... says Dr Souley Mane, a professor and assistant imam at the Essos mosque.
QuoteAs a military campaign against Boko Haram continues in northern Cameroon, leaders of the country's biggest mosques in the south are deploying another weapon to ensure that the Islamist insurgency doesn't spread: education for girls.
Militants started to spill over the border from northern Nigeria three years ago, and while their attacks and recruitment drives remain contained to the far north region, imams in the Cameroonian capital, Yaoundé, are taking no chances.
Mohaman Saminou, director of the Grande Mosque in Briqueterie – one of the city's poorest and predominately Muslim districts, is providing free education for girls every weekend because he believes they are most at risk of being radicalised. "They can be influenced more than boys as they go for love or for money," he says.
Dr Souley Mane, a professor and assistant imam at the Essos mosque, agrees that education is the most important tool in the battle for ideas. "In Cameroon we have a problem with the [low] numbers of girls in education, but it's worse in the Muslim community as the parents don't always understand its importance," he says.
Mane adds that it is crucial western education is taught alongside Islamic studies. "Boko Haram says Muslims shouldn't go to western schools. But no, Muslims need to study science and information technology to contribute to the development of our country," he says.
"Western values and Islam are very, very compatible," he adds, citing London's first Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, to illustrate his point. "If I was 'against the west' I wouldn't use this computer, this mobile phone," he says, pointing around his house.
At Saminou's mosque, the girls are taught computer science, alongside the Qur'an and sewing. As the Guardian is shown around, a young girl runs in to the room and declares that her favourite subject is the Qur'an. "She's lying – it's actually computers," laughs her teacher, Dsaratou Oumarou.
There is also a modernist attitude in the school attached to the Yaoundé Central Mosque, the capital's largest. Here students are taught in French, English and Arabic, with posters around the building promoting "bilingualism as a gateway to quality education and sustainable development".
The classes are split by gender to "boost productivity", with the girls outperforming the boys academically, says the education director, Hassan Mohamed. "An educated population doesn't give away to extremism, so Boko Haram have very few opportunities," he adds.
If education is Saminou's first priority, his second is religious cohesion in the country, which is 70% Christian and 20% Muslim.
He allows Muslim women to marry men of other faiths in his mosque and says that most of the government security forces that guard Friday prayers are Christian. "For me it's symbolic, we come to pray and the Christians make sure we are safe. Perhaps there is another place like this? But I've never seen it," he says.
Despite the problems in the north, these religious leaders regard Cameroon as a country at peace and none recognise the religion that the militant group preaches. "They are killing everyone, Muslim and Christian, they are killing people in mosque in the market," says Saminou.
Mane says: "Boko Haram is not Islam, Islam is not Boko Haram," adding that "we ask the almighty to help with the security situation".
The professor, who has published a book on the Boko Haram threat in Cameroon, says cooperation with government security forces is also vital and that uncover agents are present in most mosques to monitor what is happening in the community.
Despite fears of a potential attack, Mane is confident that there is no current threat in the capital. "No one has come in to the mosque with a bomb. The situation is changing positively, even in the north things are getting better," he adds.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/16/cameroon-mosques-offer-free-education-girls-fight-radicalisation-boko-haram
Just like Christianity.
Quote from: Jacob on December 21, 2016, 02:21:18 AM
"If I was 'against the west' I wouldn't use this computer, this mobile phone,"
i'm pretty sure there are radical islamists who use those devices.
Need more like this guy. A lot more.
Very good to hear. For a minute there I was a little worried it might not be.
We have yet to find a culture where they are not.
Though hopefully he can convince Boko Haram of this at some point.
The problem isn't that it isn't possible to reconcile Islam with western liberal values. You certainly *can*, we know this is true because there are plenty of Muslims living in western countries who embrace those values.
The problem is that the contents of the religion also contain a lot of material that makes it so that you can also make a very credible argument that the ISIS view of Islam is as valid, or more valid, than the western liberal interpretation.
It is also rather interesting that this example of a very progressive Muslim is found in a place where Islam is a clear minority. This doesn't really come as any surprise - I am sure you can find plenty of Imam's in the USA for example that believe that women should be educated, etc., etc.
So it isn't THAT amazing. We know that Islam *can* be reconciled with liberal values. The problem isn't what is possible anywhere, the problem is what is actual in some particular places.
It isn't so long ago that the US game plan in the middle east was to allow liberal democracy to flourish by simply causing regime change...
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 21, 2016, 10:36:06 AM
It isn't so long ago that the US game plan in the middle east was to allow liberal democracy to flourish by simply causing regime change...
I see you have started a potentially interesting thought. Please continue.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2016, 10:49:02 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 21, 2016, 10:36:06 AM
It isn't so long ago that the US game plan in the middle east was to allow liberal democracy to flourish by simply causing regime change...
I see you have started a potentially interesting thought. Please continue.
Just a comment on how much the view of Muslims has changed in a short period of time. It was not so long ago that American neo cons were telling us that Muslims craved democracy. All that was needed was to remove leaders like Saddam and democracy would flourish. Now we are commenting on articles that suppose that Islam is not entirely antithetical to "Western" values.
Also, it is ironic that we are assuming there is such a thing as Western values when those values are being attacked in the West by populist right wing movements in all Western countries.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 21, 2016, 11:58:54 AM
Just a comment on how much the view of Muslims has changed in a short period of time. It was not so long ago that American neo cons were telling us that Muslims craved democracy. All that was needed was to remove leaders like Saddam and democracy would flourish. Now we are commenting on articles that suppose that Islam is not entirely antithetical to "Western" values.
It was over a decade ago and I don't actually think the view on Muslims has changed at all. The same people were saying the exact same shit back then but the 'establishment' Republicans were in charge. They have brushed those people aside and put demagogues in charge.
Also the response on this board is 'well, duh, of course they are compatible.'
QuoteAlso, it is ironic that we are assuming there is such a thing as Western values when those values are being attacked in the West by populist right wing movements in all Western countries.
I don't think the existence of those values requires some kind of platonic perfection. I mean we have had this problem constantly.
Over a decade ago = not so long ago.
That is when the establishment Republicans were in charge. So yeah, that is what I am talking about.
Not sure what point you are trying to make.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 21, 2016, 12:13:24 PM
Not sure what point you are trying to make.
What I said :mellow:
QuoteI don't actually think the view on Muslims has changed at all
I didn't think that was hidden or secret in some way.
I think Bush kept a lid on Muslim hate in his own party. He took great pains to say we weren't waging war on Islam. I hope Trump tries to do the same.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 21, 2016, 01:00:38 PM
I think Bush kept a lid on Muslim hate in his own party. He took great pains to say we weren't waging war on Islam. I hope Trump tries to do the same.
I think he has already failed that test. But, I guess to be hopeful, sometimes high office transforms people.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 21, 2016, 01:00:38 PM
I think Bush kept a lid on Muslim hate in his own party. He took great pains to say we weren't waging war on Islam. I hope Trump tries to do the same.
Horses and doors, you arrange them.
It's hard to claim your not at war with X when X is constantly claiming to be at war with you. War only takes one party to initiate.
It may have been easier back then when it was just bin Laden/AlQ and they were obviously a small splinter group. Things have changed a bit since then. There are a lot more people with megaphones out there claiming to speak for Islam and also claiming to be at war with the west. Unfortunately, the more ISIS et al make headlines, the more of a wedge they drive between Islam and the rotw, and that drives Muslim populations into their lap. They can't have their Caliphate or whatever until the people support it. Well, the non-gay men anyway.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 21, 2016, 01:22:14 PM
It may have been easier back then when it was just bin Laden/AlQ and they were obviously a small splinter group.
Nah. We still had Hamas and Hezbollah and The Muslim Brotherhood around.
Quote from: Berkut on December 21, 2016, 10:10:45 AM
The problem is that the contents of the religion also contain a lot of material that makes it so that you can also make a very credible argument that the ISIS view of Islam is as valid, or more valid, than the western liberal interpretation.
You could make that assumption with just about any religion. Religions evolve to adapt to their cultural surroundings.
Quote
So it isn't THAT amazing. We know that Islam *can* be reconciled with liberal values. The problem isn't what is possible anywhere, the problem is what is actual in some particular places.
Same as with Christianity, again. Witch hunts in Africa are conducted by Christians, mostly.
Quote from: viper37 on December 21, 2016, 01:37:10 PM
You could make that assumption with just about any religion. Religions evolve to adapt to their cultural surroundings.
Well it sort of depends on the religion. I don't think they are all exactly identical in their relationship to culture. Many, if not most, simply cannot exist outside of certain cultural contexts. So I reject this absurd reductionist statement.
Quote
Same as with Christianity, again. Witch hunts in Africa are conducted by Christians, mostly.
Christianity and Islam are closely related and similar in how they interact with culture, which is probably not surprising given their similar origins. Though Christianity has the convenient quirk of having vague and contradictory texts.
But beyond that again I reject this absurd reductionist argument that all religions are exactly the same and Christianity and Islam have the exact same problems in today's world.
QuoteMany, if not most, simply cannot exist outside of certain cultural contexts.
what cultural contexts?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cz0mKAOUAAAxS2l.jpg)
Islam is a religion of peace, and it has nothing to do with the militarized surveillance state Western nations must construct to survive it.
Quote from: derspiess on December 21, 2016, 09:49:25 AM
Very good to hear. For a minute there I was a little worried it might not be.
:D
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2016, 01:36:08 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 21, 2016, 01:22:14 PM
It may have been easier back then when it was just bin Laden/AlQ and they were obviously a small splinter group.
Nah. We still had Hamas and Hezbollah and The Muslim Brotherhood around.
And they contained their activities to the middle east. Again I am not sure what point you are making. MiM's comment addresses the reason attitudes toward Muslims shifted in the West. They went from people to whom we could easily bring democracy if only we could remove the tyrants who were oppressing them, to the enemy.
Of course what that view misses completely is that Muslims are not a homogeneous group. But that doesn't prevent all the nonsense we hear from Trump and those who support him.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 21, 2016, 02:38:38 PM
Again I am not sure what point you are making.
My point was just what I stated. I shall quote it again.
QuoteI don't actually think the view on Muslims has changed at all
Because I heard all the same nonsense back then that I am hearing today.
In the context of the 2003 invasion of Iraq anyway. But it is a little complicated as far as how the political dynamics go.
Now I could certainly be wrong, and you can certainly disagree, but I do not understand how you can not be sure about what point I am making. Do I need to keep posting it again and again?
Quote from: viper37 on December 21, 2016, 01:37:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 21, 2016, 10:10:45 AM
The problem is that the contents of the religion also contain a lot of material that makes it so that you can also make a very credible argument that the ISIS view of Islam is as valid, or more valid, than the western liberal interpretation.
You could make that assumption with just about any religion. Religions evolve to adapt to their cultural surroundings.
Quote
So it isn't THAT amazing. We know that Islam *can* be reconciled with liberal values. The problem isn't what is possible anywhere, the problem is what is actual in some particular places.
Same as with Christianity, again. Witch hunts in Africa are conducted by Christians, mostly.
We aren't talking about Christianity though, nor has anyone claimed that Islam is the only religion to ever have these *kinds* of problems.
Quote from: LaCroix on December 21, 2016, 02:02:10 PM
QuoteMany, if not most, simply cannot exist outside of certain cultural contexts.
what cultural contexts?
Local, tribal, traditional ones.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2016, 01:49:56 PM
But beyond that again I reject this absurd reductionist argument that all religions are exactly the same and Christianity and Islam have the exact same problems in today's world.
Not the exact same problems. Similar problems. Lots of Christians don't seem to accept what we call "liberal" values. It seems more important to adhere to biblical values, however they may be interpreted, than anything else. If that means trampling people's right in the dirt, be it as insignificant as the right to watch pornography at home, or more sinisted as affecting equality for people of different sexual orientation or preventing a women to control her own body, or simply waging an incessant war on science when it contradicts the Bible, it seems to me Christianity has a lot of problems.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't critic some of Islam violent tendancies, it certainly does not mean we can not contradict people who instrumentalize religion, but we can't let it fall into a war of religion where we are somehow better than the other, when it is simply not true.
Attacking a religion is simply counter-productive. Just look at your reaction here, at the slightest mention of what could be a criticism or your religion, and you're as far as I can possibly imagine from a religious fanatic.
Using that technique on devout people is likely to backfire, creating the opposite effect than what we want to achieve.
Quote from: viper37 on December 21, 2016, 03:40:23 PM
That doesn't mean we shouldn't critic some of Islam violent tendancies, it certainly does not mean we can not contradict people who instrumentalize religion, but we can't let it fall into a war of religion where we are somehow better than the other, when it is simply not true.
It's very true. Getting your head hacked off is much more unpleasant than paying a porn tax or not being able to buy booze on Sunday.
Quote from: viper37 on December 21, 2016, 03:40:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2016, 01:49:56 PM
But beyond that again I reject this absurd reductionist argument that all religions are exactly the same and Christianity and Islam have the exact same problems in today's world.
Not the exact same problems. Similar problems. Lots of Christians don't seem to accept what we call "liberal" values. It seems more important to adhere to biblical values, however they may be interpreted, than anything else. If that means trampling people's right in the dirt, be it as insignificant as the right to watch pornography at home, or more sinisted as affecting equality for people of different sexual orientation or preventing a women to control her own body, or simply waging an incessant war on science when it contradicts the Bible, it seems to me Christianity has a lot of problems.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't critic some of Islam violent tendancies, it certainly does not mean we can not contradict people who instrumentalize religion, but we can't let it fall into a war of religion where we are somehow better than the other, when it is simply not true.
Attacking a religion is simply counter-productive. Just look at your reaction here, at the slightest mention of what could be a criticism or your religion, and you're as far as I can possibly imagine from a religious fanatic.
Using that technique on devout people is likely to backfire, creating the opposite effect than what we want to achieve.
Pretending that something that is obviously not true is in fact true because it makes us feel better, or we imagine that it will be seen as more "tolerant", has it's own negative repercussions.
Cue: Donald Trump.
What actual beliefs ARE and what behaviors they drive does in fact actually matter.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2016, 03:44:36 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 21, 2016, 03:40:23 PM
That doesn't mean we shouldn't critic some of Islam violent tendancies, it certainly does not mean we can not contradict people who instrumentalize religion, but we can't let it fall into a war of religion where we are somehow better than the other, when it is simply not true.
It's very true. Getting your head hacked off is much more unpleasant than paying a porn tax or not being able to buy booze on Sunday.
Hearsay, and highly dubious hearsay at that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2016, 03:44:36 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 21, 2016, 03:40:23 PM
That doesn't mean we shouldn't critic some of Islam violent tendancies, it certainly does not mean we can not contradict people who instrumentalize religion, but we can't let it fall into a war of religion where we are somehow better than the other, when it is simply not true.
It's very true. Getting your head hacked off is much more unpleasant than paying a porn tax or not being able to buy booze on Sunday.
The entire argument that all religions are the same that is trotted out every single time this discussion comes up is just so silly.
A religion is just a label we place on a set of beliefs. The argument that the actual content of those beliefs doesn't matter when it comes to thinking about how the followers of that religion are likely to behave is so reductively absurd that it feels petty to even point it out.
I can posit a religion A with one belief:
"God demands that you eradicate cats from the earth!"
And another B with another belief:
"God demands that you take excellent care of all puppies!".
Now, we could easily imagine religious followings that take those core beliefs and interpret them in a lot of different ways. Some could take them literally, others could argue that puppies are an allegory for people, others could argue that "eradicate" doesn't mean kill, whatever.
But if we are talking about the problem that cats are being butchered because there are millions of people who are followers of religion A, and they think the words mean exactly what they say, how can you possibly argue that the the words don't actually matter, and religion B *might* be bad in some other fashion?
It is a total non-sequitur. It is probably not true, and even if it were true, it doesn't actually matter to the point being discussed.
Now if someone wanted to talk about the problem of famine in some countries among goats because followers of religion B have decided that only the puppies should get food, then it makes sense to talk about THEIR particular beliefs and how that contributes to THAT particular problem.
Quote from: viper37 on December 21, 2016, 03:40:23 PM
Not the exact same problems. Similar problems. Lots of Christians don't seem to accept what we call "liberal" values. It seems more important to adhere to biblical values, however they may be interpreted, than anything else. If that means trampling people's right in the dirt, be it as insignificant as the right to watch pornography at home, or more sinisted as affecting equality for people of different sexual orientation or preventing a women to control her own body, or simply waging an incessant war on science when it contradicts the Bible, it seems to me Christianity has a lot of problems.
Yes. This was what I was referring to when I referred to our constant struggle. However it is not that simple is it?
QuoteThat doesn't mean we shouldn't critic some of Islam violent tendancies, it certainly does not mean we can not contradict people who instrumentalize religion, but we can't let it fall into a war of religion where we are somehow better than the other, when it is simply not true.
I do not know what 'better' means here.
QuoteAttacking a religion is simply counter-productive. Just look at your reaction here, at the slightest mention of what could be a criticism or your religion, and you're as far as I can possibly imagine from a religious fanatic.
Using that technique on devout people is likely to backfire, creating the opposite effect than what we want to achieve.
My reaction was when you started making blanket statements about 'every religion'. I found that obnoxious, I did not take it personally.
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2016, 03:37:13 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on December 21, 2016, 02:02:10 PM
QuoteMany, if not most, simply cannot exist outside of certain cultural contexts.
what cultural contexts?
Local, tribal, traditional ones.
what local, tribal, traditional cultural contexts did nigerians share with europeans to allow them to share religion?
Quote from: LaCroix on December 21, 2016, 04:05:46 PM
what local, tribal, traditional cultural contexts did nigerians share with europeans to allow them to share religion?
Christianity and Islam are notable (among a few others) for not being that way.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2016, 03:44:36 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 21, 2016, 03:40:23 PM
That doesn't mean we shouldn't critic some of Islam violent tendancies, it certainly does not mean we can not contradict people who instrumentalize religion, but we can't let it fall into a war of religion where we are somehow better than the other, when it is simply not true.
It's very true. Getting your head hacked off is much more unpleasant than paying a porn tax or not being able to buy booze on Sunday.
here you're blaming head hacking and porn taxing and booze buying on religion, when it could be the culture at fault
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2016, 04:07:54 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on December 21, 2016, 04:05:46 PM
what local, tribal, traditional cultural contexts did nigerians share with europeans to allow them to share religion?
Christianity and Islam are notable (among a few others) for not being that way.
without rereading this thread, I'm not sure whether you're essentially saying the religions that survived to modern day and were adopted by different cultures only did so because something inherent in those religions allowed them to be shared by different cultures.
Quote from: LaCroix on December 21, 2016, 04:09:09 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2016, 03:44:36 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 21, 2016, 03:40:23 PM
That doesn't mean we shouldn't critic some of Islam violent tendancies, it certainly does not mean we can not contradict people who instrumentalize religion, but we can't let it fall into a war of religion where we are somehow better than the other, when it is simply not true.
It's very true. Getting your head hacked off is much more unpleasant than paying a porn tax or not being able to buy booze on Sunday.
here you're blaming head hacking and porn taxing and booze buying on religion, when it could be the culture at fault
It is a chicken and egg thing. If the religion specifically demands one tax porn, ban booze, and hack heads as its tenants then that does kind of point to one rather than the other. Of course that came from a culture at some point presumably. Of course religion is a part of culture anyway.
Quote from: LaCroix on December 21, 2016, 04:17:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2016, 04:07:54 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on December 21, 2016, 04:05:46 PM
what local, tribal, traditional cultural contexts did nigerians share with europeans to allow them to share religion?
Christianity and Islam are notable (among a few others) for not being that way.
without rereading this thread, I'm not sure whether you're essentially saying the religions that survived to modern day and were adopted by different cultures only did so because something inherent in those religions allowed them to be shared by different cultures.
No I am not saying that at all. I am saying that religions often were so entwined in a specific culture that it is hard for one to exist without the other. Many religions like this continue to exist AFAIK.
Quote from: LaCroix on December 21, 2016, 04:09:09 PM
here you're blaming head hacking and porn taxing and booze buying on religion, when it could be the culture at fault
Such as the American culture that led American-born jihadists to shoot up army bases and gay clubs? Or the Middle Eastern culture that led Assyrians and Devil worshipers to not hack off heads?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2016, 04:28:53 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on December 21, 2016, 04:09:09 PM
here you're blaming head hacking and porn taxing and booze buying on religion, when it could be the culture at fault
Such as the American culture that led American-born jihadists to shoot up army bases and gay clubs? Or the Middle Eastern culture that led Assyrians and Devil worshipers to not hack off heads?
many individuals exist who reject or deviate from their own culture
Quote from: LaCroix on December 21, 2016, 04:50:36 PM
many individuals exist who reject or deviate from their own culture
Certainly. Given that, how do you come to the conclusion that it "could be culture?"
Or are you taking the position that, outside of the hard sciences, nothing is provable?
Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2016, 03:14:53 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 21, 2016, 02:38:38 PM
Again I am not sure what point you are making.
My point was just what I stated. I shall quote it again.
QuoteI don't actually think the view on Muslims has changed at all
Because I heard all the same nonsense back then that I am hearing today.
In the context of the 2003 invasion of Iraq anyway. But it is a little complicated as far as how the political dynamics go.
Yes, there was a lot of people saying at the time that Islam is incompatible with democracy. Though I suppose that you could argue that "democracy" and "Western values" aren't exactly the same thing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2016, 04:58:55 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on December 21, 2016, 04:50:36 PM
many individuals exist who reject or deviate from their own culture
Certainly. Given that, how do you come to the conclusion that it "could be culture?"
Or are you taking the position that, outside of the hard sciences, nothing is provable?
because your examples are laws of the land, and laws come from culture. a society that interprets a text to mean hack off all heathen heads is a culture that condones such conduct. I don't think a society can freely act in the name of religion if that society doesn't accept that religion. I disagree completely with valmy's "chicken and egg thing," because religion must come after culture.
I can't think of a situation where religion comes before culture. if you handed the bible to a society magically created as a blank slate, it could create a religion, but that religion wouldn't be the same religion as ours. there would be different interpretations, because their freshly minted culture is different than ours.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2016, 04:58:55 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on December 21, 2016, 04:50:36 PM
many individuals exist who reject or deviate from their own culture
Certainly. Given that, how do you come to the conclusion that it "could be culture?"
Or are you taking the position that, outside of the hard sciences, nothing is provable?
Culture can be more important than religion when it comes to human motivations. Obviously, religion informs culture, but Islam is somewhat different than most religions in that its tenets demand that it not only be the religion but the culture and government too. Sharia, etc.
Christianity had these struggles a long time ago, but it was never as overtly stated for Catholics that they should also be kings. It was easier for them to reform in that way. Buddhists, Taoists, etc--way easier.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 21, 2016, 01:00:38 PM
I think Bush kept a lid on Muslim hate in his own party. He took great pains to say we weren't waging war on Islam. I hope Trump tries to do the same.
Trump on the future of proposed Muslim ban, registry: 'You know my plans' (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/21/trump-on-the-future-of-proposed-muslim-ban-registry-you-know-my-plans/)
Trumpenreich
Quote from: 11B4V on December 21, 2016, 08:30:42 PM
Trumpenreich
I'd look good in a leather trenchcoat carrying an attaché case. HAIL TRUMP
Quote from: Berkut on December 21, 2016, 03:50:28 PM
Pretending that something that is obviously not true is in fact true because it makes us feel better,
Well, that's the basis of any religion, isn't it? We believe in something greater than us because it makes us feel good. People believe mythical figures guide their lives/destiny, take away their burden when it's too heavy for them, etc. Others believe God(s) is/are cruel and toy with them, either to mock them or to test htem. It gives them comfort to believe there is something out there looking out for them, for good or for bad. It's been like that pretty much since we got down from the trees.
Quote
or we imagine that it will be seen as more "tolerant", has it's own negative repercussions.
I disagree with Jacob's and our Prime Minister's view that there is no such thing as a religious extremist, that it's only a matter of communication. But at the same time I disagree with those that will single out Islam as a monolithic bloc of evil (yes, paraphrasing here, and I'm not implying it's what you're saying).
There is certainly lots of problems with Islam, as a religion and as a culture, but I don't think it's fair to assume Islam is the main driving force behind the political violence. Russians are bombarding civilians, on purpose, how is this better than detonating a bomb in a crowded market? Because one does it for law and order and the other for God there should be a significant difference of degrees in barbarity?
That policemen who shot the Russian ambassador didn't claim it was for God. He didn't shout
Inch'Allah or
Allah Ackbar, he just said "For Syria, for Alep". Yet, many medias are reporting it as a terror act. When US Air Force soldiers paint a bomb "For 9/11" is it a Christian act of terror? Don't think so.
Quote from: viper37 on December 22, 2016, 12:23:42 AM
There is certainly lots of problems with Islam, as a religion and as a culture, but I don't think it's fair to assume Islam is the main driving force behind the political violence.
Put a pin in that for a moment, we will return to it...
Quote
Russians are bombarding civilians, on purpose, how is this better than detonating a bomb in a crowded market?
Who are you arguing with? Who said it was better?
Quote
Because one does it for law and order and the other for God there should be a significant difference of degrees in barbarity?
What?
How is the motives of people engaging in dis-similar acts somehow a measure of "should be" differences in barbarity?
Quote
That policemen who shot the Russian ambassador didn't claim it was for God.
So?
Quote
He didn't shout Inch'Allah or Allah Ackbar, he just said "For Syria, for Alep".
Congratulations, you've pointed out that it is possible to do things for reasons other than religion.
Quote
Yet, many medias are reporting it as a terror act.
So?
Did I call it ia "terror act", whatever that is?
Did I say it was a religious act?
What difference does that particular act make to my point anyway?
Quote
When US Air Force soldiers paint a bomb "For 9/11" is it a Christian act of terror? Don't think so.
Agreed. Not only is not a act of terror, it has nothing to do with anything being discussed.
You've bravely enlightened us all to the fact that not all actions are religiously motivated, nor is all violence religiously motivated.
Congratulations?
Quote from: viper37 on December 22, 2016, 12:23:42 AM
That policemen who shot the Russian ambassador didn't claim it was for God. He didn't shout Inch'Allah or Allah Ackbar, he just said "For Syria, for Alep".
Except that...he did.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 22, 2016, 02:28:58 AM
Quote from: viper37 on December 22, 2016, 12:23:42 AM
That policemen who shot the Russian ambassador didn't claim it was for God. He didn't shout Inch'Allah or Allah Ackbar, he just said "For Syria, for Alep".
Except that...he did.
We are doing the liberal left post-fact model of discussion, and bringing in actual facts is very much gauche.
Quote from: Berkut on December 22, 2016, 08:59:33 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 22, 2016, 02:28:58 AM
Quote from: viper37 on December 22, 2016, 12:23:42 AM
That policemen who shot the Russian ambassador didn't claim it was for God. He didn't shout Inch'Allah or Allah Ackbar, he just said "For Syria, for Alep".
Except that...he did.
We are doing the liberal left post-fact model of discussion, and bringing in actual facts is very much gauche.
No that's the conservative right model.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 21, 2016, 01:00:38 PM
I think Bush kept a lid on Muslim hate in his own party. He took great pains to say we weren't waging war on Islam. I hope Trump tries to do the same.
Why?
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 22, 2016, 09:02:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 22, 2016, 08:59:33 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 22, 2016, 02:28:58 AM
Quote from: viper37 on December 22, 2016, 12:23:42 AM
That policemen who shot the Russian ambassador didn't claim it was for God. He didn't shout Inch'Allah or Allah Ackbar, he just said "For Syria, for Alep".
Except that...he did.
We are doing the liberal left post-fact model of discussion, and bringing in actual facts is very much gauche.
No that's the conservative right model.
I wish it were only limited to that set of crazies.
However, the foundation of what drives people to ignore obvious facts that counter their cherished conclusions is nearly universal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2016, 03:44:36 PM
It's very true. Getting your head hacked off is much more unpleasant than paying a porn tax or not being able to buy booze on Sunday.
Because the US is still a civilized place with a decent judicial system. Once such structures have been weakened, or have completely fallen, lots of things can happen, and religion can become one factor among many others.
If you look at Rwanda, the people slaughtering themselves were good Christians. In ex Yougoslavia, the murders were mainly committed by Christians. At some point, Muslims were the target for Christian violence. When it wasn't Christian on Christian violence. That wasn't 1000 years ago.
Would you characterize Christianity as an inherent violent religion? Since the beginning of Christianity, there's been a lot of violence committed in the name of God. Hard violence like genocide, soft violence like colonization to bring enlightment to the populations who did not know God, all kinds of violence.
Christianity has been used to justify slavery. And to end it. It has been used to promote racial equality. And to maintain segregation.
I just don't see much differences between religions. They all have good, they all have evils. What people do with them is the problem. Just because someone claims to be acting on behalf of a religion does not mean it's the Truth. No more than right wing extremists shooting a bunch of blacks or socialists are acting in my name when they say they did it for the White race.
Again, the problem isn't with Islam itself. It's a religion of Peace, a religion of War, just like Christianity.
Quote from: viper37 on December 22, 2016, 09:55:34 AM
Christianity has been used to justify slavery.
And if we were talking about whether or not Christianity contributes to the problem of slavery, this would be a good point to bring up.
Quote
And to end it.
And if we were talking about whether Christian theology had a hand in driving abolition, this would be an excellent point to bring up.
Quote
It has been used to promote racial equality. And to maintain segregation.
So?
You can provide a hundred example of where some particular belief system has contriguted to human behavior.
Although I think you are being a little (intentionally) vague in your agency here.
There is a difference between a beliefs system being used to justify behavior, and a belief system motivating that behavior. You seem to be arguing that Christianity was used to justify slavery, for example. That suggests that those who practiced slavery and said it was ok because of the bible didn't actually believe what they were saying, they were just justifying it.
I think when we are talking about jihadism, that is a downright dishonest position to take. It is always hard to determine what other people actually believe. But it isn't impossible. And I think when it comes to radical Islam, we have pretty damn good evidence that people really do believe what they say - they are not "justifying" their actions, when those actions include their own physical destruction. I think we can very safely accept that a suicide bomber actually does believe he or she is going to wake up in heaven.
"They all have good, they all have evils". Your entire position is a ridiciulous effort to remove human agency in order to maintain the dearly cherished idea that you are "tolerant", even when that tolerance amounts to denial of actual human beings capability of driving their own agency. Rather than accept that people actually make decisions based on their religious beliefs, you want to water down those beliefs to meaninglessness - they are all the same, there is nothing different. This is dangerous, foolish, and intellectually vapid. It results in a lot of hand wringing and insistence on moral equivalence.
In a practical sense, it results in people like Donald Trump winning presidencies. When the only person speaking honestly about the problem are the people whose solutions are a fucking nightmare, you end up with those people in charge. Obama and Clinton are so entangled in this world view that demands this moral equivalence between all possible belief systems that they won't even identify and label the problem, even while they are actually taking actions that clearly show that they DO in fact rationally understand that all religions are not the same, and act accordingly!
When Christian fundamentalists start driving cars into crowds in Germany, Germany should start having some discussion about what those beliefs systems mean, how they interact with modern society, what security threats that creates, and how to deal with them. They should not wring their hands and note how Buddhists have been known to be violent as well, so we really should not consider what the Christians actually believe, and just keep mouthing platitudes that assure us that we are sufficiently PC and tolerant at the expense of everything else.
I just don't see much differences between religions. They all have good, they all have evils. What people do with them is the problem. Just because someone claims to be acting on behalf of a religion does not mean it's the Truth. No more than right wing extremists shooting a bunch of blacks or socialists are acting in my name when they say they did it for the White race.
Again, the problem isn't with Islam itself. It's a religion of Peace, a religion of War, just like Christianity.
[/quote]
But Trump wasn't speaking honestly about the problem. Yes he said the magic words "radical Islamic terrorism" (and I agree it was a mistake of Obama to get himself into that semantic trap) but his solution was "ban all Muslims" because we "need to figure out what is going on". He turned a real problem about radicalism in the Islamic world into a mostly fake problem about asylum policy.
I really fucking hope, if Der Füror is going to go to all the trouble of establishing a Mooselimb registry, that we'll at least be able to order 12-person place settings instead of the conventional 8-person set.
What would you do with a dozen Muslims?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 22, 2016, 12:10:56 PM
But Trump wasn't speaking honestly about the problem. Yes he said the magic words "radical Islamic terrorism" (and I agree it was a mistake of Obama to get himself into that semantic trap) but his solution was "ban all Muslims" because we "need to figure out what is going on". He turned a real problem about radicalism in the Islamic world into a mostly fake problem about asylum policy.
Of course, he is fucking moron.
But what he is good at is tapping into the fears of people, and the refusal by the left to acknowledge islamic radicalism and name it as such leaves an opening for a demagogue to be seen as the only person willing to actually recognize the problem.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 22, 2016, 09:03:52 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 21, 2016, 01:00:38 PM
I think Bush kept a lid on Muslim hate in his own party. He took great pains to say we weren't waging war on Islam. I hope Trump tries to do the same.
Why?
Because we don't want all of them hostile to us. I thought that would have been obvious.
Bush explicitly mentioned a crusade.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 22, 2016, 12:10:56 PM
But Trump wasn't speaking honestly about the problem. Yes he said the magic words "radical Islamic terrorism" (and I agree it was a mistake of Obama to get himself into that semantic trap) but his solution was "ban all Muslims" because we "need to figure out what is going on". He turned a real problem about radicalism in the Islamic world into a mostly fake problem about asylum policy.
I don't know on what grounds you can accuse Trump of being dishonest on this issue. Excessive, over the top, draconian, whatever, but dishonest? Muslim immigration in general, and Syrian refugee immigration in particular, presents some level of risk.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 22, 2016, 12:57:54 PM
What would you do with a dozen Muslims?
Sail to Europe in a gravy boat.
Quote from: Berkut on December 22, 2016, 10:34:29 AM
There is a difference between a beliefs system being used to justify behavior, and a belief system motivating that behavior.
But that's the core of the problem.
You and others says Islam motivates the violent behavior. I believe it is used to justify said behavior.
Violence is part of any human societies. Liberal, western societies have mostly confined it. Other societies have channeled it toward a specific objective for their goals. In some others, it is a result of widespread chaos.
Quote
I think when we are talking about jihadism, that is a downright dishonest position to take. It is always hard to determine what other people actually believe.
Djihadists certainly believe God wants them to act the way they do. Just as Southerners believed God wanted them to rule over the black man. And judging by the recent election and some post-electoral comments, that might still be true.
Quote
But it isn't impossible. And I think when it comes to radical Islam, we have pretty damn good evidence that people really do believe what they say - they are not "justifying" their actions, when those actions include their own physical destruction. I think we can very safely accept that a suicide bomber actually does believe he or she is going to wake up in heaven.
Of course they believe it. Just like the Communists in the USSR believed in their cause. Many are told so since their youngest age by their families, their surrounding. That's why you call it indoctrination.
It doesn't mean it's because of the religion in itself. A religion is neutral, neither good nor evil. They way you teach it though, it has a lot of meaning. And we know for sure that Wahabism teaches that. While Wahabism is part of Islam, Islam is not Whabism. And their are other currents within islam too that also preach violence. And other currents that preach peace and tolerance. Just like Christianity. My childhood friend was beaten by his mother to expel the demon from him. She was and still is a good Christian Protestant. She really believed she was doing good. She only stopped when he was old and strong enough to make it stop.
Is that Christianity? Because that kind of behavior is certainly very present among many Christians. It's one of the core principle of the Bible after all, the 4th commandment for Catholics, the 5th for Protestants. Catholics were specifically told it meant obeying their parents commands, their teachers commands, their priests commands, bascially anyone in a position of authority.
QuoteRather than accept that people actually make decisions based on their religious beliefs,
People are taught religion in a certain way and I found that way to vary a lot depending on cultural factor.
My parents learnt a lot about the 4th commandment. We barely touched it. Quebec underwent some cultural change in between. Yet, the majority of the population was still Catholic when I went to school. Same religion. Different culture.
Each Easter, there are Christians crucifying themselves in the name of Christ. It's not condoned at all by the Church, but they are good Catholics and they do it to get closer to God. I never heard of such a rite in Quebec, despite the religious zeal of the population at one time.
QuoteThis is dangerous, foolish, and intellectually vapid. It results in a lot of hand wringing and insistence on moral equivalence.
I make a difference between extremist religious beliefs and the normal practice of religion. I make a huge difference between a secular government with religious people and a theocracy.
Quote
In a practical sense, it results in people like Donald Trump winning presidencies. When the only person speaking honestly about the problem are the people whose solutions are a fucking nightmare, you end up with those people in charge.
Then why are you lamenting his election? He'll solve the problem, since Islam is the problem, according to you. No muslims, no problem. Or do you have doubt about your own position and that's why you don't like Trump's ideas?
Because he clearly views Christians as better than Muslims.
Quote
Obama and Clinton are so entangled in this world view that demands this moral equivalence between all possible belief systems that they won't even identify and label the problem, even while they are actually taking actions that clearly show that they DO in fact rationally understand that all religions are not the same, and act accordingly!
This is Obama's explanations on his stance:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/28/politics/obama-radical-islamic-terrorism-cnn-town-hall/
You call it cowardly, I call it just.
If my Prime Minister was saying that, I'd be satisfied he doesn't wear pink glasses. To you that's not enought. Your most hidden secret desire is to see Trump's plan in action, I guess, hoping it will work.
Quote
When Christian fundamentalists start driving cars into crowds in Germany,
Christian fundamentalists have all 3 levels of power in your government. Christian fundamentalists in Europe have a say inside many political parties, either extreme right wing like le
Front National or other more moderate religious parties that organize protests in front of churches targetted for demolition or transformation in condos.
They do not need violent tacticts. Altough FN supporters have used some, they have all the power they need to effect change. The moderate right wing parties are forced to listen to them to get a part of their electorate.
When a religious minority feels threatened, they often resort to violence. Toward themselves, or toward others.
At 90%+ religious people in the US, there is no need to use force to convert people, the critical mass is there.
Quote
Germany should start having some discussion about what those beliefs systems mean, how they interact with modern society, what security threats that creates, and how to deal with them. They should not wring their hands and note how Buddhists have been known to be violent as well, so we really should not consider what the Christians actually believe, and just keep mouthing platitudes that assure us that we are sufficiently PC and tolerant at the expense of everything else.
Germany is a sovereign countries with fairly intelligent people, I'm sure the Germans are able to make their own decision process on this.
What I want from my government though, is the end of religion in government. All religion. No religious symbols of any kinds for people in a relation of authority to me. Soldiers, police officers, judges, crown prosecutors, nothing to indicate their primary loyalty to something else than our government. Only by taking steps to contain integrists do we prevent its rise. Not by targeting innocent practionners, not by ignoring the truly dangerous individuals.
Damn, you nailed me. I am a secret Trump supporter.
Great discussion.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2016, 01:46:23 PM
Muslim immigration in general, and Syrian refugee immigration in particular, presents some level of risk.
Then the debate is simple. How many victims (dead&injured) by mass shooting per year vs How many victms by a Muslim immigrant every year. Let's take an average on 30 years, for US only.
Which ever is higher should be tackled first. Then if the problem persists, adress the second issue.
if the dead body count for Muslim immigrants in the US is higher than the death tool by guns, then certainly, it is honest to invoke a ban on muslim immigration for security reasons.
Quote from: Berkut on December 22, 2016, 02:41:57 PM
Damn, you nailed me. I am a secret Trump supporter.
Great discussion.
Ah, I see. You are free to insult people, but they should always remain polite when adressing you. Really sounds like a Trump supporter.
Euro/Québécois/atheistic hangups over religion is always hilarious. The dialogue equivalent of strippers in clear heels. All Daddy issues, all the time.
Quote from: viper37 on December 22, 2016, 02:44:19 PM
Then the debate is simple. How many victims (dead&injured) by mass shooting per year vs How many victms by a Muslim immigrant every year. Let's take an average on 30 years, for US only.
Which ever is higher should be tackled first. Then if the problem persists, adress the second issue.
if the dead body count for Muslim immigrants in the US is higher than the death tool by guns, then certainly, it is honest to invoke a ban on muslim immigration for security reasons.
Your solution is extremely simple if we ignore 1) the desire of American citizens to own guns 2) the Constitution, and 3) the fact that immigration is a privilege not a right.
Quote from: Berkut on December 22, 2016, 01:11:36 PM
But what he is good at is tapping into the fears of people,
Quoteand the refusal by the left to acknowledge islamic radicalism and name it as such leaves an opening for a demagogue to be seen as the only person willing to actually recognize the problem.
When people are allergic to facts, what is there to do? Inflate the rethoric? Is that what you really want? What good does it serve? I'd want a leader who acts, not a leader who talks.
Under Obama ISIS was contained and pushed back from Iraq, a mess created by Republicans. Bin Laden was found and killed, something the Republicans were unable to do, they even called off the attack when they had him cornered in the mountains of Afghanistan.
Obama was too soft on many things, namely in his interactions with Republicans and Russians, always trying to seek a compromise rather than acting unilateraly. Other than that, he was much better at handling the terrorist threat than the Republican government that preceded him. He might have done better had he not wasted time solving the mess Bush left.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2016, 02:51:19 PM
Your solution is extremely simple if we ignore 1) the desire of American citizens to own guns 2) the Constitution, and 3) the fact that immigration is a privilege not a right.
of course my solution is simple. It's not a solution, it's a statement of facts. An honest leader would point out there are dangers to everything, he would say that honestly, giving easy acces to guns is the problem, and then just about anybody can get a gun and commit a mass shooting. He could remind the populace that there is, on average, one shooting per week in the US, and only 1 in 52 was done by a muslim immigrant.
That would be honest.
Otherwise, it's as honest as blaming Jewish bankers for financial crisis.
Quote from: viper37 on December 22, 2016, 02:59:34 PM
of course my solution is simple. It's not a solution, it's a statement of facts. An honest leader would point out there are dangers to everything, he would say that honestly, giving easy acces to guns is the problem, and then just about anybody can get a gun and commit a mass shooting. He could remind the populace that there is, on average, one shooting per week in the US, and only 1 in 52 was done by a muslim immigrant.
That would be honest.
Otherwise, it's as honest as blaming Jewish bankers for financial crisis.
It's not a statement of fact. It's an attempt to frame an issue in a way that favors your preferred policy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2016, 01:46:23 PM
I don't know on what grounds you can accuse Trump of being dishonest on this issue. Excessive, over the top, draconian, whatever, but dishonest? Muslim immigration in general, and Syrian refugee immigration in particular, presents some level of risk.
It's dishonest because it suggests that there is a clear causal connection between Muslim immigration/refugees generally and terrorism is the US when historically there is no such connection. E.g. the 9/11 attackers entered on non-immigrant visas.
He made numerous statements about Syrian refugee admissions nearly all of which were howling lies: claiming that Syrian refugees enter without paperwork, are not "vetted", are mostly young men, and then misstating by orders of magnitude how many would be admitted under HRC's plans.
Quote from: viper37 on December 22, 2016, 02:45:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 22, 2016, 02:41:57 PM
Damn, you nailed me. I am a secret Trump supporter.
Great discussion.
Ah, I see. You are free to insult people, but they should always remain polite when adressing you. Really sounds like a Trump supporter.
Nothing to do with being polite, has to do with creating moronic arguments you know are not true like "Berkut's...most hidden secret desire is to see Trump's plan in action".
I am not polite, but I don't say things I certainly know you do not believe because it makes my argument sound good.
We can have a constructive, impolite conversation. We cannot have a constructive conversation where you lack the intellectual integrty to avoid saying things you are absolutely certain are false as you are typing them.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 22, 2016, 03:25:42 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2016, 01:46:23 PM
I don't know on what grounds you can accuse Trump of being dishonest on this issue. Excessive, over the top, draconian, whatever, but dishonest? Muslim immigration in general, and Syrian refugee immigration in particular, presents some level of risk.
It's dishonest because it suggests that there is a clear causal connection between Muslim immigration/refugees generally and terrorism is the US when historically there is no such connection. E.g. the 9/11 attackers entered on non-immigrant visas.
He made numerous statements about Syrian refugee admissions nearly all of which were howling lies: claiming that Syrian refugees enter without paperwork, are not "vetted", are mostly young men, and then misstating by orders of magnitude how many would be admitted under HRC's plans.
Arguing with anyone about whether or not Trunp's arguments, any of them, are "honest" or not is an exercise in futility.
Honesty doesn't enter into anything Trump says, one way or the other. I don't even think whether what he says is true or not enters into his mind before he vomits it forth.
Quote from: viper37 on December 22, 2016, 02:56:22 PM
Under Obama ISIS was contained and pushed back from Iraq, a mess created by Republicans. Bin Laden was found and killed, something the Republicans were unable to do, they even called off the attack when they had him cornered in the mountains of Afghanistan.
:hmm:
I'm as much for Barry as anyone but . . . the fact is that ISIS reorganized and grew during his presidency; indeed it came its present form then. Its resurgence in Iraq was probably unavoidable due to domestic political developments there. In Syria though there were more options. Perhaps not good options or ones that ultimately would have worked. But what can't be argued is that the policy followed gave room for ISIS to expand there.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 22, 2016, 03:25:42 PM
It's dishonest because it suggests that there is a clear causal connection between Muslim immigration/refugees generally and terrorism is the US when historically there is no such connection. E.g. the 9/11 attackers entered on non-immigrant visas.
It would have been dishonest in the way you describe if he had in fact claimed that only those Muslims who enter on immigration or refugee visas have, or ever will, engage in terrorism.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 22, 2016, 01:41:37 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 22, 2016, 09:03:52 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 21, 2016, 01:00:38 PM
I think Bush kept a lid on Muslim hate in his own party. He took great pains to say we weren't waging war on Islam. I hope Trump tries to do the same.
Why?
Because we don't want all of them hostile to us. I thought that would have been obvious.
It's both the practical approach, and the right thing to do.
If posters here were representative of their societies, given Grey Fox's, Viper's, and Grallon's attitudes toward Muslims, I'd have to say that the Islamic radicals should identify Quebec, rather than the US, as the "Great Satan".
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 22, 2016, 03:37:33 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 22, 2016, 02:56:22 PM
Under Obama ISIS was contained and pushed back from Iraq, a mess created by Republicans. Bin Laden was found and killed, something the Republicans were unable to do, they even called off the attack when they had him cornered in the mountains of Afghanistan.
:hmm:
I'm as much for Barry as anyone but . . . the fact is that ISIS reorganized and grew during his presidency; indeed it came its present form then. Its resurgence in Iraq was probably unavoidable due to domestic political developments there. In Syria though there were more options. Perhaps not good options or ones that ultimately would have worked. But what can't be argued is that the policy followed gave room for ISIS to expand there.
I am torn on Obama's polciy towards Islamism in general and ISIS in particular.
On the one hand, I think there was a time when he basically had this "Pretend it doesn't exist and maybe it will go away" attitude towards the ME in general, and Iraq and Syria in particular. I think this went hand in hand with his "We will bail on Iraq so fast when I an elected! So fast! You will be tired of how fast we will bail, it will be so fast OMG! So fast!" campaign promises.
I think that policy was very much responsible for the rise of ISIS, or at least gave it the room to flourish, and a lot of temporal space where we basically turned a blind eye because we were committed to being out of Iraq and hands off in Syria.
But that is a relatively understandable error. Obama was elected on the basis of a lot of angst in the US and Europe about America's role in the Middle East. We had heard for decades how pretty much everything wrong with the Middle East was a result of American meddling, so taking a shot at just not trying being involved anymore seemed like it was worth a shot. Needless to say, absent American meddling, things have gone amazingly well. Not.
Anyway, since he started paying attention again, I think he has mostly done the right things. An agressive military posture in Iraq, a willingness to hold his nose and deal with Iran, and the very clear willingness to bomb the shit out of ISIS si ways from Sunday, all the while maintaining this facade of hands off....
I go back and forth on his own stance on pretending like viper is right, and we should fake like Islam isn't really a problem, it is just like all other religions. He clearly does not act that way, and is doing the right things, but saying something very different. I can understand the argument that while it is important to identify things for what they are, his job is not to be the honest voice, but rather to speak in a manner that can best achieve American goals. So I understand his argument that he should not use terms like "Islamic terrorism". I am not sure I agree that the negative he is trying to avoid is worth the cost however. I think it creates a lot of confusion about our stance, and it makes him look like he is simply in denial among a lot of people for whom this is a significant issue. Now, I will grant that the reason it is a significant issue is that the right has recognized that it is a delicious morsel of fear and bigotry to feed their deplorables, and have been trumpeting that for years now. But that is not a mystery or surprise either, and his vacilitating lets a demagogue like Trump make the claim that only he is willing to stand up to terrorism.
IMO, there was probably a time when that careful language made sense, but I don't think it is still necessary. The continuing violence is going to polarize opinion, and at some point we need moderates to step in and own the conversation, and they cannot do that if they are attacked from the left every time they call a spade a spade.
Quote from: dps on December 22, 2016, 05:26:03 PM
If posters here were representative of their societies, given Grey Fox's, Viper's, and Grallon's attitudes toward Muslims, I'd have to say that the Islamic radicals should identify Quebec, rather than the US, as the "Great Satan".
This is what Viper gets for going PC on Islam(ism). Sad! :lol: