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 04:47:50 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 22, 2015, 04:37:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 03:59:14 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 22, 2015, 03:44:18 PM
Why should an atheist be suicidal? It's the theist who is the plaything of a powerful, capricious being.
Because his living body and and his dead one have the exactly the same intrinsic value.
Is this the answer? I just cleared my calendar and was about to resign my job and stock up on food and toilet paper so I could devote 3 months to properly contemplate this, but I guess I don't need to anymore. Thanks Raz!
No, you don't need to clear your calendar. You just need to keep in your mind at every waking hour. At work, at home, in the morning, at night, all the time. Imagine being in an elevator for all eternity. Imagine your desperation to get out, and how you can't. Imagine screaming, clawing at the door, imagine crying. Imagine your own skull, old and dry and yellowing. Imagine that all you ever were in confines of that funny little bone. Imagine how people walking by it not giving it a second thought. Imagine the atoms of your body floating in space billions of years from now all floating separately across the cosmos for eternity. Now think about those things at least every half hour for three months no matter what else you are doing. Good luck!
Ok, Raz can say this, but when I told him the same (just in fewer words) I got banned. :mad:
:rolleyes:
Quote from: katmai on November 23, 2015, 03:34:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 23, 2015, 01:24:35 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 04:47:50 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 22, 2015, 04:37:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 22, 2015, 03:59:14 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 22, 2015, 03:44:18 PM
Why should an atheist be suicidal? It's the theist who is the plaything of a powerful, capricious being.
Because his living body and and his dead one have the exactly the same intrinsic value.
Is this the answer? I just cleared my calendar and was about to resign my job and stock up on food and toilet paper so I could devote 3 months to properly contemplate this, but I guess I don't need to anymore. Thanks Raz!
No, you don't need to clear your calendar. You just need to keep in your mind at every waking hour. At work, at home, in the morning, at night, all the time. Imagine being in an elevator for all eternity. Imagine your desperation to get out, and how you can't. Imagine screaming, clawing at the door, imagine crying. Imagine your own skull, old and dry and yellowing. Imagine that all you ever were in confines of that funny little bone. Imagine how people walking by it not giving it a second thought. Imagine the atoms of your body floating in space billions of years from now all floating separately across the cosmos for eternity. Now think about those things at least every half hour for three months no matter what else you are doing. Good luck!
Ok, Raz can say this, but when I told him the same (just in fewer words) I got banned. :mad:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
Quote from: frunk on November 23, 2015, 12:58:37 AM
Personally I find Atheism much more comforting than the idea of an intelligent being designing a capricious and violent universe for individuals to suffer in, and in which there is no physical evidence that there is anything after death. However awful nothing is an all powerful being out to cause pain is much worse, even if redemption is supposedly possible.
The idea of dying and all of my existence going away doesn't bother me, it's an intrinsic part of life. Whatever minimal point my life has it would be diminished if by continuing to exist I prevented something else from having its chance at life. To be bothered by the idea of the universe ceasing to exist billions of years from now strikes me as silly, I'm much more bothered by the idea that there are incredible and amazing things going on in other places and times of the universe that I'll never get to see.
I get to choose the point of my life, it only matters to me and it won't matter at all once I'm dead. I don't have the ego or hubris to think my life should matter more than that.
Is the Universe capricious and violent? Seems operate by pretty regular rules. I see this sort of response a lot but I think it comes from a fear of responsibility of our own actions. Is the world cruel? Yes. Why? Because we are cruel. I think we all innately know this, but want to deny our responsibility in and at the same time fear being called answer for it.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2015, 04:23:10 AM
Quote from: frunk on November 23, 2015, 12:58:37 AM
Personally I find Atheism much more comforting than the idea of an intelligent being designing a capricious and violent universe for individuals to suffer in, and in which there is no physical evidence that there is anything after death. However awful nothing is an all powerful being out to cause pain is much worse, even if redemption is supposedly possible.
The idea of dying and all of my existence going away doesn't bother me, it's an intrinsic part of life. Whatever minimal point my life has it would be diminished if by continuing to exist I prevented something else from having its chance at life. To be bothered by the idea of the universe ceasing to exist billions of years from now strikes me as silly, I'm much more bothered by the idea that there are incredible and amazing things going on in other places and times of the universe that I'll never get to see.
I get to choose the point of my life, it only matters to me and it won't matter at all once I'm dead. I don't have the ego or hubris to think my life should matter more than that.
Is the Universe capricious and violent? Seems operate by pretty regular rules. I see this sort of response a lot but I think it comes from a fear of responsibility of our own actions. Is the world cruel? Yes. Why? Because we are cruel. I think we all innately know this, but want to deny our responsibility in and at the same time fear being called answer for it.
I think he means something like Yossarian said in Catch 22:
QuoteGood God, how much reverence can you have for a Supreme Being who finds it necessary to include such phenomena as phlegm and tooth decay in His divine system of Creation? What in the world was running through that warped, evil, scatological mind of His when He robbed old people of the power to control their bowel movements?
That's pretty much my take on it: this world, without an omnipotent creator, is a beautiful place where the smallest thing is a thing of wonder.
But if it was created by an omnipotent being (ie. he could have created whatever he wanted to) then it's a cesspool of a sadistic prick who is only worthy of contempt and disgust, not praise.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2015, 04:23:10 AM
Is the Universe capricious and violent? Seems operate by pretty regular rules. I see this sort of response a lot but I think it comes from a fear of responsibility of our own actions. Is the world cruel? Yes. Why? Because we are cruel. I think we all innately know this, but want to deny our responsibility in and at the same time fear being called answer for it.
Of course humans can be cruel, as well as loving, sadistic, kind, happy, sad, violent, depressed and peaceful the whole range. Who would deny that? If cruelty can only be performed by sentient beings, how much crueler than humans is the being that created a world with earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, disease and all the other suffering that isn't man made?
Because there are natural phenomenon that can cause you harm, God must be evil? These things like volcanoes and or hurricanes that are necessary elements to life existing on this world indicate cruelty? They are objectively bad? I would say that volcanoes lack a moral character, and that people ascribe a moral character because they can suffer from them. People must have the ability to suffer or else free will is fairly meaningless. They must also have the ability to die for similar reasons.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2015, 11:43:30 AM
Because there are natural phenomenon that can cause you harm, God must be evil? These things like volcanoes and or hurricanes that are necessary elements to life existing on this world indicate cruelty? They are objectively bad? I would say that volcanoes lack a moral character, and that people ascribe a moral character because they can suffer from them. People must have the ability to suffer or else free will is fairly meaningless. They must also have the ability to die for similar reasons.
I guess the thinking is that an omnipotent and good God would make things good for me all the time. Since they are not he is evil...or something.
Quote from: Valmy on November 23, 2015, 11:45:02 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2015, 11:43:30 AM
Because there are natural phenomenon that can cause you harm, God must be evil? These things like volcanoes and or hurricanes that are necessary elements to life existing on this world indicate cruelty? They are objectively bad? I would say that volcanoes lack a moral character, and that people ascribe a moral character because they can suffer from them. People must have the ability to suffer or else free will is fairly meaningless. They must also have the ability to die for similar reasons.
I guess the thinking is that an omnipotent and good God would make things good for me all the time. Since they are not he is evil...or something.
If he is omnipotent, then all suffering is because he wants those sufferings to be. If a man chooses to cause pain and suffering when he doesn't have to, we call that evil. So why should not we call this evil as well?
Quote from: Tamas on November 23, 2015, 11:46:45 AM
If he is omnipotent, then all suffering is because he wants those sufferings to be. If a man chooses to cause pain and suffering when he doesn't have to, we call that evil. So why should not we call this evil as well?
If he is omnipotent and evil then surely he would strike you down for saying such things -_-
But seriously yeah that is what I was trying to sum up.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2015, 11:43:30 AM
Because there are natural phenomenon that can cause you harm, God must be evil? These things like volcanoes and or hurricanes that are necessary elements to life existing on this world indicate cruelty? They are objectively bad? I would say that volcanoes lack a moral character, and that people ascribe a moral character because they can suffer from them. People must have the ability to suffer or else free will is fairly meaningless. They must also have the ability to die for similar reasons.
Most of human endeavor is designed around avoiding the vicissitudes of nature. Without modern invention and effort the world is a crueler and worst place and we would suffer more. So do we have less free will now than if we lived in a primitive society? Are our decisions constrained because we are less likely to suffer from an incurable disease?
Quote from: Tamas on November 23, 2015, 11:46:45 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 23, 2015, 11:45:02 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2015, 11:43:30 AM
Because there are natural phenomenon that can cause you harm, God must be evil? These things like volcanoes and or hurricanes that are necessary elements to life existing on this world indicate cruelty? They are objectively bad? I would say that volcanoes lack a moral character, and that people ascribe a moral character because they can suffer from them. People must have the ability to suffer or else free will is fairly meaningless. They must also have the ability to die for similar reasons.
I guess the thinking is that an omnipotent and good God would make things good for me all the time. Since they are not he is evil...or something.
If he is omnipotent, then all suffering is because he wants those sufferings to be. If a man chooses to cause pain and suffering when he doesn't have to, we call that evil. So why should not we call this evil as well?
Because we don't know its done with evil intent. Still it seems your problem is not tooth decay or volcanoes, but that human beings have the capacity to suffer. Would it be better if every human was replaced with a mindless insect that felt no pain? It would seem that Suffering and Death are necessary elements for all higher species.
Quote from: frunk on November 23, 2015, 11:57:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2015, 11:43:30 AM
Because there are natural phenomenon that can cause you harm, God must be evil? These things like volcanoes and or hurricanes that are necessary elements to life existing on this world indicate cruelty? They are objectively bad? I would say that volcanoes lack a moral character, and that people ascribe a moral character because they can suffer from them. People must have the ability to suffer or else free will is fairly meaningless. They must also have the ability to die for similar reasons.
Most of human endeavor is designed around avoiding the vicissitudes of nature. Without modern invention and effort the world is a crueler and worst place and we would suffer more. So do we have less free will now than if we lived in a primitive society? Are our decisions constrained because we are less likely to suffer from an incurable disease?
Well ignoring from the fact we are still very likely to die of a disease, I think you misunderstand my point. The fact that we make the choice to mitigate the effects of the environment doesn't have any bearing on whether we have more or less free choice. Imagine that a stream of lava is coming down the mountain right at you. You can either sprint away or just stand there. In our world standing there would cause you to painfully burn up, and sprinting away results in you getting not burned up. In a world without suffering the choice is meaningless. You aren't harmed whether your run or not. It takes suffering to make this a meaningful choice. In our world the fact that you are capable of running away (that is, mitigating the suffering), doesn't mean you lose free will. To live in world without suffering means to live in a world that is static and unchanging where choices don't matter.
This is an old argument.
Raz is arguing the position that God has to have children die of incurable diseases so we can appreciate it when some don't.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2015, 11:57:42 AM
It would seem that Suffering and Death are necessary elements for all higher species.
Which disproves the point that an omnipotent god would want it that way how exactly?
Quote from: Berkut on November 23, 2015, 12:38:55 PM
This is an old argument.
Raz is arguing the position that God has to have children die of incurable diseases so we can appreciate it when some don't.
Why are you even talking to me? You don't bother to read what I wrote, and you can't stand it when people disagree with you. Why don't you go back to ignoring me?
Quote from: Tamas on November 23, 2015, 12:49:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2015, 11:57:42 AM
It would seem that Suffering and Death are necessary elements for all higher species.
Which disproves the point that an omnipotent god would want it that way how exactly?
It doesn't.
Quote from: Tamas on November 23, 2015, 11:46:45 AM
If he is omnipotent, then all suffering is because he wants those sufferings to be. If a man chooses to cause pain and suffering when he doesn't have to, we call that evil. So why should not we call this evil as well?
QuoteIf it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever.
Well, I managed to kill this thread and force everyone into another one. This might be my finest work.
Indeed Raz, your ability to destroy interesting conversation is your most prized attribute, I am sure.
I can destroy lots of things. :)