Author Topic: French terrorist attacks  (Read 37781 times)

JZinCO

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #100 on: November 18, 2015, 09:24:19 AM »
It's becoming popular in the west to assume that everyone shares a universal morality. Islamists simply don't have the same values. The abuses against women (genital mutilation, ownership, covering, honor killings) are OK.
Eritrea - Almost 90% female genital mutilation.  Christian country
Ethiopia - Almost 75% female genital mutilation.  Christian country

So tell us again how Islamists simply don't have the same values?

For a short and interesting discussion regarding exactly the type of blanket statements you are making regarding the 1.6 billion Muslims, made up of as many and varied sects as there are denominations in Christianity, the following might be of interest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV0QXO6YfzA
Blanket statements? Before you go playing that card, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism
Islamism, is what I was describing. Islamism is an ideology. Like any ideology, there are core tenets and beliefs. Can you imagine this exchange: "Economic libertarians support maximal individual freedoms and laissez faire economic systems." "Stop that's ignorant and racist!"

And I will continue to say that Islamism does not share the same values as liberal democracies. I don't give a hoot if Eriteria or Ethiopia are christian. They're backwards too because liberal democratic ideas are not governing principles in those nations' societies. Just because a couple non-muslim majority countries practices female genital mutilation does not make it untrue that genital mutilation is a common practice where Islamism is the governing norm.
Except that female genital mutilation did not come from Islam, it came from cultures that Islam conquered.  So it is an area/cultural thing outside of the religion which is why the point that some Christian countries do it, and some Muslim countries don't does matter.
I won't get into a debate on a small point that is not my argued thesis. I see where this goes "I debunked one of your claims, thereby all of your claims are debunked".
I do know that there is a debate of whether or not female genital mutilation (FGM) does or does not stem from tribal or post-tribal religious practices. It is praised in the hadith but not quran. It is law of the land in islamic theocracies and justified with a religious pretext. So we can either debate the merit of whether or not FGM is a conservative islamic practice. Or you can address my larger point, which is that Islamism and its subjugation of women is not done out of hate but out of a perverse notion of protecting women.
EDIT: Started reading a book by Asra Nomani. She's pushing for an Islamic woman bill of rights in the bedroom and in the mosque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Bill_of_Rights_for_Women_in_the_Mosque
« Last Edit: November 18, 2015, 09:35:02 AM by JZinCO »

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #101 on: November 18, 2015, 09:36:12 AM »
It's becoming popular in the west to assume that everyone shares a universal morality. Islamists simply don't have the same values. The abuses against women (genital mutilation, ownership, covering, honor killings) are OK.
Eritrea - Almost 90% female genital mutilation.  Christian country
Ethiopia - Almost 75% female genital mutilation.  Christian country

So tell us again how Islamists simply don't have the same values?

For a short and interesting discussion regarding exactly the type of blanket statements you are making regarding the 1.6 billion Muslims, made up of as many and varied sects as there are denominations in Christianity, the following might be of interest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV0QXO6YfzA
Blanket statements? Before you go playing that card, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism
Islamism, is what I was describing. Islamism is an ideology. Like any ideology, there are core tenets and beliefs. Can you imagine this exchange: "Economic libertarians support maximal individual freedoms and laissez faire economic systems." "Stop that's ignorant and racist!"

And I will continue to say that Islamism does not share the same values as liberal democracies. I don't give a hoot if Eriteria or Ethiopia are christian. They're backwards too because liberal democratic ideas are not governing principles in those nations' societies. Just because a couple non-muslim majority countries practices female genital mutilation does not make it untrue that genital mutilation is a common practice where Islamism is the governing norm.
Except that female genital mutilation did not come from Islam, it came from cultures that Islam conquered.  So it is an area/cultural thing outside of the religion which is why the point that some Christian countries do it, and some Muslim countries don't does matter.
I won't get into a debate on a small point that is not my argued thesis. I see where this goes "I debunked one of your claims, thereby all of your claims are debunked".
I do know that there is a debate of whether or not female genital mutilation (FGM) does or does not stem from tribal or post-tribal religious practices. It is praised in the hadith but not quran. It is law of the land in islamic theocracies and justified with a religious pretext. So we can either debate the merit of whether or not FGM is a conservative islamic practice. Or you can address my larger point, which is that Islamism and its subjugation of women is not done out of hate but out of a perverse notion of protecting women.
I thought your point was that "It's becoming popular in the west to assume that everyone shares a universal morality. Islamists simply don't have the same values.".
That would mean you'd have to show that the west or Christians don't have the same values aka your bolded "Islamism and its subjugation of women is not done out of hate but out of a perverse notion of protecting women".  One example is the FGM but when you look at it, it happens in Christian countries (as long as they are of a similar culture), so that itself does not support you.  But you could say, compare Christian countries or those who identify as Christians and see if they similarly paraphrasing "[subjugate women not out of hate but out of a perverse notion of protecting women]".  The problem there is even in the US, I can find multiple instances of examples of those who identify as Christian and believe that their behavior towards women is protective not subjugation. 
The idea that the two Abrahamic religions (three counting Judaism) are so opposite in values makes little sense to me, not only based on their common history/values but also in behaviors on extremists in both groups.  I'd be happy to be convinced, but I'd need something more than something so easily refuted (FGM).
« Last Edit: November 18, 2015, 09:52:18 AM by Gin1984 »

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #102 on: November 18, 2015, 09:50:33 AM »
You're talking about people who attempt to form a state and rule based on ancient religious texts.  Historically, that usually doesn't work out too well with regards to human rights and tolerance.  Again though, it's not religion specific.  The same problems are seen when a state is run by Christians, or any other religion that can dogmatically pull laws out of an ancient book.  As has been pointed out, there are modern Christian states where literal interpretation of the bible is causing all kinds of problems.  It's just bad policy to try and mix church and state for this reason....  Extremists who want to do horrible things use religion as an excuse to do them.  Religion is not the source of the problem, it's just a banner than can easily be raised after you've already decided to be an asshole. 
I'll just put it this way. How many Jain suicide bombers have you heard of? None. Because no matter how literal and ultra-conservative your adherence to Jainism, it can not lead you to rationalize mass murder.
Beliefs matter.

Why are you prescribing it to their religion (when plenty of other people of their religion don't do that), rather than the particular culture they are in?

The murdering Buddhist monks aren't representative of all Buddhists, nor are some suicide bombers who are Muslim representative of all Muslims.

The religion isn't the problem.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

justajane

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2146
  • Location: Midwest
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #103 on: November 18, 2015, 09:59:13 AM »
The idea that the two Abrahamic religions (three counting Judaism) are so opposite in values makes little sense to me, not only based on their common history/values but also in behaviors on extremists in both groups.  I'd be happy to be convinced, but I'd need something more than something so easily refused (FGM).

Yeah, the better argument would be to situate the proponents of all three major monotheistic religions in terms of whether they embrace the ideals of the European Enlightenment. So, you would have pre- and post-Enlightenment interpretations of scripture.

Another thing I think that you are stumbling over, JZinCo, is the ideal of plurality and that if plurality against all this violence and subjugation existed in the Islamic world that things would automatically change. You've used the word plurality a couple of times. Yes, it is likely necessary to change things (as I've said upthread), but just because it exists doesn't mean that things will automatically change. Throughout history majorities have been held hostage and ruled despotically by minorities. Fascism comes to mind - Franco Spain specifically. In our modern context, Iran would probably be a good example.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #104 on: November 18, 2015, 10:09:50 AM »
You're talking about people who attempt to form a state and rule based on ancient religious texts.  Historically, that usually doesn't work out too well with regards to human rights and tolerance.  Again though, it's not religion specific.  The same problems are seen when a state is run by Christians, or any other religion that can dogmatically pull laws out of an ancient book.  As has been pointed out, there are modern Christian states where literal interpretation of the bible is causing all kinds of problems.  It's just bad policy to try and mix church and state for this reason....  Extremists who want to do horrible things use religion as an excuse to do them.  Religion is not the source of the problem, it's just a banner than can easily be raised after you've already decided to be an asshole. 
I'll just put it this way. How many Jain suicide bombers have you heard of? None. Because no matter how literal and ultra-conservative your adherence to Jainism, it can not lead you to rationalize mass murder.
Beliefs matter.

I'm not terribly familiar with Jainism, or it's practice.  I can give examples of Buddhist monks (who follow a central tenant of non-violence) murdering people because of their religion though(http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22356306).  I already gave examples of a large group of atheists (Khmer Rouge) performing atrocities.  Hell, look at the number of civilians killed just by US drone strikes, and I'd argue that the US is a relatively church/state separated group.  This happens because people are people, regardless of belief structure.  Properly incited you can get any large group of folks to do terrible things.  Why?  Because belief doesn't really matter all that much, at least not when compared to the underlying conditions/situation.

If (as you appear to be arguing), belief in Islam turns people into violent killers then how do you explain the existence of moderate Muslims?  Hundreds of thousands of whom live in Canada, the US, the UK, and France.  People are people, regardless of skin colour, sex, or religion.

JZinCO

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #105 on: November 18, 2015, 11:38:15 AM »
You're talking about people who attempt to form a state and rule based on ancient religious texts.  Historically, that usually doesn't work out too well with regards to human rights and tolerance.  Again though, it's not religion specific.  The same problems are seen when a state is run by Christians, or any other religion that can dogmatically pull laws out of an ancient book.  As has been pointed out, there are modern Christian states where literal interpretation of the bible is causing all kinds of problems.  It's just bad policy to try and mix church and state for this reason....  Extremists who want to do horrible things use religion as an excuse to do them.  Religion is not the source of the problem, it's just a banner than can easily be raised after you've already decided to be an asshole. 
I'll just put it this way. How many Jain suicide bombers have you heard of? None. Because no matter how literal and ultra-conservative your adherence to Jainism, it can not lead you to rationalize mass murder.
Beliefs matter.

Why are you prescribing it to their religion (when plenty of other people of their religion don't do that), rather than the particular culture they are in?

The murdering Buddhist monks aren't representative of all Buddhists, nor are some suicide bombers who are Muslim representative of all Muslims.

The religion isn't the problem.

If (as you appear to be arguing), belief in Islam turns people into violent killers then how do you explain the existence of moderate Muslims?  Hundreds of thousands of whom live in Canada, the US, the UK, and France.  People are people, regardless of skin colour, sex, or religion.

I'm out. I'm done. I'm tried of every response being "you can't denigrate every single muslim like that!"
You're all correct. On this board, I will accept that the Islamists are not doing this because of religion. They must be lying in their statements. They're just full of hate and responding only to secular, political concerns and it is only coincidental that they take a hardline approach to their religion.

In real life, I am going to support the organizations and the majority of westernized muslims who think not enough is being done to combat the Islamist's messages and want to provide a counter-narrative which allows for a liberal practice of Islam.

EDIT:
If anyone has an open mind, I will plug some material.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxkq5bHe_fA Sam Harris on Charlie Hebdo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7u_n5MpuNg Maajid Nawaz on future of islam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6yNBSxQ_tE Interview with Gad Saad
http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/asra-q-nomani.html Writings from Asra Nomani, an muslim reformer
« Last Edit: November 18, 2015, 11:49:46 AM by JZinCO »

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #106 on: November 18, 2015, 11:53:18 AM »
It is worth pointing out that the right wing of all sects tends to hate cosmopolitanism and favor chauvinistic homogeneity.

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/18/this_is_america_in_the_age_of_decay_how_we_became_a_civilization_dominated_by_racism_rage/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

An argument for the strict separation of church and state, and one that focuses less on the supposed sins of Islam and more on the dangers of allowing theocracy to take control.  Whatever the religion.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #107 on: November 18, 2015, 11:57:50 AM »
Quote
In real life, I am going to support the organizations and the majority of westernized muslims who think not enough is being done to combat the Islamist's messages and want to provide a counter-narrative which allows for a liberal practice of Islam.

So, you're saying that the religion is not the cause of the terrorists actions, but the particular interpretation?  'Cause that's sorta what I've been trying to get at.  If the actual source of the problem was a militant religion, there would be no possibility of a 'liberal practice of Islam'.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #108 on: November 18, 2015, 12:28:20 PM »
This brief essay by Madeline Albright seems relevant given the bleedover between the discussion of recent terrorist attacks in Paris and discussion of Syrian refugees.

http://time.com/4117333/madeleine-albright-refugees/

I think that it is worth noting that while we may enjoy an academic discussion of the true beliefs of Islam, many of the worlds muslims are muslim by default, much as many in the US are christian (among other faiths) by default, in Thailand are Buddhist by default. The structure of religions by faith, by the written word, by institution (clergy or gov't), and the practice as individuals are often divergent. My experience has been that the broad populations of people with religion by default (as opposed to the deeply devout) pick and choose what they carry forward, and the social connections and value of family, community and relationships are what are important. In that context, while their faith leaders may or may not express varying levels of biogtry towards other faiths and groups of people, that becomes diluted in the general populace. This is why Christians are not stoning adulteresses anymore, why the broader Muslim population is equally shocked by the violence of Daesch. The extremes of religion using violence are a broken people. The broader support is the mass susceptibility of us-vs-them ideologies. Is the shrug of shoulders at violence perpetrated against Europe any different than the indifference in the United States to suffering at the hands of ISIS/Boko Haram in the middle east and Africa?

Reducing the discussion to "what religion teaches" misses the point. Lumping entire groups of people under the same banner is exactly the problem.

astvilla

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 236
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #109 on: November 18, 2015, 12:49:55 PM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1tEpjmFH9g   (For Radical Islam in UK...why it shouldn't be tolerated...we don't tolerate bad words against women, gays, but their words are okay yeah?)
I don't know of of other minorities in Western societies that behave this way.  Asian, Indians, Hispanics...none of them say this is China, India, you play by our rules and they have different religions.  All those minorities accept the rule of law from their adopted country's government. Only a fraction of the Muslim communities behave this way so it's not a complete stretch to say Islam is part of the problem.  Not saying all the whites are right either.  But a few radicals are silencing the silent majority of moderates.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/15/terrorists-isis

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/world/americas/isis-online-recruiting-american.html

I'm just spit firing here, but in some respects, I look at the men who are drawn to commit these horrific acts in a similar way that I look at disgruntled males in this country who shoot up theaters or schools. It's interesting to me that we label lone gunmen as mentally ill, whereas we label those who blow themselves up near a cafe as ideologues. What prompted this was a headline I saw about one of the suicide bombers in Paris who was described by his ex-wife as more like a disgruntled youth who had too much time on his hands than a passionate religious man who believed in a cause.

Obviously those who are running the show (the ones who came up with relatively ingenious plan that Kris outlined above) are more motivated by ideology. And they likely also have a higher sense of self-preservation, since clearly they aren't the ones sacrificing their lives for the cause.

I guess my question is - in light of the fact that almost all the people who commit these events are young people -- what part of this also has to do with modern disaffection and other things that have nothing to do with religion? Many of the European youth who have become radicalized and fly to Syria to be trained were not religious in the slightest. Were they bored? Seeking adventure and meaning? Were their employment prospects dim?

In general, I am fascinated by the radicalization process and how it occurs.

A mixture and important point I can agree w/. Not just similar backgrounds but a mix of religious ideology (misinterpreted or interpreted correctly a matter of debate) that fueled their actions. 

Also interesting is that some acts are committed by brothers. Boston marathon bombing, and now this.  The older, influencing sibling or figure plays a big role.

Unfortunately, the refugee situation is being used by Daesch to their advantage.  And the West is walking headlong into the trap.

Think about it: Why did ISIL make a point of having one of the attackers carry a Syrian passport and masquerade as a refugee, taking care to be documented as having passed through Greece? 

It clearly wasn't that they "needed" one final person for the attacks. They obviously had no trouble recruiting disaffected youth from France and Belgium.

No. It was because they wanted to provoke a reaction by the West against the Syrian refugees. Why? Because it helps their cause if we see the Syrian refugees as a threat, and close our borders, and our hearts, to them.

We are being played.  And sadly, we're taking the bait hook, line, and sinker.  If I were at the head of Daesch, I could hardly dream up a better strategy to recruit even more people to my cause.

Yep. Well said, Kris.


Yeah I agree, I had thought the same.  What tells me that ISIS is deliberately trying to start a conflict between refugees and Europe is the fact that the passport was intact.  Wouldn't you usually carry the passport on you?  And you wouldn't want to leave any trace of identification for committing these crimes.  Plus in a blast, the passport would vaporize too no?  So to me it's like he threw it on the ground intentionally to stir backlash against the refugees.  This would help isolate the refugees and turn the all those refugees into frustrated people who can become potential ISIS bombers. 

I do believe the illegal immigrants should be deported for different reasons than religion (principle, rule of law, inability to integrate as demonstrated over decades) and screen for the ones who can integrate.

I have to hand it ISIS, they know exactly how the West works and they're pretty smart.  Holding off the most powerful and wealthy militaries, it's no wonder disillusioned youth from the West who are anti-establishment see ISIS as a force capable of going toe to toe w/the West.

Islam is part of the problem I think.  Democracy doesn't work in all cases, some places yes, others no.  I don't see too many Christians bombing concerts, skyscrapers, trains.  I can only think of Norway where that happened and that guy was declared "sane" by court. And when 25% of Muslims agree with the attacks, well that's not the majority but that's real significant.  If 25% of Chinese revolted against the Communist Party, that's over 300 million people, pretty significant.  20-25% is a LOT of Muslims who are okay w/jihad living in Europe.  That's scary and terrifying. That's several tens of thousands if not more.

When you allow millions of people from a different culture, lower education, lack of employmable skills, different langauge, refusal to adapt, you're gonna get backlash. You can't rush these things, heck we have trouble in America integrating everybody.

Story:  woman asked a taxi cab driver in Switzerland who was Muslim how they like Switzerland.  Muslim didn't like it.  Because of too many gays and women too free.  I'm seeing a lot of radical left wingers not tolerate hate speech except from Muslims, really confusing...

Personal story:  I was in Germany w/family and while we were driving, a gang of Turkish young men stopped our car and blocked our path, yelling and harassing (I'm not white, muslim,jewish or black) and my uncle had to get out of the car and confront them to move out of the way.  These guys weren't interested in education, achievement or making something of themselves.  Just causing trouble. Now you can say, "well boys will be boys" but that behavior isn't a good predictor for their future and I'd imagine the unemployment, neglect, poverty, isolation would frustrate them and radical Islam provides a good outlet to channel those violent urges, similar to what justajane said.  We never had a problem with Caucasian Germans, they were gracious, kind, helpful.  For young European, Muslim youth, expressing violence has a detoxifying effect for them and restores their dignity and pride for them after being beaten down in society for refusing to integrate or behavior for some of them. Their religious values are in direct contrast to the society they chose to seek refuge in.  And a few but significant number of them want to make it more like Syria, Iraq, etc. 

Plus many of the refugees are seeking asylum in countries w/generous welfare benefits.  I'm not sure that's the kind of character of people you need to build a strong country.  They're nice people I'm sure.  They'd just like more benefits than what they get in Turkey and don't exactly respect immigration law.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2015, 01:27:37 PM by astvilla »

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #110 on: November 18, 2015, 02:48:41 PM »
Blanket statements? Before you go playing that card, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism
Islamism, is what I was describing. Islamism is an ideology. Like any ideology, there are core tenets and beliefs. Can you imagine this exchange: "Economic libertarians support maximal individual freedoms and laissez faire economic systems." "Stop that's ignorant and racist!"

And I will continue to say that Islamism does not share the same values as liberal democracies. I don't give a hoot if Eriteria or Ethiopia are christian. They're backwards too because liberal democratic ideas are not governing principles in those nations' societies. Just because a couple non-muslim majority countries practices female genital mutilation does not make it untrue that genital mutilation is a common practice where Islamism is the governing norm.
Yes, blanket statements.

You keep using statements like "Islamists simply don't share the same values as us".

Sorry but when you state, as in the above statement, that "Islamists" without any qualifier you are by default referring to all Islamists.

Referring to all Islamists is by definition a blanket statement.

Many of your blanket statements are factually incorrect.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #111 on: November 18, 2015, 02:53:18 PM »
I'm out. I'm done. I'm tried of every response being "you can't denigrate every single muslim like that!"
You're all correct. On this board, I will accept that the Islamists are not doing this because of religion. They must be lying in their statements. They're just full of hate and responding only to secular, political concerns and it is only coincidental that they take a hardline approach to their religion.

In real life, I am going to support the organizations and the majority of westernized muslims who think not enough is being done to combat the Islamist's messages and want to provide a counter-narrative which allows for a liberal practice of Islam.

EDIT:
If anyone has an open mind, I will plug some material.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxkq5bHe_fA Sam Harris on Charlie Hebdo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7u_n5MpuNg Maajid Nawaz on future of islam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6yNBSxQ_tE Interview with Gad Saad
http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/asra-q-nomani.html Writings from Asra Nomani, an muslim reformer
As GuitarStv pointed out, your entire premise seems contradictory.  If Islamists are violent extremists because that is a fundamental part of Islam then there is no possibility of a moderate practice.  On the other hand if interpretation matters, which in turn means it is not the writing in the book itself but the person that is reading it that matters, then all your points about "Islamists this and Islamists that and Islam is different etc etc etc" are void.

So, if you feel like one last response, which is it?  Is it the religion or is it the interpretation?

UnleashHell

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8881
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Florida
  • Chapter IV - A New ... er.. something
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #112 on: November 18, 2015, 02:53:56 PM »

Islam is part of the problem I think.  Democracy doesn't work in all cases, some places yes, others no.  I don't see too many Christians bombing concerts, skyscrapers, trains. 

Did you miss the whole IRA/loyalist thing going on?

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #113 on: November 18, 2015, 03:18:46 PM »

Islam is part of the problem I think.  Democracy doesn't work in all cases, some places yes, others no.  I don't see too many Christians bombing concerts, skyscrapers, trains. 

Did you miss the whole IRA/loyalist thing going on?
Or the KKK?
http://www.christianpost.com/news/kkk-leader-were-a-christian-organization-claims-the-klan-is-not-a-hate-group-116614/

astvilla

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 236
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #114 on: November 18, 2015, 03:38:46 PM »

Islam is part of the problem I think.  Democracy doesn't work in all cases, some places yes, others no.  I don't see too many Christians bombing concerts, skyscrapers, trains. 

Did you miss the whole IRA/loyalist thing going on?
Or the KKK?
http://www.christianpost.com/news/kkk-leader-were-a-christian-organization-claims-the-klan-is-not-a-hate-group-116614/

You guys are comparing apples to oranges and don't quite get the picture.

IRA isn't blowing New York, chopping off heads, shoving their brutality in our faces, or bombing innocent random civilians in other countries.  Nor are they kidnapping, raping women, massacring men, committing genocide against any group that's opposed.  IRA is England/UK's problem.  Same w/KKK.  KKK are declining in power and influence.  They aren't committing systematic rape, murder, torture, on people in their area.  They are not bombing civilians nor are they the immediate threat.  Their focuses are limited to more regional. 

KKK and IRA and ISIS all hate.  But one is MUCH more violent than the others.

The plus size to US being a big country is we really get to separate these groups.  There are segments of the US population that couldn't survive in an urban society w/out hurting others.

ISIS is global.  Watch VICE.  Their interview w/prisoners show they want to conquer the world w/their caliphate. Anyone in disagreement loses their head, women raped, lit on fire, executed, stoned and so on.

And the KKK know they're bad. Hacker group Anonymous had to reveal their identities, cause they know it's "bad" to be KKK in public.

ISIS on the other hand, glorify, applaud, revel in violence and blood.  Even the Nazis were better than that.  As bad as Nazis were, they knew they were committing evil and atrocities, that's why the concentration camps were hidden.  They don't want people to find out what they were doing.  ISIS on the other hand brags, celebrates it and shove it in everyone's faces.  In a way, their character, evil, is even worse.  Of course in absolute terms of numbers, Nazis are worse but you get the picture.




Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #115 on: November 18, 2015, 04:17:06 PM »
What about the Lord's Resistance Army, then? They are operating in Uganda, South Sudan, Chad, Centeal African Republic, Congo...

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #116 on: November 18, 2015, 04:30:20 PM »

Islam is part of the problem I think.  Democracy doesn't work in all cases, some places yes, others no.  I don't see too many Christians bombing concerts, skyscrapers, trains. 

Did you miss the whole IRA/loyalist thing going on?
Or the KKK?
http://www.christianpost.com/news/kkk-leader-were-a-christian-organization-claims-the-klan-is-not-a-hate-group-116614/

You guys are comparing apples to oranges and don't quite get the picture.

IRA isn't blowing New York, chopping off heads, shoving their brutality in our faces, or bombing innocent random civilians in other countries.  Nor are they kidnapping, raping women, massacring men, committing genocide against any group that's opposed.  IRA is England/UK's problem.  Same w/KKK.  KKK are declining in power and influence.  They aren't committing systematic rape, murder, torture, on people in their area.  They are not bombing civilians nor are they the immediate threat.  Their focuses are limited to more regional. 

KKK and IRA and ISIS all hate.  But one is MUCH more violent than the others.

The plus size to US being a big country is we really get to separate these groups.  There are segments of the US population that couldn't survive in an urban society w/out hurting others.

ISIS is global.  Watch VICE.  Their interview w/prisoners show they want to conquer the world w/their caliphate. Anyone in disagreement loses their head, women raped, lit on fire, executed, stoned and so on.

And the KKK know they're bad. Hacker group Anonymous had to reveal their identities, cause they know it's "bad" to be KKK in public.

ISIS on the other hand, glorify, applaud, revel in violence and blood.  Even the Nazis were better than that.  As bad as Nazis were, they knew they were committing evil and atrocities, that's why the concentration camps were hidden.  They don't want people to find out what they were doing.  ISIS on the other hand brags, celebrates it and shove it in everyone's faces.  In a way, their character, evil, is even worse.  Of course in absolute terms of numbers, Nazis are worse but you get the picture.

I think that the only point to be made here is that violence is not the sole domain of Islam and that Christians (or other major faiths for that matter) cannot claim any global moral high ground relative or otherwise strictly on the name of their chosen faith, regardless of what the written tenets of their faith are (Edit: Actions do speak. The Quakers have a pretty good track record from what I know. Ted Cruz, however, is not exactly holding up Christian values while turning away refugees that are not card-carrying Christians). Yes, there are very, very important differences between the scope of the IRA, KKK, and ISIL. However, willingness to kill innocent people (by our definition), use terror, to achieve their political aim is true across the board even if they have different rules for application. Whether they are on the upswing or downswing is irrelevant.

I'm not a big fan of polls because of the common implicit bias in they way questions are often phrased, but this one at least asks the same question across the board: http://www.rawstory.com/2011/08/poll-muslims-atheists-most-likely-to-reject-violence/

I don't know if the differences between the groups are that meaningful in detail, but I think it illustrates the fallacy of applying things broadly to just Islam. Yes, there are some terrible sects of Islam that are doing terrible things... and largely to other sects of the same faith by the numbers (the conflicts within Islam are many, and complicated).

There is nuance and diversity in how the violence perpetuated by ISIL and affiliates such as Boko Haram are viewed within the broader world of Islam. Yes, there are some who agree. ISIL is strategic in their actions and making statements about how Muslims are somehow systematically worse than other groups is: a) not necessarily true at the global level, and; 2) doing ISIL/Daesch a favor. 
« Last Edit: November 18, 2015, 04:34:15 PM by Glenstache »

brainfart

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #117 on: November 18, 2015, 11:18:15 PM »



2lazy2retire

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #118 on: November 19, 2015, 12:19:26 PM »

Islam is part of the problem I think.  Democracy doesn't work in all cases, some places yes, others no.  I don't see too many Christians bombing concerts, skyscrapers, trains. 

Did you miss the whole IRA/loyalist thing going on?
Or the KKK?
http://www.christianpost.com/news/kkk-leader-were-a-christian-organization-claims-the-klan-is-not-a-hate-group-116614/

You guys are comparing apples to oranges and don't quite get the picture.

IRA isn't blowing New York, chopping off heads, shoving their brutality in our faces, or bombing innocent random civilians in other countries.  Nor are they kidnapping, raping women, massacring men, committing genocide against any group that's opposed.  IRA is England/UK's problem.  Same w/KKK.  KKK are declining in power and influence.  They aren't committing systematic rape, murder, torture, on people in their area.  They are not bombing civilians nor are they the immediate threat.  Their focuses are limited to more regional. 

KKK and IRA and ISIS all hate.  But one is MUCH more violent than the others.

The plus size to US being a big country is we really get to separate these groups.  There are segments of the US population that couldn't survive in an urban society w/out hurting others.

ISIS is global.  Watch VICE.  Their interview w/prisoners show they want to conquer the world w/their caliphate. Anyone in disagreement loses their head, women raped, lit on fire, executed, stoned and so on.

And the KKK know they're bad. Hacker group Anonymous had to reveal their identities, cause they know it's "bad" to be KKK in public.

ISIS on the other hand, glorify, applaud, revel in violence and blood.  Even the Nazis were better than that.  As bad as Nazis were, they knew they were committing evil and atrocities, that's why the concentration camps were hidden.  They don't want people to find out what they were doing.  ISIS on the other hand brags, celebrates it and shove it in everyone's faces.  In a way, their character, evil, is even worse.  Of course in absolute terms of numbers, Nazis are worse but you get the picture.

Just wanted to point out that since 1994 the IRA has been in ceasefire mode, over 20 years ago.

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #119 on: November 20, 2015, 12:23:14 AM »
Coworker chatter is on World War III. With the amount of nations involved now its not a far stretch. Over the top, or do you think it might happen? Another war in the Middle East. Short of genocide is there any way to end this?

I hope so. There has to be a creative way out of this.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #120 on: November 20, 2015, 02:14:35 AM »
Coworker chatter is on World War III. With the amount of nations involved now its not a far stretch. Over the top, or do you think it might happen? Another war in the Middle East. Short of genocide is there any way to end this?

I hope so. There has to be a creative way out of this.
Very doubtful if something like WW1 or WW2 is being suggested.  There isn't enough support for ISIS to make this into a WW like those.  WW1 and WW2 happened because of the complex web of alliances, ensuring roughly equal competing forces to begin with, as much as the completing ideologies.  In this scenario even roughly 99% of Muslims don't support ISIS and their allies. 

It will be a long drawn out conflict but it wont turn into anything like WW1 or WW2.  If anything the world will unite in bombing the shit out of the entire region.  That would be a bad result but still nothing like previous WW's.

Rosbif

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 77
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #121 on: November 20, 2015, 02:37:22 AM »
I live in Paris. I lost a friend last Friday in the Bataclan, where Eagles of Death Metal were playing. There aren't words to describe how the whole city is feeling. We're all pretending things are still normal, I guess. Anyway, I saw this thread pop up, and I wondered if it would be a thread where people were offering condolences, or if it would veer off into... I hesitate to say the 'usual discussion', but yeah. Still, it's good to see that people are willing to grapple with these issues. Their importance (at least to us, right now) cannot be understated.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8823
  • Location: Avalon
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #122 on: November 20, 2015, 06:01:26 AM »
I'm out. I'm done. I'm tried of every response being "you can't denigrate every single muslim like that!"
You're all correct. On this board, I will accept that the Islamists are not doing this because of religion. They must be lying in their statements. They're just full of hate and responding only to secular, political concerns and it is only coincidental that they take a hardline approach to their religion.

In real life, I am going to support the organizations and the majority of westernized muslims who think not enough is being done to combat the Islamist's messages and want to provide a counter-narrative which allows for a liberal practice of Islam.

EDIT:
If anyone has an open mind, I will plug some material.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxkq5bHe_fA Sam Harris on Charlie Hebdo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7u_n5MpuNg Maajid Nawaz on future of islam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6yNBSxQ_tE Interview with Gad Saad
http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/asra-q-nomani.html Writings from Asra Nomani, an muslim reformer
As GuitarStv pointed out, your entire premise seems contradictory.  If Islamists are violent extremists because that is a fundamental part of Islam then there is no possibility of a moderate practice.  On the other hand if interpretation matters, which in turn means it is not the writing in the book itself but the person that is reading it that matters, then all your points about "Islamists this and Islamists that and Islam is different etc etc etc" are void.

So, if you feel like one last response, which is it?  Is it the religion or is it the interpretation?

My understanding (and I have no pretence to expertise) is -

1)  The Koran contains a number of statements which are antithetical to "western values" such as equal treatment of women and gays and freedom of belief or non-belief, apostasy, etc.
2)  Islam (or possibly just the main sects of Islam which constitute the overwhelming percentage of followers of Islam) provides no scope for a re-interpretation of these statements in the Koran.
3)  Most muslims do not put those more extreme beliefs into practice, have no intention of putting them into practice and condemn (either vocally or silently depending on their inclination and situation) those who do.

Which means, to my understanding, that those who say "Islam is not the problem" are wrong and those who say "political, economic and cultural issues are the problem" are wrong.  It's the unholy marriage of the two which is the problem.

The European Convention on Human Rights says, paraphrased, that 1) you can believe what you want, and 2) you cannot impose those beliefs on anyone else.  As far as I can tell Article 18 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights is not quite so clear about not imposing those beliefs on others, and there is disagreement even then as to the extent to which it is compatible with Islam.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #123 on: November 20, 2015, 06:22:58 AM »
My understanding (and I have no pretence to expertise) is -

1)  The Koran contains a number of statements which are antithetical to "western values" such as equal treatment of women and gays and freedom of belief or non-belief, apostasy, etc.

Sure.  And the bible contains a number of statements which are antithetical to "western values".  Such as equal treatment of women and gays, condoning rape, murder, polygamy, incest, etc.  Both books come out of the same area of the world at around the same time, and have an awful lot of similar themes.

2)  Islam (or possibly just the main sects of Islam which constitute the overwhelming percentage of followers of Islam) provides no scope for a re-interpretation of these statements in the Koran.

This is demonstrably false.  Interpretation of the Koran often depends on different tafsir (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafsir) to explain things.  There are many different tafsir that are used differently depending on who is reading.

3)  Most muslims do not put those more extreme beliefs into practice, have no intention of putting them into practice and condemn (either vocally or silently depending on their inclination and situation) those who do.

 . . . which is evidence that your point #2 is bullshit.  If there's no room for interpretation in a religion then followers of the religion must take the literal word written down as the truth.  Unless most Muslims are not Muslim, your second point makes no sense because of your third point.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 07:00:53 AM by GuitarStv »

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8823
  • Location: Avalon
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #124 on: November 20, 2015, 06:34:24 AM »
It's perfectly possible to say "My religion tells me X is the truth" and then not do anything about applying "X".
« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 06:42:59 AM by former player »

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #125 on: November 20, 2015, 06:40:41 AM »
I live in Paris. I lost a friend last Friday in the Bataclan, where Eagles of Death Metal were playing. There aren't words to describe how the whole city is feeling. We're all pretending things are still normal, I guess. Anyway, I saw this thread pop up, and I wondered if it would be a thread where people were offering condolences, or if it would veer off into... I hesitate to say the 'usual discussion', but yeah. Still, it's good to see that people are willing to grapple with these issues. Their importance (at least to us, right now) cannot be understated.

I have spent approx. four years of my life in France, including two in Paris, and consider it a second home. A couple of friends of ours had plans to go to Paris for Thanksgiving, but are now nervous, and they asked me what I would do. I thought about it for a moment, and then said honestly that if it were me, I would have no hesitation about going.  Not to mention, they will be participating in the resistance to terror and solidarity with Paris. Which is important, even if they never explicitly say that to even one French person.

UnleashHell

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8881
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Florida
  • Chapter IV - A New ... er.. something
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #126 on: November 20, 2015, 06:41:50 AM »

Islam is part of the problem I think.  Democracy doesn't work in all cases, some places yes, others no.  I don't see too many Christians bombing concerts, skyscrapers, trains. 

Did you miss the whole IRA/loyalist thing going on?
Or the KKK?
http://www.christianpost.com/news/kkk-leader-were-a-christian-organization-claims-the-klan-is-not-a-hate-group-116614/

You guys are comparing apples to oranges and don't quite get the picture.

IRA isn't blowing New York, chopping off heads, shoving their brutality in our faces, or bombing innocent random civilians in other countries.  Nor are they kidnapping, raping women, massacring men, committing genocide against any group that's opposed.  IRA is England/UK's problem.  Same w/KKK.  KKK are declining in power and influence.  They aren't committing systematic rape, murder, torture, on people in their area.  They are not bombing civilians nor are they the immediate threat.  Their focuses are limited to more regional. 

KKK and IRA and ISIS all hate.  But one is MUCH more violent than the others.

The plus size to US being a big country is we really get to separate these groups.  There are segments of the US population that couldn't survive in an urban society w/out hurting others.

ISIS is global.  Watch VICE.  Their interview w/prisoners show they want to conquer the world w/their caliphate. Anyone in disagreement loses their head, women raped, lit on fire, executed, stoned and so on.

And the KKK know they're bad. Hacker group Anonymous had to reveal their identities, cause they know it's "bad" to be KKK in public.

ISIS on the other hand, glorify, applaud, revel in violence and blood.  Even the Nazis were better than that.  As bad as Nazis were, they knew they were committing evil and atrocities, that's why the concentration camps were hidden.  They don't want people to find out what they were doing.  ISIS on the other hand brags, celebrates it and shove it in everyone's faces.  In a way, their character, evil, is even worse.  Of course in absolute terms of numbers, Nazis are worse but you get the picture.

Just wanted to point out that since 1994 the IRA has been in ceasefire mode, over 20 years ago.

Can I just point out that this statement is factually incorrect.

LiseE

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 189
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #127 on: November 20, 2015, 02:11:26 PM »
This woman makes an amazing argument about Islam and the peaceful nature of this religion .. please listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #128 on: November 20, 2015, 02:57:11 PM »
Peaceful, but I do think Sam Harris's point about the other violations of liberal values being central to their beliefs in the vast majority of cases, yet us being afraid to criticize it as a whole is interesting.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

powskier

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #129 on: November 20, 2015, 09:08:02 PM »
As long as people believe:- some all powerful deity is directing them,
                                      - that life not only exists after death but is better than here,now
                                       - that ancient texts written by people less educated than a modern 14 year old are some kind of truth...
there will always be a continuation of this kind of violence and depravity.

Let me point out that Communism didn't believe in these things. Though part of point two is debatable. And it still manager to inflict epic amounts of violence and death. Scapegoating religion without understanding human nature just shows idealogical blinders. Religion is just an aspect of human nature.
Actually your example further proves my point, ideologies such as the Russian experiment of communism will eventually evolve or come to their demise since they are "reality" based. Religion offers non provable "truths/faiths" as their basis. These can always be interpreted, reinterpreted, differently interpreted and everyone is always "right". In terms of timelines we are talking the difference between a generation and millenia. The belief in "that which is not real/not provable/ not measurable" IS the problem. Problems based in reality are always , eventually, solvable.

JZinCO

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #130 on: November 21, 2015, 12:31:43 AM »
Peaceful, but I do think Sam Harris's point about the other violations of liberal values being central to their beliefs in the vast majority of cases, yet us being afraid to criticize it as a whole is interesting.
As I write this I'm watching the following exchange on Bill Maher.
Bill: this idea that all religions are the same is bullshit.
Guest A: Muslim culture is no different than western culture. ISIS doesn't represent any muslims.
Guest B: Thats not entirely true. there are 8% of Muslims in turkey that support ISIS according to pew polls. That means 6 million people.
Guest A: you can't say there is something wrong with all muslims.
Bill: this is a leap.

I want this exchange to sink in.

A rebel spy, I think you really got something there. I know you criticized me before, and I might have invited it by not being clear with my language. The above exchange is what happens in the media quite often. This is why Sam Harris is blackballed by much of the media. He called out horrible ideas in the islamic faith which hold sway with, by some estimates, up to 90 million followers, and Ben affleck charged Sam with racism. Today , religion, a package of ideas not a "race" (geez i hate the social construct of race) of people, is off the table for critical discussion and ideas from religiously identifying people, including farright Christian zealots get off scotfree in the media.

That "leap" as Bill put it is why I had to walk away from this thread. I stated why I think the political ideology of Islamism was not consistent with modern liberal values and I was accused of blanket statements about 1.5 billion adherents to the religion of Islam (not by you, ARS). It's these non-sequitur responses I received more than once which always lead to discussions about religion being shut down.
Why I was active in this thread is because I deplore "finding" answers in a book instead of from intellectual pursuit which is dangerous itself. When the "answers" harm individuals and society, that's even worse. It's important to have a dialogue in order to call bullshit. But if our society shuts down this dialogue, the frustrations fester and populist xenophobic sentiment swells. Ideologies such as islamism which go against the grain of free media, expression and speech go unchallenged by liberal politicians. That some media said, well maybe charlie hebdo shouldnt have treaded that water is deplorable. Every paper should have reprinted it. Anyway, public sentiment ends up swaying to the only people who will challenge such ideologies: xenophobic bigots like trump, Carson, or the nativist parties which now hold sway in Austria, Norway, Denmark, france and others. Which is ironic because they want to shut down liberty as well by enacting harsh policies against muslims and immigrants. So that's why I care. It's not because I want to demagogue a people.
At any rate, I just wanted to speak up because I saw some genuine reflecting instead of battling from the trenches.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2015, 01:32:14 AM by JZinCO »

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #131 on: November 21, 2015, 01:06:04 AM »
There's so much bigotry that DOES unfairly group all of them together, it's hard to separate out legitimate criticisms of the religion itself.  We get used to having to defend it against bigots, that we don't also critically look at it, because emotionally we want to defend it.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #132 on: November 21, 2015, 01:31:42 AM »
There is no doubt that a common ground is Islam. So what does that mean?

Is it possible that this may be a false correlation? Ice-cream sales are directly responsible for hot summers.
The Middle East is on fire right now. It is predominately Muslim. Muslims in general sympathize towards certain political stances—say the Palestinian conflict. Take it a step further and think if you were a nation that was currently raided and a bomb was dropped on your family’s home and it killed people you love, and you think it was all over bullshit what would you do? Would you think it was an unfortunate event of liberation or would you want revenge against invaders pushing a foreign agenda?
I think it is that simple.  I don’t think they really have any delusions of converting the entire United States and putting it under Islamic Law. I’m sure that the idea tickles them pink and adds meaning to an otherwise painful existence but I don’t think that is the source of our woes.
When you say the problem is a religion you are including everyone in that group—a billion people. If that group really feels like they are targeted then you have a real problem. A global 20% of the population problem that will require World War and ideological genocide to solve.  If that group says wait a minute—you invaded Iraq, you invaded Afghanistan, you invaded Pakistan to kill Bin Laden, you talked about invading Iran, and now you want to invade Syria—you mean to take all of our freedom and oil.
So my question is, why are we in the Middle East? Lets frack off and go to the tar sands.

JZinCO

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #133 on: November 21, 2015, 02:07:58 AM »
There is no doubt that a common ground is Islam. So what does that mean?

Is it possible that this may be a false correlation? Ice-cream sales are directly responsible for hot summers.
The Middle East is on fire right now. It is predominately Muslim. Muslims in general sympathize towards certain political stances—say the Palestinian conflict. Take it a step further and think if you were a nation that was currently raided and a bomb was dropped on your family’s home and it killed people you love, and you think it was all over bullshit what would you do? Would you think it was an unfortunate event of liberation or would you want revenge against invaders pushing a foreign agenda?
For the hundreth time, I've no idea how you got to the notion that I was just describing 1.5 billion people.. In the same post where I was pointing out the non-sequitur leap of logic it takes someone to get there.

So you're saying religious crusade is a false pretext on part of ISIS? If so, why go through the trouble of enacting a government based on islamic law?  Why would they claim to represent a caliphate? Couldn't they use a secular, political pretext? Like the Palestinian liberation organization? When the Arab nationalist movement fought against European empires (leaders like nasser, gaddafi, assad, saddam hussein) they adopted a secular, socialist agenda and did not need to invoke Allah's name for their fight.
I think the contemporary rise in Islamism and a push for fundamental adherence to Islam in the middle east is a sound rejection. The interference of western nations and their dictator overlords must've left a bad mark for secularism, by democracy or force...
Anyway, I agree that the west doesn't help getting entangled. It's time for neighbors like Saudi arabia to take in refugees. The arab states have armies that outnumber ISIS 100:1. So, I'm with you there. All that military aid we sent to the middle East could go to use letting the region deal with internal affairs.

JZinCO

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #134 on: November 21, 2015, 02:10:56 AM »

Is it possible that this may be a false correlation? Ice-cream sales are directly responsible for hot summers.
Also, its ice cream and crime/homicide :)

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #135 on: November 21, 2015, 04:02:43 AM »
That "leap" as Bill put it is why I had to walk away from this thread. I stated why I think the political ideology of Islamism was not consistent with modern liberal values and I was accused of blanket statements about 1.5 billion adherents to the religion of Islam (not by you, ARS). It's these non-sequitur responses I received more than once which always lead to discussions about religion being shut down.
Firstly let me say I am not denying that ISIS and their like are motivated by religion.  Any rational person would admit that they are.  If they were honest, those same rational people would also admit there are plenty of other motivating factors at play too.  Some of those rational people would even argue that absent those other motivating factors many, but not all, ISIS supporters may not be ISIS supporters at all.

I also agree that religion in general should not be singled out as being beyond criticism.  The ideas and tenets of any religion should be questioned, particularly as to how they affect others.  Couldn't agree more with you there.

Here's the problem with your statements though.

You claim "Islamism" is not consistent with modern liberal values.  When talking about "Islamism", without any qualifier, you are by default grouping all practitioners of Islam into one homogeneous group.  Any rational and honest person would admit there is no such group.  Yet you insist on speaking of "Islamism" as if there is one defining and all encompassing definition of what "Islamism" is.  This just simply isn't so.

You then give examples of how this non-existent single "Islamism" is inconsistent with modern liberal values such as female mutilation and female oppression.
Turkey, a Muslim country, has had 7 female heads of state.  How many has the USA had?  If female oppression is synonymous with Islamism and not consistent with modern liberal values you would think it the other way around.  Many Muslim countries have total equality under the law for men and women just as the USA does.
Christian countries practice female genital mutilation just as much or more than Islamic countries.

But when challenged on these examples that you yourself chose to give as indicative of "Islamism" being not consistent with modern liberal values, instead of discussing and defending your claims you resort to claiming they are non-sequitur responses.  As if everyone should simply accept your assertions as valid and move on to debating the points that are based on these invalid claims.  If the examples given are invalid what use is there in discussing any points or assertions based on these examples?

Then to top it all off you discuss groups that allow a more liberal interpretation of Islam and state you support these groups.  If "Islamism" itself is inconsistent with modern liberal values, it would not matter what the interpretation is.  Either this homogeneous "Islamism" is inconsistent or a particular interpretation of "Islamism" is inconsistent.  You appear to be using examples from the most extreme form of the latter as indicative of what you believe all "Islamism" to be.

That is why I challenge you on, yes, your "blanket statements".  And I say "blanket statements" because you continue to make these statements without any attempt at qualifiers or any attempt at being specific in what you mean.

To be honest, and I don't mean to be rude, but I haven't seen any really valid criticisms specifically of "Islamism" from you.  I've seen a bunch of vague assertions that are easily demonstrated to be inaccurate at best and intentionally dishonest at worst.  Not knowing you at all I assume it is the former.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8823
  • Location: Avalon
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #136 on: November 21, 2015, 06:03:34 AM »
I understand that there is a difference in meaning between the word "Islam" (the religion) and the word "Islamism" (the use of Islam in political and governmental structures.  So a statement about Islamism is not a statement about all muslims.  Distinguishing between the two seems to me to resolve most of PKFFW's problems with JZinCO's statements.




justajane

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2146
  • Location: Midwest
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #137 on: November 21, 2015, 06:49:07 AM »
There's so much bigotry that DOES unfairly group all of them together, it's hard to separate out legitimate criticisms of the religion itself.  We get used to having to defend it against bigots, that we don't also critically look at it, because emotionally we want to defend it.

Yeah, I think this is the problem and probably, JZinCo, why it's important to list all your disclaimers over and over again - for instance, that there is a difference between Islam and Islamism like former player mentioned.

For instance, here's a quote from that Christian missionary that I dug out of my e-mail. I encounter this kind of thing from Western Christians all the time. And essentializing the Islamic faith like this can lead to nothing but WWIII in my opinion:

"In Syria for example, the reason why the whole country has been destroyed is because many groups want to seize power and are fighting with one another. Out of this chaos arose ISIS. Their desire has never been to only establish Muslim states, their goal has always been for the destruction of the west and Christian Europe (see Bill Warner’s excellent work). These radical Muslims’ views are consistently and openly based upon the Koran and the life and example of Mohammad. Instead of labelling them as extremists, we should see them as living out their faith consistently. This can easily be verified as anyone can study the Koran and the life of Mohammad for themselves and read the verses that encourage Muslims to be aggressive, intolerant and evil with everyone who is not a Muslim.  Their barbaric acts must no longer be covered up by the western media. People need to know about these gruesome realities."

In essence, what this guy is arguing, is that "accurate Islam" is evil and all the people who don't interpret their scriptures this way are.....actually, I don't know what he thinks of moderate Muslims. Does he think that they don't exist? Or does he think that they are not "real Muslims"? If you argue that the core text of a major world religion is evil, a core text that 1.6 billion people revere, then there's really nowhere to go but protracted war and massive loss of life. I was very disturbed by this e-mail when I read it and am even more so disturbed by it now, because that thinking is extremely dangerous and unfortunately widespread.   

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #138 on: November 21, 2015, 01:04:46 PM »
I understand that there is a difference in meaning between the word "Islam" (the religion) and the word "Islamism" (the use of Islam in political and governmental structures.  So a statement about Islamism is not a statement about all muslims.  Distinguishing between the two seems to me to resolve most of PKFFW's problems with JZinCO's statements.
Even then, there is no one way of using "Islam in political and governmental structures."

Claiming "Islamism" is not consistent with western liberal values and using as evidence of that claim particular examples from the most extreme form of fundamental and repressive Islamism is no less a blanket statement and demonstrably wrong.

As mentioned before, Turkey is a Muslim country and certainly one could easily argue Islamism plays a part in their politics and government.  They have had 7 female heads of state.  So claiming Islamism is about oppression of women and therefore not consistent with western values is clearly not true in all cases.  Many other examples are easily found if one actually cares to look for the truth.

Using blanket terms and cherry picking extreme examples of repressive governmental practices that happen to be used in some Muslim countries to claim the whole of "Islamism" is the problem is not helpful to resolving the issue.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #139 on: November 21, 2015, 01:17:07 PM »
Can we just take a step back and look at the structure of this discusson? It seems to place a huge section of the world's population (muslims) on a linear spectrum between ISIS/Dasech and some version of brotherly love consistent with western liberal values. The divide for political Islamism supposedly falls somewhere on that spectrum. This is a structurally flawed way to look at this and understand it. Cultures, individuals, and Islam as a whole are much more complicated and multi-dimensional than that. You will never, ever come to any sort of agreement on the linear argument framework because there are so many apparent non-sequiters from the real world that simply do not fit the framework.

So far, nobody has even really directly addressed the influence of the Sunni-Shia divide within Islam and how that divide is shaping the geopolitics of ISIS, the regional response to the refugee crisis, and variable support for ISIS/Dasech in the region? Overlay a regional history of colonialism and more recent military intervention, rpoxy wars between various nation states, and things are much, much more complex than some linear narrative of where support for ISIS falls on a linear path between terrorism and western liberal values.

Which brings us back to the heartbreaking events in Paris and related events in Mali, Beirut, etc. It is hard to get our heads around these types of events because they are so terrible. It is right for us to try and grapple with these issues by discussing them and trying out new ideas. I would suggest trying to make sense of it along lines of how much terrorism a particular religion condones is not only misguided, but counterproductive. There are a lot of things to read to help make sense of the background, but it is not easy to keep track of all of the dimensions. There are a few simple things to keep in mind:
1. We must be consistent in our values and recognize that these events have sadly extended well beyond just Paris, though it is also natural to have a stronger emotional response when it has happened in a place that we are more familiar with.
2. ISIS does not represent all of Islam and using its actions as a litmus test for an entire faith, or more importantly for all who identify as Muslim, is incorrect even if only by degree.
3. If we are interested in formulating a response to ISIS (or continuing as the case may be), we need to recognize the complex world that surrounds it. There are many strange alliances in the fight.
4. Be wary of categorical thinking. Some poll somewhere saying that X% of the Muslim world agrees with one question about one part of ISIS does not mean that they are ready to wholesale take up arms against the west, that it is an indication solely of the beliefs of Islam as a whole, or that you understand the cultural context of how the question was asked. Avoid lumping based on narrow information. I think justajane's quote from her email is a poster child of the pitfalls of categorical thinking and misunderstanding.
5. While the particular religious narrative of ISIS does envision/include a battle with the west, this is much more an internal struggle than it is about us. ISIS has purposefully killed a lot of Muslims. That bears repeating: the goals of ISIS and the battles are not entirely about us. Our interaction with ISIS is just a single slice of a much bigger pie.

And for a slice of selfless heroism in an otherwise dour topic:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/17/adel-termos-martyr-father-became-saviour-beirut-bombings

A few other things worth reading:
http://www.cfr.org/peace-conflict-and-human-rights/sunni-shia-divide/p33176#!/?cid=otr-marketing_url-sunni_shia_infoguide
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ (also posted above)
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/isis-not-terrorist-group

Many of the essays at muftah.org and Foreign Affairs are worth reading.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #140 on: November 21, 2015, 01:50:12 PM »
Well put, Glenstache.

I'd like to contribute one of the best pieces I have read on this topic. It's long, but worth it.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n23/adam-shatz/magical-thinking-about-isis

One of the many good and thought-privoking things the author says is that this is less the radicalization of Islam than it is the Islamification of radicalism.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #141 on: November 21, 2015, 02:26:01 PM »
Well put Glenstache.  Much more precise and detailed than I could be bothered with when I wrote in post #135...

"Firstly let me say I am not denying that ISIS and their like are motivated by religion.  Any rational person would admit that they are.  If they were honest, those same rational people would also admit there are plenty of other motivating factors at play too.*  Some of those rational people would even argue that absent those other motivating factors many, but not all, ISIS supporters may not be ISIS supporters at all."

*Bold added for emphasis this time around.

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #142 on: November 21, 2015, 03:56:39 PM »
Well put. I sympathize with France. I believe this was a 9/11 for them. I hope that time is taken to heal as a nation and to thoughtfully respond. A few terrorists are not a whole nation and when we look hard for an enemy the lines can be blurred. I regret the political stances I took after 9/11. Destroying two nations and even killing Bin Laden have not ended it for us. I think the time has come to stop looking at terrorists as a form of legitimate government. By doing so we are giving them credibility they don't deserve. The people responsible for the attack died on the day they committed the act. There really is no justice to be done. Nothing will bring back those we have lost in this tragedy and only more innocent people will be killed by carrying out actual war operations against the Middle East. The Arab nations need to be able to deal with this. They need to be able to go in and wipe them out without being accused of invading their neighbors.

As westerns we need to recognize our part in this. There is a huge amount of oil in the Middle East. We are not there to take it but its in our interest that the region be stable because disruption of that oil supply causes serious issues to our economy. We also take two stances (that I am aware of) that are political oppositions with the majority of Middle Eastern States. The first is our stance on the Palestinian conflict-- we side with Israel and that is a political liability. The second is we back Saudi Arabia (for oil) and that is a political liability. I don't want to stray too far so I will stop here. My sympathy is with France. They are an old nation and a I hope a more tempered nation to deal with a tragedy like this.

Vive la France

JZinCO

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #143 on: November 21, 2015, 04:55:47 PM »
There's so much bigotry that DOES unfairly group all of them together, it's hard to separate out legitimate criticisms of the religion itself.  We get used to having to defend it against bigots, that we don't also critically look at it, because emotionally we want to defeqnd it.

Yeah, I think this is the problem and probably, JZinCo, why it's important to list all your disclaimers over and over again - for instance, that there is a difference between Islam and Islamism like former player mentioned.
I linked a wikipedia article on Islamism. I've tried to be abundantly clear. I can't help if the non-sequitur arguments follow. Its hard to engage when I'm talking about an ideology which supplants political theory with Islamic code and someone thinks I am talking about Islam.

PKFFW doesn't realize but he's making my point. Let's take turkey. Turkey has a penal code, a constitution with no state religion, and liberal, democratic institutions. Turkey bans headscarves or other theo-political garments in schools and govt buildings! Let me repeat, it is illegal to write "sharia law is the only law" on your shirt and walk into class. He's using turkey to argue against me, but I'm arguing FOR more turkeys. Turkey recently has had an Islamic party in power, but thankfully they can only push so much because of the constitutional liberties that were written in by, someone else I mentioned in this thread, the first president of turkey. He hated governance by Islam calling Islam the "an absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, a rotting corpse which poisons our lives.". Turkey is the most successful refutation of islamism in the Arab world.
More: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_Turkey
Contrast turkey with Iran, where in the wiki page on historic secularism in Iran it states "secular opposition to the Islamist government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has been active in the country up until 1984, afterwards they were branded heretics and apostates by the clerical hierarchy, and eventually jailed and executed, or exiled."
« Last Edit: November 21, 2015, 05:43:42 PM by JZinCO »

JZinCO

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #144 on: November 21, 2015, 05:17:52 PM »
When talking about "Islamism", without any qualifier, you are by default grouping all practitioners of Islam into one homogeneous group.

But when challenged on these examples that you yourself chose to give as indicative of "Islamism" being not consistent with modern liberal values, instead of discussing and defending your claims you resort to claiming they are non-sequitur responses.
In response to this second quoted paragraph, see the quoted sentence above. It's as illogical as saying IWW represents all workers. Islamism would like to say they represent all Muslims. And all wobblies say they represent all workers. But not all workers are socialist and not all Muslims are theocrats. Surely by equating 1.5 billion muslims with islamism you aren't suggesting all Muslims prefer sharia law, are you? See how that unfairly represents your views? Sucks, don't it?

So I'll address two of your other points. I support the quilliam foundation. The founder was an Islamist that supported coups of secular governments to allow islamists to gain power. He now fights islamism to provide a liberal view for Muslims. So theres your example.
Another point. You asked for a valid criticism against islamism? Let's take ISIS. If you commit a crime (stealing, apostasy, practicing a different religion or sect of Islam), your crime is printed on your ID. You then are treated differently in their criminal and civil codes, such as higher tax rates. That's incompatible with liberalism. How about boko haram? Their name means western (meaning not islam scripture) is forbidden. How is restricting learning not abhorrent? iSIS and boko haram an extreme case? How about forced sex changes for homosexuals in Iran? Or in saudi arabia, honor killings are legal for adulterers, crucifixion for apostastates. That's why islamism is fucked up. You know why Turkey doesn't have these arcane practices? It's a liberal, secular democracy! Turks don't suffer under Islamist policies!
« Last Edit: November 21, 2015, 05:49:48 PM by JZinCO »

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #145 on: November 21, 2015, 08:32:33 PM »
Firstly, yes, all those examples are extremely bad and should be denounced and the international community should do what they can to stop them.  Those specific examples of behaviours are absolutely not consistent with western liberal values, I totally agree.

Those examples of behaviours are also not indicative of Islamism as a whole.  As the second paragraph of the wiki page you linked to states....

"Some observers (Graham Fuller) suggest Islamism's tenets are less strict, and can be defined as a form of identity politics or "support for [Muslim] identity, authenticity, broader regionalism, revivalism, [and] revitalization of the community."[3]"

It is clear from the wiki article the term Islamism can, and to many people most likely does, mean something very different to an ISIS led state that wants to kill everyone who isn't Muslim.  Trying to define it as such, and using examples of only the most extreme brutality to suggest that is the norm, is not productive or helpful.

Let me try this.......

The ideology of separation of church and state is incompatible with modern western liberal values.

Why?  What evidence is there of that?

Well check out Communism and Stalinism in particular.  Those enacting these regimes believed in the separation of church and state and brutally repressed entire countries for generations sending millions to labour camps and executing millions more.  China and North Korea are prime ongoing examples.

Now these specific interpretations of the ideology are not indicative of the ideology at large but that doesn't matter because they suit the purpose of painting the ideology itself as flawed.  If anyone wants to suggest that those examples can be countered quite easily I'll just cry non-sequitur.

See how it really doesn't make for the soundest of arguments?

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7372
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #146 on: November 22, 2015, 01:18:35 AM »
Let me try this.......

The ideology of separation of church and state is incompatible with modern western liberal values.

Why?  What evidence is there of that?

Well check out Communism and Stalinism in particular.  Those enacting these regimes believed in the separation of church and state and brutally repressed entire countries for generations sending millions to labour camps and executing millions more.  China and North Korea are prime ongoing examples.

Now these specific interpretations of the ideology are not indicative of the ideology at large but that doesn't matter because they suit the purpose of painting the ideology itself as flawed.  If anyone wants to suggest that those examples can be countered quite easily I'll just cry non-sequitur.

See how it really doesn't make for the soundest of arguments?

Well this is silly. There most certainly is separation of church and state in the most of the modern western world. Last time I checked the Pope is not the leader of the government of any western nation (save Vatican City). Nor is the Anglican Archbishop. Nor is any imam, or ayatollah or any other religious leader.

Our legal systems may be based historically on Christian or other religious values (e.g 10 commandments "Do not kill" etc) but it's fair to say our criminal, civil and family courts are secular in nature, with the law of the land enforced, not the law of God.

IMO there should be a godwin's law equivalent to citing communism, fascism and stalinism. I hate it when debates refer back to these long failed ideologies (well, communism still exists but is progressively being demolished in China)

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #147 on: November 22, 2015, 02:15:15 AM »
Let me try this.......

The ideology of separation of church and state is incompatible with modern western liberal values.

Why?  What evidence is there of that?

Well check out Communism and Stalinism in particular.  Those enacting these regimes believed in the separation of church and state and brutally repressed entire countries for generations sending millions to labour camps and executing millions more.  China and North Korea are prime ongoing examples.

Now these specific interpretations of the ideology are not indicative of the ideology at large but that doesn't matter because they suit the purpose of painting the ideology itself as flawed.  If anyone wants to suggest that those examples can be countered quite easily I'll just cry non-sequitur.

See how it really doesn't make for the soundest of arguments?

Well this is silly. There most certainly is separation of church and state in the most of the modern western world. Last time I checked the Pope is not the leader of the government of any western nation (save Vatican City). Nor is the Anglican Archbishop. Nor is any imam, or ayatollah or any other religious leader.

Our legal systems may be based historically on Christian or other religious values (e.g 10 commandments "Do not kill" etc) but it's fair to say our criminal, civil and family courts are secular in nature, with the law of the land enforced, not the law of God.

IMO there should be a godwin's law equivalent to citing communism, fascism and stalinism. I hate it when debates refer back to these long failed ideologies (well, communism still exists but is progressively being demolished in China)

Thank you for illustrating PKFFW's point. You are both right, correct, and well-argued.

Godwin's law should probably be replaced by a law relating to argument by analogy leading to endless debate about the analogies. I am certainly guilty of this (see KKK reference above). Analogies are often used to illustrate the extreme case. This is both problematic because they are extremes, and useful because they invoke the outlier non-conforming case demonstrating the lack of universality. The trouble is that the analogies typically have so much baggage and context that it is easy to miss the point the person is trying to make.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #148 on: November 22, 2015, 02:56:26 AM »

The trouble is that the analogies typically have so much baggage and context that it is easy to miss the point the person is trying to make.

Yeah, actually that's pretty analogous to a car that needs an oil change but then they tell you the belts need to be replaced too and you aren't sure if they're trying to upsell you or not.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: French terrorist attacks
« Reply #149 on: November 22, 2015, 07:27:01 AM »
The Muslim extremists have accomplished one goal...they have virtually stifled the public debate.

No one feels the need to state that not all white people are Nazis when someone paints a swastika on a building, but when Muslim extremists commit terror acts, the very first thing that now happens is a lineup of people useful idiots rush to publicly announce that this has nothing to do with Islam...and who are quick to condemn anyone as racist who dares to question that.