http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-blast-idUSKCN0WT0HR
Do we need a mega thread for Muslim terrorism?
I'll get the ball rolling here and save viper some time.
"The people committing these acts aren't Muslims. They are terrorists hijacking Islam for their own purposes. 99.99% of Muslims are peaceful members of society."
I once worked with a Pakistani Christian guy. He used to always have an icon of Mary hanging from the rear view mirror of his 1980s Mercedes. He had three of those cars, all identical. All with icons in them. His name...Mohammad. :P
Quote from: Jaron on March 27, 2016, 03:32:24 PM
I'll get the ball rolling here and save viper some time.
"The people committing these acts aren't Muslims. They are terrorists hijacking Islam for their own purposes. 99.99% of Muslims are peaceful members of society."
it is true. The problem with Islam lies much deeper than "it's a violent religion !!!!". It is simplistic and not helpful to the problem to reduce it as such.
Budhist on muslim violence exists and is the norm in some countries.
Christian has had a pretty violent past, from the moment it became the dominant religion. Christian on Christian violence is still more or less the norm in parts of Ireland.
The Sikh have bombed a plane or two in their heydays.
Yet, we don't try to fight Christianity, or even Catholicism. We don't prohibit Sikh activities. We find ways to deal with the local terror groups.
All religion have the potential for terror and can be diverted from their origianl purpose by men.
It's up to us to fight the good fights and clear our countries of religious fanatics, no matter the religion.
Besides, there are more terrorist attacks committed by leftists and ecologists than muslims. Now, if you tell me we should get rid of the hard left and the crazy greens, I'm listening :)
Quote from: viper37 on March 27, 2016, 08:06:42 PM
it is true. The problem with Islam lies much deeper than "it's a violent religion !!!!". It is simplistic and not helpful to the problem to reduce it as such.
Well of course. It is not like 200 years ago Islamic terrorism was a thing. It is a crisis in current Islam though and must have an Islamic solution.
QuoteBesides, there are more terrorist attacks committed by leftists and ecologists than muslims. Now, if you tell me we should get rid of the hard left and the crazy greens, I'm listening
Right now? No, Islamic terrorists control vast regions of the world and are currently threatening multiple minority populations with genocide. Historically? Not even close, but we did recently conduct a vast effort to defeat the hard left.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2016, 08:20:08 PM
It is not like 200 years ago Islamic terrorism was a thing.
Some greeks and other balkan peoples may disagree.
Quote from: viper37 on March 27, 2016, 08:06:42 PM
Besides, there are more terrorist attacks committed by leftists and ecologists than muslims. Now, if you tell me we should get rid of the hard left and the crazy greens, I'm listening :)
I don't know of any terrorist attacks committed by an ecologist. Is this like a mad scientist sort of thing?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2016, 08:58:22 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 27, 2016, 08:06:42 PM
Besides, there are more terrorist attacks committed by leftists and ecologists than muslims. Now, if you tell me we should get rid of the hard left and the crazy greens, I'm listening :)
I don't know of any terrorist attacks committed by an ecologist. Is this like a mad scientist sort of thing?
I don't know man. Take Dian Fossey--disappearing into the jungle like FARC or some other radical group. She even met a violent end. In interviews she said she was there for the gorillas, but do you know she never actually wrote that she was there for gorillas? If she did I bet she would have spelled it "guerillas".
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2016, 08:20:08 PM
Well of course. It is not like 200 years ago Islamic terrorism was a thing. It is a crisis in current Islam though and must have an Islamic solution.
The Barbary pirates were the Islamic terrorists of their day.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 27, 2016, 09:32:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2016, 08:20:08 PM
Well of course. It is not like 200 years ago Islamic terrorism was a thing. It is a crisis in current Islam though and must have an Islamic solution.
The Barbary pirates were the Islamic terrorists of their day.
Suleyman, Saladin and Barbarossa were the original Islamic terrorists.
QuoteChristian on Christian violence is still more or less the norm in parts of Ireland.
Is that actually true?
Also, the problem with the "other religions do it too" argument is (1) an issue of scale and (2) the fact that you have to reach back centuries (at least in the case of Christianity) in order to find remotely comparable examples.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2016, 08:20:08 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 27, 2016, 08:06:42 PM
it is true. The problem with Islam lies much deeper than "it's a violent religion !!!!". It is simplistic and not helpful to the problem to reduce it as such.
Well of course. It is not like 200 years ago Islamic terrorism was a thing. It is a crisis in current Islam though and must have an Islamic solution.
it is a simple problem. Yet, very complex in its nature.
Most of the arab world has flirted with socialisme&communism during the cold war, they inherited two feelings:
1- The West is the ennemy
2- We are victimes of the West.
That is the local culture it breeds. You have religion mixing with politics, never a good thing, no matter the religion.
We talk of islamic terrorism, and given the nazi-like structure of ISIS, it is appropriate. But in the past, many such groups have recruited non muslims to "fight" with them. And while not fighting directly, you'll find a lot of these non muslims agreeing with the "cause".
So, I feel, that to reduce it to a simple question of Islam = Evil is totally missing the point.
Nazism was many thing, sometimes Christian, sometimes Pagan, sometimes Atheist. But it was an ideology we fought by dislodging the supporters of that ideology from our countries. Fascists were arrested and it became illegal for them to cheer on the deaths on non nazis. We fought the ideological war as well as the military war. MacKenzie King did not proclaim Nazi worshippers as friends of the State. Nazis in the US found themselves on hard times with Roosevelt in power. Churchill purge the country of nazi sympathizers too.
Of course, we went overboard with the detention camps for all Japanese (and Germans? I don't really know). But at the basic level, we did not tolerate support for the ennemy. And that's what we are missing right now.
You can't imagine a man of 1941 swearing an oath of citizenship with his Nazi armband. You can't imagine a Japanese man swearing fealty to the Emperor of Japan before he becomes a Canadian citizen. Yet, we allow this today.
On the extreme right, we lump all muslims together, they're all terrorists, until such time as they have proven themselves to be loyal beyond any possible doubt, and even then. On the other side, the left will proclaim all muslims are peaceful until such time as they detonate themselves in a crowded area, totally ignoring the radicalization process and its symbols.
Neither approach works, neither is efficient. But we are still divided among ourselves.
Quote from: Camerus on March 27, 2016, 11:24:22 PM
Is that actually true?
The IRA is still officially active, but it's not like it used to be.
Quote
Also, the problem with the "other religions do it too" argument is (1) an issue of scale and (2) the fact that you have to reach back centuries (at least in the case of Christianity) in order to find remotely comparable examples.
True. We grew out of it. We do not slaughter each other for our religious differences anymore. We only slaughter ourselves for our skin colour, apparently. ;)
The point is, it's not related solely to Islam, there is a deep victimization feeling coming from these countries that comes only partly from the religion. You hear the same discourse you hear from our leftist nuts, yet, it is mixed with religion and a feeling life will be better for everyone they love once they are gone.
If you're looking for facts, you have to look at the number of islamic terrorists vs the number of muslims in the world today. Even if there were 1 million ISIS fighters, that's still a small fraction of the total number of muslim practionner.
You have to look much deeper than the religion.
Quote from: Jaron on March 27, 2016, 09:35:17 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 27, 2016, 09:32:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2016, 08:20:08 PM
Well of course. It is not like 200 years ago Islamic terrorism was a thing. It is a crisis in current Islam though and must have an Islamic solution.
The Barbary pirates were the Islamic terrorists of their day.
Suleyman, Saladin and Barbarossa were the original Islamic terrorists.
And Richard the Lionhearted as well as Guy de Lusignan, noble heroes? :)
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2016, 08:58:22 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 27, 2016, 08:06:42 PM
Besides, there are more terrorist attacks committed by leftists and ecologists than muslims. Now, if you tell me we should get rid of the hard left and the crazy greens, I'm listening :)
I don't know of any terrorist attacks committed by an ecologist. Is this like a mad scientist sort of thing?
My numbers are out of date, religious-based terrorism is dominant, but the other forms are still numerous:
https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/european-union-terrorism-situation-and-trend-report-2015
Quote from: alfred russel on March 27, 2016, 09:18:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2016, 08:58:22 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 27, 2016, 08:06:42 PM
Besides, there are more terrorist attacks committed by leftists and ecologists than muslims. Now, if you tell me we should get rid of the hard left and the crazy greens, I'm listening :)
I don't know of any terrorist attacks committed by an ecologist. Is this like a mad scientist sort of thing?
I don't know man. Take Dian Fossey--disappearing into the jungle like FARC or some other radical group. She even met a violent end. In interviews she said she was there for the gorillas, but do you know she never actually wrote that she was there for gorillas? If she did I bet she would have spelled it "guerillas".
Bombing pipelines is peaceful work, I guess. They have noble intentions, so they should be forgiven. Kinda like what all those people supporting ISIS tell themselves :)
Ecologists are scientists. They study organic systems. You are thinking of environmentalists. I hate when I have to explain my jokes. <_<
Quote from: viper37 on March 27, 2016, 11:28:49 PM
If you're looking for facts, you have to look at the number of islamic terrorists vs the number of muslims in the world today. Even if there were 1 million ISIS fighters, that's still a small fraction of the total number of muslim practionner.
This is such a stunningly bullshit argument. It is really quite incredible.
TThe fact that only some small fraction of Muslims are terrorists is exactly to be expected given the problem state. Nobody claims, or thinks, that all Muslims are terrorists, so pointing that tautaology out is hardly interesting.
What we do know is that Muslims, compared to other religions, tend to have much more intolerant views and are more accepting of violence as a means of furthering their religion. That obviously manfests itself from very peaceful Muslims on one end, through a range of more tolerance for and approval of violence down to the small few (but still more than enough to cause incredible anguish) willing to actually enage in violence, and the even fewer who are willing to engage in violence we characterize as terrorism.
It is trite to point out that other religions, believ systems, etc. also have this same curve. But the number at each point in the curve are radically different. You can certainly find some Christians in the world who think women should be second class citizens. So you easily respond to this criticism by pointing that out - but there is a huge difference between the percentages, and those differences matter. Some rather disturbing fraction of Muslims worldwide think it should the the law that people like me should be put to death. Whether that number is ming bogglingly disturbing, or just pretty darn frightening isn't really the point. The point is that it is the case that this particular religion has a very different in scale level of tolerance for social norms that we would, and should, find completely intolerable.
Now, back to your demand that the relevant fact is that only very few Muslims are terrorists.
Bullshit - that is NOT the relevant fact.
The relevant fact is that nearly all violent terrorists today are Muslims. *That* is the relevant fact.
Let's use an analogy. Let's say we were concerned about a recent rash of cars starting on fire and burning up everyone inside. Kind of a new thing, although certainly in the past there were cases of it happening as well of and on.
Let's say we find that last year this happened 1000 times. Very alarming! Now, they start doing some investigating, and low and behold, it turns out that of the 1000 cars that burst into flame last year, 992 of them were Fords! Holy crap!
Of course, YOU would argue that there are some several million Fords out there, and only some tiny fraction have burst into flames, so the fact that 99% of them were Fords is completely irrelevant, and we should totally NOT look at Fords as the potential problem, because most Fords don't burst into flame.
Rather, we must look into some deeper, more profound explanation.
Also, there was this one time 100 years ago where a car once burst into flames before Fords were even invented - what about THAT! Hah!
Now, if you want to argue that people should not assume that all Fords will burst into flames, then THAT is a reasonable argument. Of course, in this case, nobody is assuming that all Muslims are terrorists, so it is hardly relevant.
But if you want to understand Islamic terrorism, you would be a fool to pretend that the beliefs of the people engaged in the terrorism have nothing to do with their actions...even when they tell that is exactly why they are doing the things that they do.
Quote from: viper37 on March 27, 2016, 11:30:32 PM
Quote from: Jaron on March 27, 2016, 09:35:17 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 27, 2016, 09:32:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2016, 08:20:08 PM
Well of course. It is not like 200 years ago Islamic terrorism was a thing. It is a crisis in current Islam though and must have an Islamic solution.
The Barbary pirates were the Islamic terrorists of their day.
Suleyman, Saladin and Barbarossa were the original Islamic terrorists.
And Richard the Lionhearted as well as Guy de Lusignan, noble heroes? :)
WTF does whether they are noble heroes or complete assholes have to do with anything?
What are you trying to prove here - that there are other assholes in the world and throughout history?
Who are you arguing with?
Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2016, 11:55:18 PM
Some rather disturbing fraction of Muslims worldwide think it should the the law that people like me should be put to death.
Berkut I'm sure that we can find people of all faiths who think you should be put to death. In fact, I'd say we can even find atheists who think that you should be put to death. ;)
Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2016, 11:55:18 PMThe relevant fact is that nearly all violent terrorists today are Muslims. *That* is the relevant fact.
I don't think this is true
http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Global-Terrorism-Index-2015.pdf
Quote from: Camerus on March 27, 2016, 11:24:22 PM
QuoteChristian on Christian violence is still more or less the norm in parts of Ireland.
Is that actually true?
Marching season still gets pretty rowdy, as I understand it: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/13/orange-order-marching-season-begins-northern-ireland
QuoteAlso, the problem with the "other religions do it too" argument is (1) an issue of scale and (2) the fact that you have to reach back centuries (at least in the case of Christianity) in order to find remotely comparable examples.
That kind of depends on where you're going with the "other religions do it too" argument.
If, for example, you're countering an argument that "there is something unique about Islam - independent of time, location, or external factors - that makes it inherently more violent and prone to terrorism" then that's not a problem at all; you can freely refer to acts followers of other religions - including Christianity - have carried out in the name of their faith or cause in different times and locations, or in response to different external factors. There's no problem with the argument in that case.
Similarly, if you are arguing that there are other factors in play (whatever those factors may be) then you can usefully refer to other examples - including Christian ones - that share those factors even if they're further back in time.
That said, I'm curious what you mean by what you have in mind in terms of scale and remotely comparable examples when you speak of comparisons.
Certainly, the terrorist acts and brutal murders associated with "the Troubles" in Northern Ireland are not exactly centuries back; neither are the actions of the ETA.
The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka are not particularly Muslim, nor are the Sinhalese majority population; yet the Tamil Tigers carried out something like 374 suicide attacks (and some say they were the ones who originated the concept of suicide bombings). That conflict ostensibly only ended in 2009 which is less than centuries ago.
The Rwandan genocide didn't involve any Muslims. To the extent the ethnic cleansing in the Former Yugoslavia did it was mostly as victims; there was plenty of nominally Christian on Christian violence there. While rating atrocities are pretty pointless IMO, it's in the same ballpark as the terrible things Daesh is reported as carrying out which makes it hard to argue that that sort of thing is inherently Muslim somehow.
Speaking of groups explicitly claiming Christian motivations for terroristic brutality, the Lord's Resistance Army seems to fit the bill pretty well. Similarly, the string of abortion related bombings and murders in the US (and elsewhere) seem to indicate that a Christian framework can be used to justify terrorist actions.
If we look at the various insurgencies, dictatorships, paramilitary groups, and organized crime lords in South and Central America we see plenty of wanton killing and terrorist acts - some of them on quite a large scale - and some of it quite recent too.
So if the argument is that there is something special about Islam to engender suicide attacks or a willingness to murder and terrorize people seen as enemies, then there are plenty of examples in very recent times not involving Muslims in any shape or form.
Now, it is true that unlike Mexican drug lords or ethnically driven conflicts in Africa or elsewhere, the terrorism hasn't targeted the US or the West (other than the ETA targeting Spain and France, the IRA targeting the UK, and various anti-abortion terrorists choosing local American targets etc) - while the current crop of radical Islamist terrorists have declared the West "the enemy".
But given that this is a relatively new development (i.e. radical Muslims have not been targeting the West with terrorist attacks for particularly long), and given that there's little specifically Muslim about the terrorist violence itself (since match for match equivalents can be found in non-Muslim contexts pretty much across the board), it is perhaps not completely unreasonable to look for other indicators beyond religion.
Not a popular view on languish, of course.
Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2016, 11:55:18 PMBut if you want to understand Islamic terrorism, you would be a fool to pretend that the beliefs of the people engaged in the terrorism have nothing to do with their actions...even when they tell that is exactly why they are doing the things that they do.
So, having listened to practitioners of Islamic terrorism what do you understand about them?
Quote from: Jacob on March 28, 2016, 12:33:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2016, 11:55:18 PMBut if you want to understand Islamic terrorism, you would be a fool to pretend that the beliefs of the people engaged in the terrorism have nothing to do with their actions...even when they tell that is exactly why they are doing the things that they do.
So, having listened to practitioners of Islamic terrorism what do you understand about them?
Lot's of things - did you have something specific in mind?
Quote from: Jacob
If we look at the various insurgencies, dictatorships, paramilitary groups, and organized crime lords in South and Central America we see plenty of wanton killing and terrorist acts - some of them on quite a large scale - and some of it quite recent too.
And if we were talking about what should be done about Mexican drug cartel violence, it would be foolish to claim that since rampant violence has happened where drugs were not involved, we should ignore the drug trade as a primary motivating factor in that particular violence.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 28, 2016, 12:17:33 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2016, 11:55:18 PMThe relevant fact is that nearly all violent terrorists today are Muslims. *That* is the relevant fact.
I don't think this is true
http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Global-Terrorism-Index-2015.pdf
Here is a nice one:
16/12/14 Iraq Fallujah 150 / — ISIL Assailants killed 150 women who had refused to engage in a jihad marriage.
Nothing to do with religion, of course.
When I read Jacob's and viper's post, I almost can't wait all those refugees the man-child prime minister Trudeau is planning to bring to Canada start to blow shit up. But that would be petty.
Western civilization is under siege and the Jacob and vipers of our lands are laying out the welcome mat.
The idea that the ideologies of terrorists don't have anything to do with terrorism is a bit weird, and hard to take seriously.
I find it a bit funny, too, that the regressive left seems to be perfectly fine with calling a guy with his dick cut off a woman, but draw a line at calling a group that describe itself as Muslims Muslim.
Good point, actually :D
Quote from: Berkut on March 28, 2016, 12:51:34 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 28, 2016, 12:17:33 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2016, 11:55:18 PMThe relevant fact is that nearly all violent terrorists today are Muslims. *That* is the relevant fact.
I don't think this is true
http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Global-Terrorism-Index-2015.pdf
Here is a nice one:
16/12/14 Iraq Fallujah 150 / — ISIL Assailants killed 150 women who had refused to engage in a jihad marriage.
Nothing to do with religion, of course.
yeah, isis and boko haram have killed a decent amount of people
Quote from: LaCroix on March 28, 2016, 10:58:51 AM
yeah, isis and boko haram have killed a decent amount of people
Mostly Muslims. And these groups just seem to keep getting bigger and scarier.
Once President Trump finally smacks them with an eminent domain suit and Twitter spam, Boko Haram won't know what hit them. Then they'll wish they negotiated a better deal.
Quote from: Berkut on March 28, 2016, 12:44:20 AMLot's of things - did you have something specific in mind?
Well, I'm curious to what extent the things you understand support or undermine the narrative advanced by the legbiters/ grallons/ CrazyIvans/ Jarons/ Brains/ etc.
Sort of related, I'm curious about what sort of action or policy your understanding leads you to support.
Quote from: Jacob on March 28, 2016, 01:00:05 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 28, 2016, 12:44:20 AMLot's of things - did you have something specific in mind?
Well, I'm curious to what extent the things you understand support or undermine the narrative advanced by the legbiters/ grallons/ CrazyIvans/ Jarons/ Brains/ etc.
Sort of related, I'm curious about what sort of action or policy your understanding leads you to support.
Still a very, very broad question.
I think that there are several levels happening within the Muslim world today. These levels are not unique to Islam, but the relative percentages in each of these levels is very unique.
You have Islam itself. As someone who thinks that overall religion is bad, as a religion it is considerably worse than any others as they are practiced today by significant numbers of people, for some specific reasons.
Forgetting about terrorism for the moment, the basic problem I have that separates it from other mainstream religions is it's demand that it have a roll outside of religion - that societies laws and practices should and ought to reflect the specific demands of its doctrine. This results in things like apostasy and homosexuality being death sentences for millions of people. This results in women being treated as second class citizens, and a host of other human rights violations that are supported in the name of "cultural understanding". There are similar feelings in Christianity of course, but the numbers are a tiny fraction, and are declining.
At the next level, you have Islamism, which is the more actively political aspect of Islam. Where there is a concerted effort by Islamists to make the religion a political force, and re-shape society in the image of religion. This shows itself in efforts like the Muslim Brotherhood to replace the secular state with a religious state, efforts that have succeeded in some places like Iran. This is ongoing in Turkey, and much of the Middle East. There are overtly religious political parties who want to replace secular government with theocracy. Again, I imagine there are some examples of this in other religions, but they are universally marginalized. Not so with Islam, and Islamism. Indeed, what happens in places like Egypt shows that this idea that secular law and secular political power is to be removed enjoys widespread support, at least in theory.
Lastly, you have the jihadists, who are Islamists who think that their religion demands that they use violence as necessary to further those political goals. The belief that Islam should be spread at the point of a gun if necessary. This is truly almost unique to Islam as a religion. Yes, there are other political actors willing to use force of course, and it is important to understand *their* motives as well, if you want to talk about why they do the things they do - we wouldn't just insist that what they want is false, and they are driven by some other factor.
Now, the real problem is that while there are many Muslims who are not jihadists or islamists, it is not clear from the Koran that they are right and the jihadists are wrong. There certainly is no consensus on it, and poll after poll has shown that even moderate Muslims are radically more tolerant of violence in the service of religion. I hope that this is changing, and I know there is a struggle going on in the Islamic world to define what it means.
But this is what I mean when I say the their beliefs do matter. There is a difference between various religious beliefs, they are NOT all the same.
In all these things, the idea that the doctrines and beliefs of the people supporting them are not important is beyond the pale. Of course it is important, it is critical. Tens of millions of people do not support the execution of apostates because <insert some secular reason here>, they believe that because the Koran says they should believe that.
Many do not believe that, of course - they (like Christians) have managed to move away from that concept of their religion, and see those passages differently.
Personally, I would love to see the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world convert to atheism. That doesn't seem likely to happen.
As an alternative, and this seems pretty unlikely as well (but certainly more possible), I would like to see more and more of them fall into the "Muslim in name" practice that we see dominate most other religions. I would like to see a clear and compelling demand within Muslim society to have a clear separation of church and state, which I think is absolutely necessary for any kind of free and liberal society. I despair about how possible this really is though - it seems like an insurmountable task. But what other option is there?
To the extent that it should lead me to support policies or actions, it leads me to support those within the Muslim community who would advocate for such change, and support the most moderate elements in the current war of ideas that is convulsing Islam in many parts of the world. It also makes me support taking what actions are necessary to protect us from those who have radicalized beliefs, and realize that people who truly do believe that murdering infidels is the will of god and the path to salvation are extremely dangerous in a way that other actors are not - and in a world where the power of small numbers of people to harm larger groups appears to be ever growing, that is very, very alarming.
The very, very least that the West can do though, is to stop pretending like this has nothing to do with religion. Starting your analysis of policy based on self delusion cannot possibly lead to a useful set of actions.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 28, 2016, 12:17:33 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2016, 11:55:18 PMThe relevant fact is that nearly all violent terrorists today are Muslims. *That* is the relevant fact.
I don't think this is true
http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Global-Terrorism-Index-2015.pdf
I think that your evidence disproves your argument:
QuoteTerrorist activity is highly concentrated — five countries accounted for 78 per cent of deaths. Fifty-seven per cent of all attacks and 78 per cent of all deaths occurred in only five countries; Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria. (page 5)
In all of those countries the terrorists are Muslims.
QuoteTwo groups are responsible for half the deaths from terrorism — Boko Haram and ISIL. Fifty-one per cent of terrorist deaths that are attributed to a terrorist group were
by Boko Haram and ISIL.(also page 5)
Both of those are Islamic fundamentalist groups. The other three members of the top five (al-Shabaab, Fulani, and Taliban; see pages 41-44) are also Islamic, though arguably the Fulani are not acting on religious grounds.
Perhaps you should read your sources before citing them.
Quote from: Berkut on March 28, 2016, 12:47:01 AMAnd if we were talking about what should be done about Mexican drug cartel violence, it would be foolish to claim that since rampant violence has happened where drugs were not involved, we should ignore the drug trade as a primary motivating factor in that particular violence.
Fair point.
But we might also not want to transpose our analysis of how to deal with Mexican drug cartel violence - including the impact of the drug trade - on to how we deal with Mexicans as a general rule, how we deal with Catholics as a general rule, or how to deal with everyone involved in the drug trade as a general rule.
F. ex. the kid selling weed to a few of his buddies at school should not be dealt with the same way the cartel driven violence in Mexico is dealt with, seems to me.
Quote from: Berkut on March 28, 2016, 01:39:28 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 28, 2016, 01:00:05 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 28, 2016, 12:44:20 AMLot's of things - did you have something specific in mind?
Well, I'm curious to what extent the things you understand support or undermine the narrative advanced by the legbiters/ grallons/ CrazyIvans/ Jarons/ Brains/ etc.
Sort of related, I'm curious about what sort of action or policy your understanding leads you to support.
Still a very, very broad question.
I think that there are several levels happening within the Muslim world today. These levels are not unique to Islam, but the relative percentages in each of these levels is very unique.
You have Islam itself. As someone who thinks that overall religion is bad, as a religion it is considerably worse than any others as they are practiced today by significant numbers of people, for some specific reasons.
Forgetting about terrorism for the moment, the basic problem I have that separates it from other mainstream religions is it's demand that it have a roll outside of religion - that societies laws and practices should and ought to reflect the specific demands of its doctrine. This results in things like apostasy and homosexuality being death sentences for millions of people. This results in women being treated as second class citizens, and a host of other human rights violations that are supported in the name of "cultural understanding". There are similar feelings in Christianity of course, but the numbers are a tiny fraction, and are declining.
At the next level, you have Islamism, which is the more actively political aspect of Islam. Where there is a concerted effort by Islamists to make the religion a political force, and re-shape society in the image of religion. This shows itself in efforts like the Muslim Brotherhood to replace the secular state with a religious state, efforts that have succeeded in some places like Iran. This is ongoing in Turkey, and much of the Middle East. There are overtly religious political parties who want to replace secular government with theocracy. Again, I imagine there are some examples of this in other religions, but they are universally marginalized. Not so with Islam, and Islamism. Indeed, what happens in places like Egypt shows that this idea that secular law and secular political power is to be removed enjoys widespread support, at least in theory.
Lastly, you have the jihadists, who are Islamists who think that their religion demands that they use violence as necessary to further those political goals. The belief that Islam should be spread at the point of a gun if necessary. This is truly almost unique to Islam as a religion. Yes, there are other political actors willing to use force of course, and it is important to understand *their* motives as well, if you want to talk about why they do the things they do - we wouldn't just insist that what they want is false, and they are driven by some other factor.
Now, the real problem is that while there are many Muslims who are not jihadists or islamists, it is not clear from the Koran that they are right and the jihadists are wrong. There certainly is no consensus on it, and poll after poll has shown that even moderate Muslims are radically more tolerant of violence in the service of religion. I hope that this is changing, and I know there is a struggle going on in the Islamic world to define what it means.
But this is what I mean when I say the their beliefs do matter. There is a difference between various religious beliefs, they are NOT all the same.
In all these things, the idea that the doctrines and beliefs of the people supporting them are not important is beyond the pale. Of course it is important, it is critical. Tens of millions of people do not support the execution of apostates because <insert some secular reason here>, they believe that because the Koran says they should believe that.
Many do not believe that, of course - they (like Christians) have managed to move away from that concept of their religion, and see those passages differently.
Personally, I would love to see the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world convert to atheism. That doesn't seem likely to happen.
As an alternative, and this seems pretty unlikely as well (but certainly more possible), I would like to see more and more of them fall into the "Muslim in name" practice that we see dominate most other religions. I would like to see a clear and compelling demand within Muslim society to have a clear separation of church and state, which I think is absolutely necessary for any kind of free and liberal society. I despair about how possible this really is though - it seems like an insurmountable task. But what other option is there?
To the extent that it should lead me to support policies or actions, it leads me to support those within the Muslim community who would advocate for such change, and support the most moderate elements in the current war of ideas that is convulsing Islam in many parts of the world. It also makes me support taking what actions are necessary to protect us from those who have radicalized beliefs, and realize that people who truly do believe that murdering infidels is the will of god and the path to salvation are extremely dangerous in a way that other actors are not - and in a world where the power of small numbers of people to harm larger groups appears to be ever growing, that is very, very alarming.
The very, very least that the West can do though, is to stop pretending like this has nothing to do with religion. Starting your analysis of policy based on self delusion cannot possibly lead to a useful set of actions.
You really need to stop listening to those Sam Harris Podcasts.
Quote from: Jacob on March 28, 2016, 02:15:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 28, 2016, 12:47:01 AMAnd if we were talking about what should be done about Mexican drug cartel violence, it would be foolish to claim that since rampant violence has happened where drugs were not involved, we should ignore the drug trade as a primary motivating factor in that particular violence.
Fair point.
But we might also not want to transpose our analysis of how to deal with Mexican drug cartel violence - including the impact of the drug trade - on to how we deal with Mexicans as a general rule, how we deal with Catholics as a general rule, or how to deal with everyone involved in the drug trade as a general rule.
F. ex. the kid selling weed to a few of his buddies at school should not be dealt with the same way the cartel driven violence in Mexico is dealt with, seems to me.
I think that goes without saying, doesn't it?
Quote from: Jacob on March 28, 2016, 01:00:05 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 28, 2016, 12:44:20 AMLot's of things - did you have something specific in mind?
Well, I'm curious to what extent the things you understand support or undermine the narrative advanced by the legbiters/ grallons/ CrazyIvans/ Jarons/ Brains/ etc.
Sort of related, I'm curious about what sort of action or policy your understanding leads you to support.
I'm curious: what is " the narrative advanced by the legbiters/ grallons/ CrazyIvans/ Jarons/ Brains/ etc?" They don't seem to me to have a common narrative.
Quote from: grumbler on March 28, 2016, 02:27:28 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 28, 2016, 01:00:05 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 28, 2016, 12:44:20 AMLot's of things - did you have something specific in mind?
Well, I'm curious to what extent the things you understand support or undermine the narrative advanced by the legbiters/ grallons/ CrazyIvans/ Jarons/ Brains/ etc.
Sort of related, I'm curious about what sort of action or policy your understanding leads you to support.
I'm curious: what is " the narrative advanced by the legbiters/ grallons/ CrazyIvans/ Jarons/ Brains/ etc?" They don't seem to me to have a common narrative.
Thank you.
What is the Brain's narrative?
Proof of what a hateful religion Christianity is. If they hadn't been celebrating Easter this wouldn't have happened.
Quote from: grumbler on March 28, 2016, 01:56:15 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 28, 2016, 12:17:33 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2016, 11:55:18 PMThe relevant fact is that nearly all violent terrorists today are Muslims. *That* is the relevant fact.
I don't think this is true
http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Global-Terrorism-Index-2015.pdf
I think that your evidence disproves your argument:
QuoteTerrorist activity is highly concentrated — five countries accounted for 78 per cent of deaths. Fifty-seven per cent of all attacks and 78 per cent of all deaths occurred in only five countries; Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria. (page 5)
In all of those countries the terrorists are Muslims.
QuoteTwo groups are responsible for half the deaths from terrorism — Boko Haram and ISIL. Fifty-one per cent of terrorist deaths that are attributed to a terrorist group were
by Boko Haram and ISIL.(also page 5)
Both of those are Islamic fundamentalist groups. The other three members of the top five (al-Shabaab, Fulani, and Taliban; see pages 41-44) are also Islamic, though arguably the Fulani are not acting on religious grounds.
Perhaps you should read your sources before citing them.
how do you define "nearly all"?
Quote from: LaCroix on March 28, 2016, 02:55:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 28, 2016, 01:56:15 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 28, 2016, 12:17:33 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2016, 11:55:18 PMThe relevant fact is that nearly all violent terrorists today are Muslims. *That* is the relevant fact.
I don't think this is true
http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Global-Terrorism-Index-2015.pdf
I think that your evidence disproves your argument:
QuoteTerrorist activity is highly concentrated — five countries accounted for 78 per cent of deaths. Fifty-seven per cent of all attacks and 78 per cent of all deaths occurred in only five countries; Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria. (page 5)
In all of those countries the terrorists are Muslims.
QuoteTwo groups are responsible for half the deaths from terrorism — Boko Haram and ISIL. Fifty-one per cent of terrorist deaths that are attributed to a terrorist group were
by Boko Haram and ISIL.(also page 5)
Both of those are Islamic fundamentalist groups. The other three members of the top five (al-Shabaab, Fulani, and Taliban; see pages 41-44) are also Islamic, though arguably the Fulani are not acting on religious grounds.
Perhaps you should read your sources before citing them.
how do you define "nearly all"?
The usual way: close to all, almost all. How do you define it?
Quote from: Martinus on March 28, 2016, 03:33:11 AM
I find it a bit funny, too, that the regressive left seems to be perfectly fine with calling a guy with his dick cut off a woman, but draw a line at calling a group that describe itself as Muslims Muslim.
You may describe yourself as anything you want. It does not mean you represent that group.
I think 'nearly all' is a tricky term. Depending on whether you want the logical conclusion to be true, it can mean anything from 60% to 99.99%.
Quote from: DGuller on March 28, 2016, 09:35:25 PM
I think 'nearly all' is a tricky term. Depending on whether you want the logical conclusion to be true, it can mean anything from 60% to 99.99%.
I think on "nearly all" Berkut misspoke and, true to Languish, this has completely derailed the discussion. It is quite obvious from the link Jacob posted that Muslim terrorists are responsible for the overwhelming majority of terrorism globally (the report itself mentions that just two groups - ISIS and Boko Haram - are responsible for more than half of terrorist attacks).
Quote from: Martinus on March 28, 2016, 11:46:40 PM
I think on "nearly all" Berkut misspoke and, true to Languish, this has completely derailed the discussion.
Oh, I'm pretty sure the discussion would've been derailed no matter what, it was only going to be a question of pretext.
Quote from: Martinus on March 28, 2016, 11:46:40 PM
I think on "nearly all" Berkut misspoke and, true to Languish, this has completely derailed the discussion. It is quite obvious from the link Jacob posted that Muslim terrorists are responsible for the overwhelming majority of terrorism globally (the report itself mentions that just two groups - ISIS and Boko Haram - are responsible for more than half of terrorist attacks).
I don't believe that Berkut "misspoke" at all, and I think that the evidence bears that out.
I also don't think that the discussion of who is actually carrying out terrorist attacks represents a complete derailment of a thread about terrorist attacks. If we try to keep the thread focused solely on Muslim attacks on Christians in Pakistan, there isn't much to say, and so no point to the thread.
I'm seeing a lot of religious Turks using this bombing for more of their murderous self pity bullshit. "THE WEST WON'T PAY ATTENTION WHEN MUSLIMS DIE!"---an actual quote. God, what loathsome people.
Quote from: DGuller on March 28, 2016, 09:35:25 PM
I think 'nearly all' is a tricky term. Depending on whether you want the logical conclusion to be true, it can mean anything from 60% to 99.99%.
I think for the purposes of my point, whether it is 75% or 99% is really rather immaterial.
The relevant point is that comparing total attacks to total number of Muslims is completely misleading.
Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2016, 11:55:18 PM
Nobody claims, or thinks, that all Muslims are terrorists, so pointing that tautaology out is hardly interesting.
hmm. a bit of bad faith, here? :)
Quote
What we do know is that Muslims, compared to other religions, tend to have much more intolerant views and are more accepting of violence as a means of furthering their religion.
Not really. It is a lot more fuzzy on suicide than Christianity, which does not recognize the concept of martyr, as in killing yourself in the name of God. You can be killed for God, you can kill for God, you can not kill yourself for God, so big difference here, obviously, we can bomb people, we can plant bombs to kill people, we can commit massacre, so long as we do it for the good reasons, i.e. bringing people in the light of Jesus Christ.
There were, after all, religious figures that supported the US invasion of Iraq, even some calling it a "just war" despite the Ten Commandments (Thou shall not kill) and Jesus message that was never about war.
With the actions of the IRA, we know that even, if late in the fight, the Church eventually condemned these attacks, locally, the Clergy was very supportive of the IRA.
The KKK were a pretty religious bunch and up until the 80s, the Southern Baptist did not consider the black men equal to the white. Things change, slowly.
Quote
That obviously manfests itself from very peaceful Muslims on one end, through a range of more tolerance for and approval of violence down to the small few (but still more than enough to cause incredible anguish) willing to actually enage in violence, and the even fewer who are willing to engage in violence we characterize as terrorism.
And you will the same with many religions, even self professed atheists are cheering for ISIS.
The hatred of the West goes beyond the religion.
QuoteSo you easily respond to this criticism by pointing that out - but there is a huge difference between the percentages, and those differences matter.
I'd be curious to see the regional repartition of people believing as such. Nigeria is pretty much divided equally between Mulsims and Christians. Yet, every now and then they have a witch scare. The last one was 2 year old boy, accused of being a witch. Accused by Christians.
Quote
Some rather disturbing fraction of Muslims worldwide think it should the the law that people like me should be put to death.
Most of these people come from 3rd world countries, and I rather suspects than Christians in the same areas, where they are allowed to exists, of course, hold similar views. See Nigeria above.
QuoteThe point is that it is the case that this particular religion has a very different in scale level of tolerance for social norms that we would, and should, find completely intolerable.
In Brazil, the parents of a raped 9 year old, and her too, were excommunicated from the Church because she had an abortion. In such countries, excommunication means you lose all kind of social contacts you may have, most of your family won't speak to you anymore, most of your friends will ignore you. Pretty hard punishment for a rape victim. Yet, is is Christian. Of course, she wasn't strangled, so she should be happy not to live in a muslim country?
Most mulslims living in the West eventually adopt similar values and views to us, but we must deploy some efforts for that to happen, and we must certainly not allow the social norms we would and should find completely intolerable, and we can't wait until they reach that point to intervene. But I am the minority here, and even you would not support such things.
Quote
The relevant fact is that nearly all violent terrorists today are Muslims. *That* is the relevant fact.
Not it is not really a relevant fact. Because first, you look at today. 5 years ago, it was not so. 5 years from now, it might be worst, or it might be another problem. Then you need to look at the support these guys get.
ISIS is different from other movements in that they specifically target non Sunni muslims. Even Al-Queida did not go that far, I mean, they were slaughtering non Sunni muslism, but they did not advertize it like ISIS does.
ISIS is much closer to a nazi ideology than previous groups. Islamo-fascists, a term so many people dislike, is quite apt here, I believe.
ISIS is as much a problem for the majority of Muslims than it the Nazis were for most Christians. Given were Islam is the most popular, given the ambiguous nature of governmental support to ISIS in many such countries where they are officially at war with the group but still let the funding go freely to them, it is a risky venture to protest against their actions, especially when Christians are the target.
As such, saying Islam, the religion, is the only problem, or even the one we must face is completely losing the sight of many cultural factors. Also, you penalize a fuckton of people who couldn't care less about Isis and just want to live their religion in peace, praying to their god as they see fit and not asking for anything. When you lump them with the fanatics, you have a predictable situation: parts of these people tend to radicalize because they feel ostracized.
Any criticism of religion in the US would not go well for any public figure. I can not imagine Hilary Clinton criticizing Christianity or some form or Protestantism for promoting Creationism in school or other silly ideas.
And that's the US, a civilized country, with protection for freespeech. The religious hard core nuts that form the backbone of a huge part of your country are already radicalizing themselves because they feel you are too secular. Try that aginst 3rd world countries, just for the fun of it.
Quote
Let's say we find that last year this happened 1000 times. Very alarming! Now, they start doing some investigating, and low and behold, it turns out that of the 1000 cars that burst into flame last year, 992 of them were Fords! Holy crap!
And in that case, would you support the government of your country to ban Ford cars from being sold in the US?
Quote
Of course, YOU would argue that there are some several million Fords out there, and only some tiny fraction have burst into flames, so the fact that 99% of them were Fords is completely irrelevant, and we should totally NOT look at Fords as the potential problem, because most Fords don't burst into flame.
A better figure would be 1000 fire, 260 from Ford, 220 from GM, 205 from Toyota, 175 from Chrysler and the rest from all other manufacturers. That's overwhelmingly a problem with Ford, apparently. But if you look at it, there's a lot of fires from other companies. Now, let's add one more piece of data: of all these fires, only 4 were caused due to a similar technical fault in Ford cars. The rest all had diverse cause for their fire, not related at all to that same 4.
Would you still think it's a good idea to blame Ford, to ban all their cars from the US? What if Ford sells its technology to Toyota and they are now the one making faulty cars because it's cheaper and there's no consequence? Even better, what if Ford moved to Canada and due to trade agreements they were now free to produce the same shitty cars and sell them in the US?
That is whey the analogy fails, because you use only partial data.
Quote
Also, there was this one time 100 years ago where a car once burst into flames before Fords were even invented - what about THAT! Hah!
If I were to take your example, examine all data, and come to the conclusion that in 99.99% of thechical faults in cars that led to critical injury/death or serious property damage, Ford was involved and has been involved in a similar proportion for 100 years, I would totally support the ban on Ford vehicle.
Quote
Now, if you want to argue that people should not assume that all Fords will burst into flames, then THAT is a reasonable argument. Of course, in this case, nobody is assuming that all Muslims are terrorists, so it is hardly relevant.
Have you been listening to your next POTUS, lately? :)
Quote
But if you want to understand Islamic terrorism, you would be a fool to pretend that the beliefs of the people engaged in the terrorism have nothing to do with their actions...even when they tell that is exactly why they are doing the things that they do.
They don't have nothing to do, but it's a much more complex scenario than simply blaming the religion as that leads us nowhere. There are millions of muslims who do not commit terror acts and do not support it. Yet, they are of the same Faith.
If I take again your car example, if among those faulty cars, 98% come from the same plant, than I would take action against that plant. If Ford used lobbyist to promote their cars as safe while they know it is not, if their lobbyist insisted we should all drive Ford for our good, if they managed to influence the government in making laws that favor Ford growth to the detriment of other cars, I would take actions against their lobbyist, i.e. shutting down their access to the government, at the very least.
Right now, we let the ennemy's lobbyist right here, influence our governments, we let them spread their hate, and we have tons of people applauding it, always saying the same: these problems they have elsewhere, we won't have them here because we're better.
The danger is that extreme form of Islam that preaches hate, that preaches the submission of women, that preaches intolerance toward other religion. It has as much to do with Islam as Jerry Fallwell represents all Christians. It is as much muslim as Donald Trump is American, both are what they say they are, but they certainly do not represent the majority, they do not speak for them even if they say they do.
Basing my analysis of the American people on Donald Trump's behavior would be missing the point as much as you do when you insist Islam is the problem.
Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2016, 11:56:31 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 27, 2016, 11:30:32 PM
Quote from: Jaron on March 27, 2016, 09:35:17 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 27, 2016, 09:32:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2016, 08:20:08 PM
Well of course. It is not like 200 years ago Islamic terrorism was a thing. It is a crisis in current Islam though and must have an Islamic solution.
The Barbary pirates were the Islamic terrorists of their day.
Suleyman, Saladin and Barbarossa were the original Islamic terrorists.
And Richard the Lionhearted as well as Guy de Lusignan, noble heroes? :)
WTF does whether they are noble heroes or complete assholes have to do with anything?
What are you trying to prove here - that there are other assholes in the world and throughout history?
Who are you arguing with?
did you read the entire conversation or did you have a knew jerk reaction as usual?
Quote from: Martinus on March 28, 2016, 02:07:11 AM
When I read Jacob's and viper's post, I almost can't wait all those refugees the man-child prime minister Trudeau is planning to bring to Canada start to blow shit up. But that would be petty.
don't look at me, I disagree with Jacob's and CC's carebears attitude that all muslims are the same. I welcome moderate muslims anytime, unlike you, but I don't want the bloody fanatics here, and I hate that my PM has cut round corners to admit so many in such a short time.
As as been proven in the past, for any movement, you don't need zillions of people to stir up shit. Only 1 or 2 radicals to recruit a few dislussionned ones and that would be enough. And without proper resources to integrate them, it will lead to serious problems down the road, when these people have to face inflation from multiple budget deficits and tax hikes as soon as they work to repay that debt.
Quote from: Berkut on March 28, 2016, 12:47:01 AM
Quote from: Jacob
If we look at the various insurgencies, dictatorships, paramilitary groups, and organized crime lords in South and Central America we see plenty of wanton killing and terrorist acts - some of them on quite a large scale - and some of it quite recent too.
And if we were talking about what should be done about Mexican drug cartel violence, it would be foolish to claim that since rampant violence has happened where drugs were not involved, we should ignore the drug trade as a primary motivating factor in that particular violence.
what would be dumb is to think there could be supply without demand, though.
Quote from: Martinus on March 28, 2016, 03:33:11 AM
I find it a bit funny, too, that the regressive left seems to be perfectly fine with calling a guy with his dick cut off a woman, but draw a line at calling a group that describe itself as Muslims Muslim.
Grallon is gay.
Grallon is attracted to teenage boys.
All gays are attracted to teenage boys, wether they admit it or not.
Got it, thanks for the clarification! :)
Therefore, we should prehemptively jail all gay men. That would drasctically reduce the demand for juvenile prostitutes and reduce the number of pedophiles in liberty. Since it's about protecting our society, our values, you will agree with me, right? We can't take any chances.
Quote from: Berkut on March 29, 2016, 08:40:11 AMI think for the purposes of my point, whether it is 75% or 99% is really rather immaterial.
The relevant point is that comparing total attacks to total number of Muslims is completely misleading.
I think it's very material given your argument. if nearly all terrorist attacks were actually conducted by muslims, that would be really interesting and merit some serious investigation into why. as it stands, the numbers simply show the top performers of terrorist attacks happen to be those with the most access to resources/manpower. what a surprise
Quote from: LaCroix on April 01, 2016, 12:03:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 29, 2016, 08:40:11 AMI think for the purposes of my point, whether it is 75% or 99% is really rather immaterial.
The relevant point is that comparing total attacks to total number of Muslims is completely misleading.
I think it's very material given your argument. if nearly all terrorist attacks were actually conducted by muslims, that would be really interesting and merit some serious investigation into why. as it stands, the numbers simply show the top performers of terrorist attacks happen to be those with the most access to resources/manpower. what a surprise
So let me get this straight. It's ok if Muslim groups commit more attacks since they only do that because they have more access to manpower(people willing to commit them)?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 01, 2016, 12:12:10 AMSo let me get this straight. It's ok if Muslim groups commit more attacks since they only do that because they have more access to manpower(people willing to commit them)?
isn't the argument focused on islam as a religion and how allegedly violent it is by its very nature? so, take a look at other religions and the parts of the world where those religions operate and the motive or lack of motive to commit terrorist acts. to use mormonism as an analogy, utah and wyoming aren't fucked up like the muslim world. as well, no other major religion is as "besieged" (potentially perceived by some members) as islam
Have to disagree with that. Islamists rule their countries while Christians are seeing theirs become increasingly secular.
Quote from: viper37 on March 31, 2016, 03:32:17 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 28, 2016, 03:33:11 AM
I find it a bit funny, too, that the regressive left seems to be perfectly fine with calling a guy with his dick cut off a woman, but draw a line at calling a group that describe itself as Muslims Muslim.
Grallon is gay.
Grallon is attracted to teenage boys.
All gays are attracted to teenage boys, wether they admit it or not.
Got it, thanks for the clarification! :)
Therefore, we should prehemptively jail all gay men. That would drasctically reduce the demand for juvenile prostitutes and reduce the number of pedophiles in liberty. Since it's about protecting our society, our values, you will agree with me, right? We can't take any chances.
Wow, that's a non-sequitur if I have ever seen one. Did you just choose my post at random to write that or did it sound in your head like there is some sort of link between what I wrote and what you wrote? :huh:
Edit: I gotta admire, though, how, after all those years, you still hate grallon with passion strong enough to libel him as a pedophile.
Determining to which extent Islam is a factor when it comes to terrorism seems to be pretty simple. If you look at different groups, you should be able to tell if Islam can be identified as a factor. I'd be very surprised if it can't be, by the Swedish experience.
I don't give a flying fuck if Islam is a factor "by its very nature" or not. Maybe it was Mother fucking Teresa before and will be again, but reality exists in the now.
Viper, your entire response to my point that you can't just trot out particular examples of non-Muslim extremism to counter systemic Islamic extremism is to...trot out more specific examples of non-Islamic extremism without even trying to show that those examples are systemic.
As such, your argument is completely non-responsive.
Quote from: LaCroix on April 01, 2016, 12:20:45 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 01, 2016, 12:12:10 AMSo let me get this straight. It's ok if Muslim groups commit more attacks since they only do that because they have more access to manpower(people willing to commit them)?
isn't the argument focused on islam as a religion and how allegedly violent it is by its very nature? so, take a look at other religions and the parts of the world where those religions operate and the motive or lack of motive to commit terrorist acts. to use mormonism as an analogy, utah and wyoming aren't fucked up like the muslim world. as well, no other major religion is as "besieged" (potentially perceived by some members) as islam
When we look at parts of the world where there is not the struggle we see in the Middle East, we still see alarming levels of support for things like the death sentence for apostasy, making homosexuality a capital crime, the desire to make Sharia the law of the land, etc., etc.
Indonesia, for example. Even Britain.
I am confident that if you take a poll of Mormons, very, very few of them would support imposing the death sentence on non-Mormons, if they could. In fact, I would venture to say that the number would effectively be zero.
And no other religion is as "besieged" as Islam? Are you fucking kidding me? It is the second largest religion in the world, and growing faster than any other major religion.
While many people who practice it might buy into the *perception* that it is besieged, that is just a perception, and does not even remotely justify butchering people by the thousands.
Man it is like the constant and annoying persecution complex of some Christians. Gays can get married? MAH FREEDOM.
Quote from: LaCroix on April 01, 2016, 12:03:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 29, 2016, 08:40:11 AMI think for the purposes of my point, whether it is 75% or 99% is really rather immaterial.
The relevant point is that comparing total attacks to total number of Muslims is completely misleading.
I think it's very material given your argument. if nearly all terrorist attacks were actually conducted by muslims, that would be really interesting and merit some serious investigation into why. as it stands, the numbers simply show the top performers of terrorist attacks happen to be those with the most access to resources/manpower. what a surprise
This really makes further discussion pretty pointless. If you are so dedicated to excusing the 800lb gorilla sitting on your head, I don't know what to say anymore.
Nearly all terrorist attacks are committed by Islamists. For the purposes of MY point, which is that saying this doesn't matter because there are many Muslims who do not commit terrorist acts is idiotic, it makes no difference whether or not "nearly all" means "that vast, vast majority" or "all but a very, very few".
If you cannot see that, then I am confident that if the actual number was 99.99%, you would just find some other reason than this semantic nonsense to dismiss it, because you've dismissed it as a matter of faith in any case.
Mormons believe in the unification of all peoples, but never by violence or force.
Quote from: Jaron on April 01, 2016, 10:14:36 AM
Mormons believe in the unification of all peoples, but never by violence or force.
Indeed. In fact, the idea of killing someone in an effort to spread the religion just doesn't make any sense from the standpoint of what they actually believe - it would be counter-productive.
What religions actually believe to be true does in fact matter to the rest of us. They are not all the same.
And even what particular different groups within religions believes matter - a lot. Which is why we should be aggressively supporting those in Islam who believe in a modern, democratic version of Islam. What *they* believe matters as well.
It is ridiculous this entire "Well, all religions are the same and have people who do radical things!".
For the most part, it simply is not true. And to the extent that it IS true - so what? It doesn't mean we should not worry about it, we should worry about all of it at the appropriate level.
Some Mormon sec somewhere forces some 15 year old girl to marry someone she doesn't want to because they believe that God wants that? That is a problem, and needs to be addressed, and understanding that the reason they believe that is based on their understanding of their faith is critical to addressing that problem systemically.
Noting that it happens in other places as well, and of course it does, is inane. Yes, it does happen in other places as well, and if you want to address the problem in those other places, you would be well served to understand why THEY believe that it is a good idea as well, whether that be based on their faith or some other factor.
These things go in odd cycles.
Last century, first half, I'd have said that the cause of most of the world's problems was European ethnic nationalism; most of the second half, the apparently unstoppable spread of various flavors of communism. Muslim extremism would have barely registered as a footnote in the first half, but has grown increasingly prominent in the second half, and now seems to dominate the discourse.
If anyone in 1900 had said that in the future the most violent international problem would be militant Islam, they'd have been laughed at. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on April 01, 2016, 10:47:53 AM
These things go in odd cycles.
Last century, first half, I'd have said that the cause of most of the world's problems was European ethnic nationalism; most of the second half, the apparently unstoppable spread of various flavors of communism. Muslim extremism would have barely registered as a footnote in the first half, but has grown increasingly prominent in the second half, and now seems to dominate the discourse.
If anyone in 1900 had said that in the future the most violent international problem would be militant Islam, they'd have been laughed at. ;)
You have to wonder what is going to be next...radical anime extremists?
That actually sounds a lot more plausible than I thought when I typed it...
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2016, 10:49:09 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 01, 2016, 10:47:53 AM
These things go in odd cycles.
Last century, first half, I'd have said that the cause of most of the world's problems was European ethnic nationalism; most of the second half, the apparently unstoppable spread of various flavors of communism. Muslim extremism would have barely registered as a footnote in the first half, but has grown increasingly prominent in the second half, and now seems to dominate the discourse.
If anyone in 1900 had said that in the future the most violent international problem would be militant Islam, they'd have been laughed at. ;)
You have to wonder what is going to be next...radical anime extremists?
That actually sounds a lot more plausible than I thought when I typed it...
I always thought one day the FBI would investigate the lot of us for participating in this board - I just never thought it would be for being known associates of Lettow and Mono, international terrorist leaders! :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on April 01, 2016, 12:35:21 AM
Edit: I gotta admire, though, how, after all those years, you still hate grallon with passion strong enough to libel him as a pedophile.
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2016, 10:03:57 AM
Viper, your entire response to my point that you can't just trot out particular examples of non-Muslim extremism to counter systemic Islamic extremism is to...trot out more specific examples of non-Islamic extremism without even trying to show that those examples are systemic.
As such, your argument is completely non-responsive.
Of course it is non responsive to you.
You look at a very precise time, right now. You look at a very specific act, suicide bombing. You ignore all other types of extremism. You ignore the facts that contradicts your views of a religion to determine that this religion is problematic. You don't care if Budhists use their religion to discriminate (to say the least) against muslims, Islam is Evil, the others are not. You don't really care if Christians give their support to palestinian (and other) terror groups. You don't really care if some terrorist groups get support from a lot of people that not muslim, you have determined that Islam is evil and you will only look at the arguments that support your view, eveything else is irrelevant to you.
And you completely miss the mark. Not because you lack intelligence to reason, quite the opposite, but because you insist on displaying bad faith at every turn, in nearly every argument you enter.
What can I say? Nothing really. People like you and Trump will focus on the global religion instead of the specific subgroups that creates the problems for everyone. It's like banning Ford cars from the US because a speficic subcontractors with wich Ford has cut ties decades ago has produced and is still producing faulty replacement parts for a few models of Ford cars.
Fight the fanatics on their grounds. It is an idelogicial war, not a religious one. It is a war that is fought has much with bombs as with ideas. Secularims is the way to go, for all religions, and we must start in our own countries, by offering a safe haven for these muslims that really seek a new life, free from these extremists. That is not what is happening right now as we oscillate between the far left carebears strategy of Justin Trudeau and the extreme right wing policies of the Front National and similar movements.
You have chosen to adopt the Trump's rethoric that all of Islam is to blame. No amount of argument from anyone could convince you otherwise. Why even argue? :) Well, I'm done :)
Was global warming cited as a reason for the attack?
Quote from: viper37 on April 01, 2016, 10:59:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 01, 2016, 12:35:21 AM
Edit: I gotta admire, though, how, after all those years, you still hate grallon with passion strong enough to libel him as a pedophile.
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2016, 10:03:57 AM
Viper, your entire response to my point that you can't just trot out particular examples of non-Muslim extremism to counter systemic Islamic extremism is to...trot out more specific examples of non-Islamic extremism without even trying to show that those examples are systemic.
As such, your argument is completely non-responsive.
Of course it is non responsive to you.
You look at a very precise time, right now.
Right now is the time we are talking about. The fact that other people did shitty things at other times is not an excuse for those doing them now.
Quote
You look at a very specific act, suicide bombing.
This is a lie. I've mention a very wide range of behaviors that are problematic. I doubt I've even brought up the specific term "suicide bombing".
Quote
You ignore all other types of extremism.
That is a bald faced lie.
Quote
You ignore the facts that contradicts your views of a religion to determine that this religion is problematic.
No, I dispute the claim that because there are other kinds of extremism, THIS particular extremism isn't to be worried about or considered separately.
Quote
You don't care if Budhists use their religion to discriminate (to say the least) against muslims, Islam is Evil, the others are not.
That is such an incredibly dishonest claim about my beliefs and what I said that I think further discussion is pointless.
Quote
You don't really care if Christians give their support to palestinian (and other) terror groups.
What
The
Fuck
Quote
You don't really care if some terrorist groups get support from a lot of people that not muslim, you have determined that Islam is evil and you will only look at the arguments that support your view, eveything else is irrelevant to you.
And you completely miss the mark. Not because you lack intelligence to reason, quite the opposite, but because you insist on displaying bad faith at every turn, in nearly every argument you enter.
What can I say? Nothing really. People like you and Trump
LOL, this is just down right funny. Now I am "like Trump".
My beliefs are almost directly contradictory to what Trump has spoiuted off about. Who in gods name are you arguing against here?
Quote
will focus on the global religion instead of the specific subgroups that creates the problems for everyone. It's like banning Ford cars from the US because a speficic subcontractors with wich Ford has cut ties decades ago has produced and is still producing faulty replacement parts for a few models of Ford cars.
Now that is a tortured analogy.
Quote
Fight the fanatics on their grounds. It is an idelogicial war, not a religious one.
Religion is an ideology, and refusing to understand that because it makes you uncomfortable will doom any effort to failure.
Quote
It is a war that is fought has much with bombs as with ideas. Secularims is the way to go, for all religions, and we must start in our own countries, by offering a safe haven for these muslims that really seek a new life, free from these extremists. That is not what is happening right now as we oscillate between the far left carebears strategy of Justin Trudeau and the extreme right wing policies of the Front National and similar movements.
You have chosen to adopt the Trump's rethoric that all of Islam is to blame. No amount of argument from anyone could convince you otherwise. Why even argue? :) Well, I'm done :)
You were done some time ago, I suspect.
My position is so far from this ridiculous caricature that I don't even know where to begin.
Menachem. :)
Quote from: Malthus on April 01, 2016, 10:47:53 AM
These things go in odd cycles.
Last century, first half, I'd have said that the cause of most of the world's problems was European ethnic nationalism; most of the second half, the apparently unstoppable spread of various flavors of communism. Muslim extremism would have barely registered as a footnote in the first half, but has grown increasingly prominent in the second half, and now seems to dominate the discourse.
If anyone in 1900 had said that in the future the most violent international problem would be militant Islam, they'd have been laughed at. ;)
The Mahdi Rebellion, the Hamidian Massacres, the Sepoy Rebellion....if you gave them some basic info on demographic expansion of the ME an SE Asia relative to Europe it would not seem totally implausible.
And it's possible the US will be invaded by Bantu tribesman in the 2116, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 01, 2016, 02:08:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 01, 2016, 10:47:53 AM
These things go in odd cycles.
Last century, first half, I'd have said that the cause of most of the world's problems was European ethnic nationalism; most of the second half, the apparently unstoppable spread of various flavors of communism. Muslim extremism would have barely registered as a footnote in the first half, but has grown increasingly prominent in the second half, and now seems to dominate the discourse.
If anyone in 1900 had said that in the future the most violent international problem would be militant Islam, they'd have been laughed at. ;)
The Mahdi Rebellion, the Hamidian Massacres, the Sepoy Rebellion....if you gave them some basic info on demographic expansion of the ME an SE Asia relative to Europe it would not seem totally implausible.
Huh? The only one of those that has connection to "militant Islam" is the Mahdi Rebellion - which was considered, at the time, to be a peculiarity of darkest Sudan (the "mad Mahdi"), not something at all relevant to Islam as a whole.
The others had little to do with Militant Islam - the Hamidian Massacres were the work of Sultan Abdul Hamid II, who felt the Christian powers were attempting to usurp his empire by appealing to Christian ethnic minorities, so launched terrible pogroms when pressed for reforms - so more along the lines of "toxic ethno-nationalism", akin to what the Russians were doing to Jews (only with Kurdish bandits instead of Cossacks).
Most of the Sepoys who rebelled were Hindu!
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2016, 01:25:50 PM
(snip)
You were done some time ago, I suspect.
My position is so far from this ridiculous caricature that I don't even know where to begin.
The Viper truth is simple to understand: either you believe what Viper believes, or you believe in everything he despises. No grays in Viper's world, but then there are no grays in any child's world. It's really rather intriguing, in a way. It makes you wonder what he will be like when he grows up.
Those Muslims, never condemning terrorism.
http://unitedhumanists.com/2016/03/27/70000-muslim-clerics-issue-fatwa-against-isis-the-taliban-al-qaeda-and-others/
Quote from: Solmyr on April 02, 2016, 05:58:14 AM
Those Muslims, never condemning terrorism.
http://unitedhumanists.com/2016/03/27/70000-muslim-clerics-issue-fatwa-against-isis-the-taliban-al-qaeda-and-others/
Dude, who the fuck cares? Likely those clerics still believe you should kill people for apostasy or homosexuality, and that women are second class citizens.
Also, I like that part:
QuoteThey said Western powers should focus on stopping the terrorists but not at the cost of civilian lives.
Well, sorry, how about you get your own leaders to stop the terrorists first, and then Western powers don't have to.
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2016, 09:00:43 AM
Also, I like that part:
QuoteThey said Western powers should focus on stopping the terrorists but not at the cost of civilian lives.
Well, sorry, how about you get your own leaders to stop the terrorists first, and then Western powers don't have to.
Damn, Marty, you just cannot find anything fucking positive, can you?
This is exactly the kind of thing the West needs to applaud, not whine and bitch that if you cannot solve the entire problem yourselves, don't do anything at all.
These ARE their leaders, these are exactly the people who need to be preaching this - and of course they don't want civilians killed in the process. It is completely normal for them to demand something like that, even if we all know (and of course they know as well) that it isn't possible.
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2016, 10:24:38 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2016, 09:00:43 AM
Also, I like that part:
QuoteThey said Western powers should focus on stopping the terrorists but not at the cost of civilian lives.
Well, sorry, how about you get your own leaders to stop the terrorists first, and then Western powers don't have to.
Damn, Marty, you just cannot find anything fucking positive, can you?
This is exactly the kind of thing the West needs to applaud, not whine and bitch that if you cannot solve the entire problem yourselves, don't do anything at all.
These ARE their leaders, these are exactly the people who need to be preaching this - and of course they don't want civilians killed in the process. It is completely normal for them to demand something like that, even if we all know (and of course they know as well) that it isn't possible.
I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2016, 11:03:36 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2016, 10:24:38 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2016, 09:00:43 AM
Also, I like that part:
QuoteThey said Western powers should focus on stopping the terrorists but not at the cost of civilian lives.
Well, sorry, how about you get your own leaders to stop the terrorists first, and then Western powers don't have to.
Damn, Marty, you just cannot find anything fucking positive, can you?
This is exactly the kind of thing the West needs to applaud, not whine and bitch that if you cannot solve the entire problem yourselves, don't do anything at all.
These ARE their leaders, these are exactly the people who need to be preaching this - and of course they don't want civilians killed in the process. It is completely normal for them to demand something like that, even if we all know (and of course they know as well) that it isn't possible.
I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. :hmm:
Not at all. I don't understand how anyone could see a story like that as anything but positive.
Cause Marty hates those people?
Quote from: Solmyr on April 02, 2016, 05:58:14 AM
Those Muslims, never condemning terrorism.
http://unitedhumanists.com/2016/03/27/70000-muslim-clerics-issue-fatwa-against-isis-the-taliban-al-qaeda-and-others/
Yeah, Indian Muslims are generally cool.
I think it's a little strange that Muslims on the whole are expected to apologise for the actions of other Muslims, but when it comes to lone, white gunmen, it's not about religion or ideology, but an unhappy childhood.
I don't think they need to apologize, it's enough to condemn. But keeping quiet leaves the vocal minority of their coreligionists who celebrate the attacks as the only word.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 02, 2016, 05:24:03 PM
I don't think they need to apologize, it's enough to condemn. But keeping quiet leaves the vocal minority of their coreligionists who celebrate the attacks as the only word.
why should I have to condemn or apologize or do anything re: the actions of some random person who just happens to have one or two things in common with me?
Quote from: LaCroix on April 02, 2016, 05:28:05 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 02, 2016, 05:24:03 PM
I don't think they need to apologize, it's enough to condemn. But keeping quiet leaves the vocal minority of their coreligionists who celebrate the attacks as the only word.
why should I have to condemn or apologize or do anything re: the actions of some random person who just happens to have one or two things in common with me?
*You* do not.
But if you were the leader of a defined ideological or religious movement, and claimed to have the right and responsibility to speak for and to the followers of said ideology, then I do think you have a responsibility to respond to the actions of those who claim to do thing in the name of that ideology.
If there were crazed white people murdering people in the name of Catholicism, I think it would very much behoove the Pope to make it clear where he stands on their actions, and it is very much the responsibility of church leaders, right down to the local priests and bishops to preach and speak to their followers about what is appropriate and acceptable. All this depending, of course, on the scale and pervasiveness of such activities.
If there were a consistent and significant issue with white, overweight men killing people in the name of being white and a bit plump, I would have no problem pointing out that as a member of that class, I categorically reject the idea that the terrorists actions are part of my class, or representative of what it means to be a chubby white guy.
I'm not an expert on the inner workings of Islam, but aren't many terror groups acting in the name of an Islam that isn't part of one of the great Muslim organizations? Maybe the Pope analogy would work better with terrorists acting in the name of Christianity rather than Catholicism? NB I may be completely wrong.
Quote from: The Brain on April 02, 2016, 05:39:53 PM
I'm not an expert on the inner workings of Islam, but aren't many terror groups acting in the name of an Islam that isn't part of one of the great Muslim organizations? Maybe the Pope analogy would work better with terrorists acting in the name of Christianity rather than Catholicism? NB I may be completely wrong.
It may very well - I used Catholicism just because it is in fact a more concise ideology with a clearly defined leader. But the principle is the same.
I was thinking a good way to tie me up would be to have some religious group declare violence and/or political Islam a crime against Allah, define followers of such (especially jihadists) as apostates, and sentence them to death.
That would be a tough one...
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2016, 05:35:14 PM*You* do not.
But if you were the leader of a defined ideological or religious movement, and claimed to have the right and responsibility to speak for and to the followers of said ideology, then I do think you have a responsibility to respond to the actions of those who claim to do thing in the name of that ideology.
I don't know of any north dakota bishop who has spoken out against, say, lebanese christian violence. I don't think it makes much sense to ask that all (most? half?) imams publicly denounce the actions of muslim extremists who operate in an entirely different country/part of the world. that's just not going to happen, because people are generally pretty provincial
Nobody's ever demanded an apology from the Pope for the IRA's mass-murdering rampage. Or asked say, the American Irish to take a stand against terrorism in the way Muslims are being told to do.
I think, while Islam literally interpreted have the same issues with women and gays as most of Christianity, it's also a religion that spread with the sword. Not that Judaism didn't too. But you have millions of perfectly integrated Muslims in Europe.
On the other hand, you also have those who have no future, because they are high school dropouts and whatnot, or feel unappreciated by society at large. Back when punk was big it was called "youth revolt", and after 1968 it was "race riots" or new, violent leftism in the case of the Brigado Rosso and the Rote Armee Fraktion. Islam may have an inherent problem in the way jihad can be interpreted. But if I was a brown person scorned by society and vilified by people like Geert Wilders I might want to seek the comradeship of my fellow men too. This is basically a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Quote from: LaCroix on April 02, 2016, 05:53:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2016, 05:35:14 PM*You* do not.
But if you were the leader of a defined ideological or religious movement, and claimed to have the right and responsibility to speak for and to the followers of said ideology, then I do think you have a responsibility to respond to the actions of those who claim to do thing in the name of that ideology.
I don't know of any north dakota bishop who has spoken out against, say, lebanese christian violence. I don't think it makes much sense to ask that all (most? half?) imams publicly denounce the actions of muslim extremists who operate in an entirely different country/part of the world. that's just not going to happen, because people are generally pretty provincial
If Christian violence becomes anywhere near the level of Islamic violence, then perhaps it might be appropriate for North Dakota Christians to speak about it. At the moment, it is simply not an issue that I suspect most North Dakota Christians are even aware of, so I don't know what utility them speaking out about it would serve anyway.
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2016, 06:07:41 PMIf Christian violence becomes anywhere near the level of Islamic violence, then perhaps it might be appropriate for North Dakota Christians to speak about it. At the moment, it is simply not an issue that I suspect most North Dakota Christians are even aware of, so I don't know what utility them speaking out about it would serve anyway.
why would it be appropriate for ND christians to speak about it? it's not caused by ND christians, nor do they have anything to do with it. say there was a neo knights hospitaller state crusading against infidels, what would a ND priest do? tell his practitioners every sunday that violence is wrong, despite his practitioners already knowing that? seems condescending
Quote from: Norgy on April 02, 2016, 06:06:57 PM
Nobody's ever demanded an apology from the Pope for the IRA's mass-murdering rampage.
Since the Pope didn't murder anyone, an apology would be an odd thing to demand.
But I think the Pope did a times speak out against violence in Northern Ireland, and I think people did and do in fact expect the Pope to take some kind of stand on the issue. I think you are wrong about the idea that the Pope (and Catholocism in general) would not be seen as having a part in influencing the actions of Catholics, for better or worse.
Quote
Or asked say, the American Irish to take a stand against terrorism in the way Muslims are being told to do.
You are simply wrong. American Irish were in fact slammed in the press for supporting the IRA, and people did in fact at times weigh in on whether or not the IRA was justified in their actions. American support for the IRA was a definite topic for debate within the US.
I think the Brits kinda blamed the Pope for the Irish.
Quote from: LaCroix on April 02, 2016, 06:11:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2016, 06:07:41 PMIf Christian violence becomes anywhere near the level of Islamic violence, then perhaps it might be appropriate for North Dakota Christians to speak about it. At the moment, it is simply not an issue that I suspect most North Dakota Christians are even aware of, so I don't know what utility them speaking out about it would serve anyway.
why would it be appropriate for ND christians to speak about it? it's not caused by ND christians, nor do they have anything to do with it. say there was a neo knights hospitaller state crusading against infidels, what would a ND priest do? tell his practitioners every sunday that violence is wrong, despite his practitioners already knowing that? seems condescending
Again, it depends. If there were thousands of people dying every year as a result of Christians butchering people, then when someone asks ND Christians what they think about that, what would you expect them to say?
If ND Christians were being recruited by radical elements to go fight, then I think it would very much be completely irresponsible for ND Christian religious leaders to NOT speak out about it.
I don't understand your objection here - religious leaders speak out against things their parishioners already know full well they should not do all the time. You think every Sunday's sermon is covering fresh new moral and ethical ground the people listening have never heard before?
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2016, 06:15:01 PM
You are simply wrong. American Irish were in fact slammed in the press for supporting the IRA, and people did in fact at times weigh in on whether or not the IRA was justified in their actions. American support for the IRA was a definite topic for debate within the US.
On further research, I realise I was very wrong about that.
On the other hand, the whole of the new European left were painted as terrorist supporters and fifth columnists for the RAF and the Brigado Rosso.
I think the point I failed to convey, is that the IRA still is the organisation that has killed the most Europeans in terrorist actions since 1945. The Muslims don't even come close. The Bologna train station bombing in 1980 (which eventually led to the unveiling of several so-called Stay Behind organisations) killed 85 and wounded around 200, and was conducted by Italian neo-fascists.
I, like you, think it's great that clerics speak out and condemn terrorism.
The bottom line, anyway, is that we can't just live in fear. There's always some random mishap around the next corner. Fear breeds witch hunts and in the end more violence.
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2016, 06:17:46 PMAgain, it depends. If there were thousands of people dying every year as a result of Christians butchering people, then when someone asks ND Christians what they think about that, what would you expect them to say?
If ND Christians were being recruited by radical elements to go fight, then I think it would very much be completely irresponsible for ND Christian religious leaders to NOT speak out about it.
I don't understand your objection here - religious leaders speak out against things their parishioners already know full well they should not do all the time. You think every Sunday's sermon is covering fresh new moral and ethical ground the people listening have never heard before?
to your first question, the same thing that normal muslims say today: "it's awful!"
would the ND priest know his parishioners were being recruited before they left to join the fight? I don't think so. I think the ND priest, once he knew of it, would absolutely speak out against it, just as I'm sure similarly placed imams do today.
you seem to be asking that the religious leaders constantly hammer home the notion that it's bad to become a violent extremist and murder innocent people. this is different than the occasional sermon that says violence/greed/whatever is bad.
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2016, 06:17:46 PM
I don't understand your objection here - religious leaders speak out against things their parishioners already know full well they should not do all the time. You think every Sunday's sermon is covering fresh new moral and ethical ground the people listening have never heard before?
The key point is that preachers generally, in my experience, speak out against things that they know or suspect that members of their congregation do even though they shouldn't, or things that they figure some of their members are tempted to do. I've heard preachers preach against cheating on your taxes, and I've heard them speak against cheating on you spouse. While they might not have known exactly who was dosing what, they were probably right to figure that someone in their congregation was doing one or the other, or was at least tempted (though in the UMC at least, when they preach against drinking alcohol, they tend to look directly at certain members of their flock). OTOH, I don't recall ever hearing a preacher preach against robbing a gas station and killing the attendant, because they figure it's not likely that anyone in their congregation is going to do that, or even be particularly tempted to do so.
Quote from: LaCroix on April 02, 2016, 06:34:39 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2016, 06:17:46 PMAgain, it depends. If there were thousands of people dying every year as a result of Christians butchering people, then when someone asks ND Christians what they think about that, what would you expect them to say?
If ND Christians were being recruited by radical elements to go fight, then I think it would very much be completely irresponsible for ND Christian religious leaders to NOT speak out about it.
I don't understand your objection here - religious leaders speak out against things their parishioners already know full well they should not do all the time. You think every Sunday's sermon is covering fresh new moral and ethical ground the people listening have never heard before?
to your first question, the same thing that normal muslims say today: "it's awful!"
would the ND priest know his parishioners were being recruited before they left to join the fight? I don't think so. I think the ND priest, once he knew of it, would absolutely speak out against it, just as I'm sure similarly placed imams do today.
you seem to be asking that the religious leaders constantly hammer home the notion that it's bad to become a violent extremist and murder innocent people. this is different than the occasional sermon that says violence/greed/whatever is bad.
Uhhh, where did I say that?
Maybe we are talking past one another? I don't think Muslim imams should be spending all their time speaking out about terrorism. At least, not most of them.
Quote from: dps on April 02, 2016, 06:35:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2016, 06:17:46 PM
I don't understand your objection here - religious leaders speak out against things their parishioners already know full well they should not do all the time. You think every Sunday's sermon is covering fresh new moral and ethical ground the people listening have never heard before?
The key point is that preachers generally, in my experience, speak out against things that they know or suspect that members of their congregation do even though they shouldn't, or things that they figure some of their members are tempted to do. I've heard preachers preach against cheating on your taxes, and I've heard them speak against cheating on you spouse. While they might not have known exactly who was dosing what, they were probably right to figure that someone in their congregation was doing one or the other, or was at least tempted (though in the UMC at least, when they preach against drinking alcohol, they tend to look directly at certain members of their flock). OTOH, I don't recall ever hearing a preacher preach against robbing a gas station and killing the attendant, because they figure it's not likely that anyone in their congregation is going to do that, or even be particularly tempted to do so.
No argument from me. I am not sure what the topic of this little sub-debate is anymore...
If they relay an anecdote about a guy who robbed a gas station, they'll be sure to note how wrong that is.
Liquour stores are more profitable? :unsure:
Fascinating thread.
This is probably the most sincere discussion about Islamic terrorism I have seen.
Perhaps the advantage of not being directly under their guns?
Anyway I do think it is helpful, vital even, for Islamic clerics to condemn these people claiming they are acting on behalf of Islam. I mean, you know, these people are murdering thousands and thousands of Muslims. It would be weird if they did not oppose that.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2016, 09:27:51 PM
Anyway I do think it is helpful, vital even, for Islamic clerics to condemn these people claiming they are acting on behalf of Islam. I mean, you know, these people are murdering thousands and thousands of Muslims. It would be weird if they did not oppose that.
they are
Quote from: Siege on April 02, 2016, 08:41:57 PM
Fascinating thread.
This is probably the most sincere discussion about Islamic terrorism I have seen.
Perhaps the advantage of not being directly under their guns?
Well, DAESH would like us to think we do live directly under their guns.
While there's probably more than an ounce of truth in that, we can't just surrender to fear.
But several European countries might want to invest a little more in their counter-terrorism policing efforts.
Maybe I would see things more like you if I lived in a country under permanent threat of missile attacks against civilians.
Why do you call them DAESH, Norgy? It's not what they call themselves - they self-identify as the Islamic State. I thought being a politically correct liberal means one respects other people's preferred designations.
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 03:37:05 AM
Why do you call them DAESH, Norgy? It's not what they call themselves - they self-identify as the Islamic State. I thought being a politically correct liberal means one respects other people's preferred designations.
I picked it up from some Kurdish friends.
I know you think me hopelessly PC, but I don't think anyone with some sense left can see the DAESH/IS/ISIL as anything but a cancer. Stealing people in their prime of life.
If the Islamic State is (say) lung cancer, then Islam is smoking. I am against banning cigarettes but I am not going around saying that they are harmless for you.
For a pay you would. And then stash it away in the Seychelles. :P
Heck, I have done work stuff I am obviously not proud of. But I have had two principles.
1) Never do copywriting for anyone I have some affection for
2) and never do anything for companies or other parties I loathe
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 05:47:30 AM
If the Islamic State is (say) lung cancer, then Islam is smoking. I am against banning cigarettes but I am not going around saying that they are harmless for you.
This is absurd. It is the equivalent of arguing that, "if Sexual abuse by Catholic priests is cancer, then homosexuality is smoking. I am against banning cigarettes but I am not going around saying that they are harmless for you."
Millions and millions of Muslims are as horrified by what IS and the Islamists are doing as any non-Muslim is. Islam has some religious verses that can be twisted to seem to advocate violence, just as other religions do.
What seems to account for the wholly disproportionate representation of Muslims in global terrorism, IMO, is that Islam appeals to the oppressed far more than many other religions do, and so Islam is prevalent in the very areas where you might expect people to be pissed off enough and desperate enough to believe that they need to resort to violence to end their current crappy conditions.
I was listening to the (Muslim) Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia Saturday (he spoke at a conference at American University that i was attending), and a couple of things struck me that bear on the discussion we are having here:
(1) he used "Islamist" and "Islamic extremist" interchangeably
(2) he used Daesh, ISIL, Islamic State, and ISIS interchangeably
(3) he claimed that Malaysia's focus on rehabilitating violent Islamists was overwhelmingly successful (he claimed a 98% success rate over six years), and that such rehabilitation focused on improving the Islamists' education and job skills, because they became terrorists due to frustration with unsuccessful lives, and
(4) he argued that Malaysia's success with defeating communist insurrections and with reforming Islamists provided the best model for how the world should deal with not just domestic terrorists, but with the various Islamist groups.
I know too many Muslims to believe that Islam is inherently violent, but also think that the whole "the word Islam means 'peace'" narrative is too silly for words; "islam" means "submission" in Arabic.
Quote from: LaCroix on April 03, 2016, 12:17:36 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2016, 09:27:51 PM
Anyway I do think it is helpful, vital even, for Islamic clerics to condemn these people claiming they are acting on behalf of Islam. I mean, you know, these people are murdering thousands and thousands of Muslims. It would be weird if they did not oppose that.
they are
Thanks but my post was not a question :P
Quote from: Siege on April 02, 2016, 08:41:57 PM
Perhaps the advantage of not being directly under their guns?
are you under their guns? From their point of view, you decide to poison their wells to push them out, after all. If my neighbour was to poison my well because he covet my lands, he might find himself under my guns. Wouldn't you react the same way? After all, in a way, you did. Palestinian terrorists threatens you, you seek to push out other Palestinians from where they live, then the terrorists kill some more of your brethren, than you join a militia to kill some more Palestinians, then the terrorists kill some more innocents, then you move to the US to fight in Irak to kill some people that where all too happy to die fighting US soldiers because it brought them some virgins or sommink' like that.
So anyway, most people here maybe not directly under their guns, even the military sailors of this board aren't, the likelyhood of another successful suicide boat attack is very low, but that does not mean we lack the understanding of the situation. In fact, not advocating mass murder of a group maybe a sign of clarity rather than sign of lack of said clarity.
Quote from: viper37 on April 04, 2016, 09:54:31 AM
Quote from: Siege on April 02, 2016, 08:41:57 PM
Perhaps the advantage of not being directly under their guns?
are you under their guns? From their point of view, you decide to poison their wells to push them out, after all.
Nah, Siegy just poisons the wells out of hatred and for the lulz, not for lands.