Personally I'd be very, very surprised if this was a stampede having heard some of the witness accounts but not leaping to any conclusions as they can be unreliable.
It will have to get a lot worse in the UK and apparently in France, Sweden, Germany, Belgium and Italy, before anyone does much more than just go after networks and perpetrators.
The radicalization in the mosques and the stuff coming out of the mouths of the religious leaders in these countries, is toxic. Meanwhile, they are passing laws to limit and arrest people over the free speech of people criticizing the ideology behind terrorism as "Islamophobia."
One only needs to look at what happened after Charlie Hebdo to see what it will take for people to wake up.
It will have to get a lot worse in the UK and apparently in France, Sweden, Germany, Belgium and Italy, before anyone does much more than just go after networks and perpetrators.
The radicalization in the mosques and the stuff coming out of the mouths of the religious leaders in these countries, is toxic. Meanwhile, they are passing laws to limit and arrest people over the free speech of people criticizing the ideology behind terrorism as "Islamophobia."
One only needs to look at what happened after Charlie Hebdo to see what it will take for people to wake up.
its worthwhile noting that in almost every case like this, the explanation of events and perpetrators that we get a few minutes after the event, are proven false when all the facts are know (and later revised).
It will have to get a lot worse in the UK and apparently in France, Sweden, Germany, Belgium and Italy, before anyone does much more than just go after networks and perpetrators.
The radicalization in the mosques and the stuff coming out of the mouths of the religious leaders in these countries, is toxic. Meanwhile, they are passing laws to limit and arrest people over the free speech of people criticizing the ideology behind terrorism as "Islamophobia."
One only needs to look at what happened after Charlie Hebdo to see what it will take for people to wake up.
its worthwhile noting that in almost every case like this, the explanation of events and perpetrators that we get a few minutes after the event, are proven false when all the facts are know (and later revised).
I would preach patience here.
Preach whatever you want. This event doesn't change the broader, global problem, and the direction the west is heading.
RE: RE: Well it will clean up the problems in the middle east faster
It will have to get a lot worse in the UK and apparently in France, Sweden, Germany, Belgium and Italy, before anyone does much more than just go after networks and perpetrators.
The radicalization in the mosques and the stuff coming out of the mouths of the religious leaders in these countries, is toxic. Meanwhile, they are passing laws to limit and arrest people over the free speech of people criticizing the ideology behind terrorism as "Islamophobia."
One only needs to look at what happened after Charlie Hebdo to see what it will take for people to wake up.
Mike, you should weigh in on football topics. It is, after all, a football message board. It would be a shame if you only had a political stance (especially on such a hot-button topic) to stand on.
Early reports in these situations are often false. Best to wait for more info before drawing conclusions.
knock it off.
It's great to see the early conclusions drawn, outrage reached, and then embarrassment when people realize their comments are here for eternity or until the thread inevitably becomes political and then gets deleted and then only existing on Brett's personal hard drive.
agree, it would be awful it's his shadow BBI site where he's a moderator and has conversations where people take mu seriously. anyway, it's not me living there. It's the people on the jump to conclusions mat.
RE: RE: Brett's personal hard drive is the last place I'd want to be
agree, it would be awful it's his shadow BBI site where he's a moderator and has conversations where people take mu seriously. anyway, it's not me living there. It's the people on the jump to conclusions mat.
mu = him
RE: RE: RE: Well it will clean up the problems in the middle east faster
It will have to get a lot worse in the UK and apparently in France, Sweden, Germany, Belgium and Italy, before anyone does much more than just go after networks and perpetrators.
The radicalization in the mosques and the stuff coming out of the mouths of the religious leaders in these countries, is toxic. Meanwhile, they are passing laws to limit and arrest people over the free speech of people criticizing the ideology behind terrorism as "Islamophobia."
One only needs to look at what happened after Charlie Hebdo to see what it will take for people to wake up.
Mike, you should weigh in on football topics. It is, after all, a football message board. It would be a shame if you only had a political stance (especially on such a hot-button topic) to stand on.
I suggest you stick to football topics and not read threads on current events and terrorism if you don't expect to see some posts somewhat political (or religious) related.
Manchester suspected terror incident: what we know so far
Kevin Rawlinson
Heres a summary of what we know so far after the incident in Manchester this evening:
Police have confirmed that at least 19 people have been killed in a suspected terror attack at an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena.
Officers said a further 50 were injured.
One explosion was reported to have hit the foyer of the building at about 10:30pm, British Transport police said.
Manchester Arena said the incident took place outside the venue in a public space.
Multiple witnesses said they heard an explosion, with one telling the Guardian the blast shook the building.
agree, it would be awful it's his shadow BBI site where he's a moderator and has conversations where people take mu seriously. anyway, it's not me living there. It's the people on the jump to conclusions mat.
agree, it would be awful it's his shadow BBI site where he's a moderator and has conversations where people take mu seriously. anyway, it's not me living there. It's the people on the jump to conclusions mat.
I don't deserve this.
Well you do have this strange ability to re-post entire threads that had been deleted. Think of it as a compliment.
an attack pre planned to occur as people streamed out of the concert, i think we will see POST concert and sports event security become a much bigger thing. CNN saying suicide bomber now.
Coming from you a compliment! No seriously, CNN is forever jumping the gun and totally wrong. The rush to report is more important than than waiting and getting it right.
It will have to get a lot worse in the UK and apparently in France, Sweden, Germany, Belgium and Italy, before anyone does much more than just go after networks and perpetrators.
The radicalization in the mosques and the stuff coming out of the mouths of the religious leaders in these countries, is toxic. Meanwhile, they are passing laws to limit and arrest people over the free speech of people criticizing the ideology behind terrorism as "Islamophobia."
One only needs to look at what happened after Charlie Hebdo to see what it will take for people to wake up.
Mike, you should weigh in on football topics. It is, after all, a football message board. It would be a shame if you only had a political stance (especially on such a hot-button topic) to stand on.
I suggest you stick to football topics and not read threads on current events and terrorism if you don't expect to see some posts somewhat political (or religious) related.
Since your recent history includes zero football contributions, I feel fine about my footing... on a football message board.
Explosion occurred just outside the arena. Thatwould explain why getting a bomb inside wasnt an issue
I hadn't heard this... this makes more sense. I heard that the bomb was inside, but towards an exit bottleneck. Getting a bomb inside an event like this made no sense at all.
RIP to the victims and those injured.
RE: RE: I wonder if this attack does not happen if Trump did not go to Riyad
Today there are 2,900,000 Muslims living in Britain, including Scotland and North Ireland - about 5% of the population. (www.theguardian.com)
- The Muslim population is multiplying 75% every 10 years.
The demographic model widely reported in the mainstream press reveals:
- By 2021, Britains Muslim population will reach about 4,900,000.
- By 2031, 8,600,000
- By 2041 15,000,000
- By 2051, nearly 26,000,000 (www.thecommentator.com)
From the British non-Muslim population, its birthrate is 2.1 per female - below the replacement level. In other words, the real numbers of non-Muslims will shrink.
It is estimated that in 2051 there will be a total of 77,000,000 British citizens. The respected Commentator newspaper concludes that if immigration policies continue as they arethen the Muslim population projection of 26 million by the year 2051 can be rationally defended.
So by the middle of this century, a third of the population will be Muslim
Other troubling signs in England:
Sharia courts administering Islamic justice in Britain are run by clerics who believe some offenders should have their hands chopped off, according to Muslim scholar Elham Manea. She described the prevailing attitude as "totalitarian" and as more backward than some parts of Pakistan.
Teaching children fundamental British values is an act of "cultural supremacism," according to the National Union of Teachers, which wants to replace the concept with one that includes "international rights."
More than 100,000 British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts, according to a 615-page survey.
Only one in three British Muslims (34%) would contact the police if they believed that somebody close to them had become involved with radical Islam. In addition, 23% of British Muslims said Islamic Sharia law should replace British law in areas with large Muslim populations.
Belmarsh maximum-security prison in London has become "like a jihadi training camp," according to testimony from a former inmate. The government was accused of burying a report on prison extremism. The report warned that staff have been reluctant to tackle Islamist behavior for fear of being labelled "racist."
Residents in Manchester received leaflets in their mailboxes, from a Muslim group called "Public Purity," calling for a public ban on dogs.
Voter fraud has been deliberately overlooked in Muslim communities because of "political correctness," according to a government report.
Link below. 615 pages of survey data, looks pretty scientific and unbiased to me.
"Full data from the ICM Unlimited survey Channel 4 programme What Muslims really think can be found by clicking on the link below.
The link provides full access to three (merged) documents, in order:
Full sample of Muslims
National representative control sample
Summary top line.
The summary top line compares findings from the Muslims sample and the control sample of a nationally representative sample of all GB adults, which permits easy comparison of responses to questions that were asked of both samples (questions only asked of Muslims are not included in the top line).
Here's another article from the liberal Huffington Post with similar statistics. Point is the more Muslims the more radical and fundamental Muslims. The Islamization of Great Britain - ( New Window )
It will have to get a lot worse in the UK and apparently in France, Sweden, Germany, Belgium and Italy, before anyone does much more than just go after networks and perpetrators.
The radicalization in the mosques and the stuff coming out of the mouths of the religious leaders in these countries, is toxic. Meanwhile, they are passing laws to limit and arrest people over the free speech of people criticizing the ideology behind terrorism as "Islamophobia."
One only needs to look at what happened after Charlie Hebdo to see what it will take for people to wake up.
Mike, you should weigh in on football topics. It is, after all, a football message board. It would be a shame if you only had a political stance (especially on such a hot-button topic) to stand on.
I suggest you stick to football topics and not read threads on current events and terrorism if you don't expect to see some posts somewhat political (or religious) related.
Since your recent history includes zero football contributions, I feel fine about my footing... on a football message board.
So glad you are monitoring what I am posting or only reading. Been on this site for well over 20 years. Thanks for weighing in Comrade Stalin.
I've been quoting the Pew Research studies for years.
A lot of people in the west have a hard time believing that people who kill people and themselves for God's will, actually believe what the doctrine says.
Unless it's an abortion doctor killing. Then it's obviously due to the interpretation of God's will in another text (that is also full of horrible ideas, but nothing compared to the Quran).
we've made the Palestinians heroes of the left for their freedom fighting murder, regardless of any balanced moral judgements, and we've rewarded them financially as well.
Now the same ideology is causing serious problems in Europe. Good thing for the Atlantic Ocean....for now.
We are too nice and politically correct for some of our cultures and people to survive given the current trends.
yet our country had a hissy fit over a proposed 90 day
screening ban to vet. not such a bad idea after all
Vetting for people entering this country already exists. Especially from troubled regions. Anyone suggesting that this hasn't been the case for quite some time is not handing out good information. There is a reason that this country has maintained a mostly clean sheet against terrorism at home since '01, and it's due to the everyday hard work of people keeping it that way.
true Hammer, but the proposed 90 day ban on the syrian
screening ban to vet. not such a bad idea after all
Vetting for people entering this country already exists. Especially from troubled regions. Anyone suggesting that this hasn't been the case for quite some time is not handing out good information. There is a reason that this country has maintained a mostly clean sheet against terrorism at home since '01, and it's due to the everyday hard work of people keeping it that way.
I totally agree with you that our law enforcement, military, intelligence agencies are doing great work but even with their great work this site lists over 60 Islamic related terror attacks in the US since 9/11/2001. People use these arguments that terrorism isnt that pervase, more people are killed by random shootings, cars, bathtub accidents etc. but none of those causes of death have the enormous amounts of resources like those stated above, literally tens of thousands of people and billions and billions of dollars devoted to stop one thing - Islamic terrorism. Could you imagine how many terrorist attacks would occur if the US didnt have this Herculean effort?
Unfortunately for the peace loving, reformed Muslims you have this problem:
"As the Muslim population increases in the United States, so too will the number of Islamic terror attacks. This is because the pool from which the radicals recruit grows bigger. Studies show that between 5 - 25% of Muslims in America believe that violence in defense of Islam is justified. The number of potential terrorists therefore grows proportionately with the overall number, even if only a small minority actually plot terror.
Immigrants to America have killed and have plotted to kill. However, the real threat comes from successive generations of Muslims living in the West, which have proven to be more radical and more dangerous than their parents. Muslim immigration thus means that more Americans will eventually die." Islamic Terror on American Soil - ( New Window )
This is getting into places that a mod would probably shut down
my point is only to state that there is in fact a ton of effort put into security when it comes to bringing in foreign nationals. It may have been a heated topic during the election, but it was inaccurately portrayed as if the US has an open door/honor system policy. The reality is very much not this.
RE: This is getting into places that a mod would probably shut down
my point is only to state that there is in fact a ton of effort put into security when it comes to bringing in foreign nationals. It may have been a heated topic during the election, but it was inaccurately portrayed as if the US has an open door/honor system policy. The reality is very much not this.
"Terrorists only need to be right once; we need to be right every single time".President Bush
Thats the problem, as good as our people are and as thorough as our vetting process may be it only takes a few mistakes/oversites/deception and it results in dead Americans. And as stated above its just math that the more Muslim immigrants brought into the country the more terrorism will occur even if only 5% have radical views. Is it worth the risk?
Immigrant families lose their native identification
as they move from generation to generation. My nephews grew up in California and they don't identify as Italian at all. And they are Italian on both sides--third and fourth generation.
A study showed young Jews living out West do not really have any identification with Israel. That was unheard of when I was growing up in Brooklyn.
NY is such an immigrant city that people don't realize the rest of the country is not like that. The next generation of Muslims will not have a strong identification with religion. They will think of themselves as Americans first and foremost.
Persecuting them or singling them out is the best way to get them NOT to identify as Americans and become a diaspora, holding onto to religious instead of a national identity.
Best way to defeat terrorism longterm is to treat the causes not the symptoms.
RE: Immigrant families lose their native identification
as they move from generation to generation. My nephews grew up in California and they don't identify as Italian at all. And they are Italian on both sides--third and fourth generation.
A study showed young Jews living out West do not really have any identification with Israel. That was unheard of when I was growing up in Brooklyn.
NY is such an immigrant city that people don't realize the rest of the country is not like that. The next generation of Muslims will not have a strong identification with religion. They will think of themselves as Americans first and foremost.
Persecuting them or singling them out is the best way to get them NOT to identify as Americans and become a diaspora, holding onto to religious instead of a national identity.
Best way to defeat terrorism longterm is to treat the causes not the symptoms.
the cause is Islam and the symptom is terrorism. The Quran is build around jihad and forbids revision such as a new testament since it is the unaltered word of Allah.
the mass immigration into places like the UK causes pockets of people who do not assimilate and instead adopt their religious and cultural identity (sharia law) to their new home--which is encouraged by the EU.
Persecuting them or singling them out is not the best way, but getting them to assimilate would be---which is impossible when flooding a country.
RE: This is getting into places that a mod would probably shut down
my point is only to state that there is in fact a ton of effort put into security when it comes to bringing in foreign nationals. It may have been a heated topic during the election, but it was inaccurately portrayed as if the US has an open door/honor system policy. The reality is very much not this.
That's fair. But its also fair that you to acknowledge that the "Muslim ban" was in fact a 90-day ban initially against 7 highest risk Arab countries (Iraq was later retracted), while still honoring pre-existing visas and green cards.
Obviously the media and rights groups twisted as much more far-reaching than this.
The reality is we know who the enemy is. There are more practical and common sense ways to fight this war than what we currently do for politically correctness reasons. Trump's approach was hasty, over-reaching and clumsy, no doubt, but the spirit of it was on the right track.
the cause is Islam and the symptom is terrorism. The Quran is build around jihad and forbids revision such as a new testament since it is the unaltered word of Allah.
the mass immigration into places like the UK causes pockets of people who do not assimilate and instead adopt their religious and cultural identity (sharia law) to their new home--which is encouraged by the EU.
Persecuting them or singling them out is not the best way, but getting them to assimilate would be---which is impossible when flooding a country.
This problem is only going to get worse. Many people say the people responsible are just "radicals" as if there are only a handful of them. There are millions of these radicals. Tens of millions. The other thing is that the radicals in the Muslim world are the ones who have the power, hold political offices and control their military. This is no different than what we faced with the Nazi's. This religion also = law in those countries. Their mission is to squash the western world. They will tell you if you care to listen that they want to populate the western countries and then take over. They do not want to assimilate.
Unfortunately it absolutely IS the religion that is the problem and we will one day end up with a true Muslim ban. You will see one of the European countries do it first because their situation will become more dire before ours does.
bunch of pussies trying to use the peaceful name of islam as their
my point is only to state that there is in fact a ton of effort put into security when it comes to bringing in foreign nationals. It may have been a heated topic during the election, but it was inaccurately portrayed as if the US has an open door/honor system policy. The reality is very much not this.
But they were "pouring in" after the first ban was struck down.
RE: bunch of pussies trying to use the peaceful name of islam as their
In case anyone's interested, Sam Harris has a well reasoned and intelligent take on the matter of radical islam. His podcast is called Waking Up, on iTunes or google it.
RE: Immigrant families lose their native identification
as they move from generation to generation. My nephews grew up in California and they don't identify as Italian at all. And they are Italian on both sides--third and fourth generation.
A study showed young Jews living out West do not really have any identification with Israel. That was unheard of when I was growing up in Brooklyn.
NY is such an immigrant city that people don't realize the rest of the country is not like that. The next generation of Muslims will not have a strong identification with religion. They will think of themselves as Americans first and foremost.
Persecuting them or singling them out is the best way to get them NOT to identify as Americans and become a diaspora, holding onto to religious instead of a national identity.
Best way to defeat terrorism longterm is to treat the causes not the symptoms.
While that certainly is more the case here than in Europe, you are not getting the same degree of assimilation as in generations past. The ease of travel back to their country of origin as well as some segments of society advocating that they NOT assimilate, that assimilation is cultural fascism (hyperbole conceded) and the ability to function in this country without speaking English makes things different than before.
NBC NewsVerified account @NBCNews
BREAKING: Suspected Manchester bomber identified as 22-year-old Salmon Ramadan Abedi, according to official, @PeteWilliamsNBC reports
Heard on radio during ride that since it was a concert that so many younger teens attend, basically any parent was able to enter the building to come get their kids with not nearly the same security scrutiny they would have at the beginning of the concert. So assuming the attacker walked into the lobby as the parents did.
Horrible incident, hoping for the best for those injured and RIP to those who didn't survive.
NBC NewsVerified account @NBCNews
BREAKING: Suspected Manchester bomber identified as 22-year-old Salmon Ramadan Abedi, according to official, @PeteWilliamsNBC reports
In case anyone's interested, Sam Harris has a well reasoned and intelligent take on the matter of radical islam. His podcast is called Waking Up, on iTunes or google it.
NYT reporter looks at the ISIS declaration claiming responsibility for the bombing and notices something unusual - while a suicide bomber has been assumed, the ISIS statement says nothing about anyone martyring themselves. She wonders if the bomber is in fact still alive and at large. Link - ( New Window )
RE: Immigrant families lose their native identification
as they move from generation to generation. My nephews grew up in California and they don't identify as Italian at all. And they are Italian on both sides--third and fourth generation.
A study showed young Jews living out West do not really have any identification with Israel. That was unheard of when I was growing up in Brooklyn.
NY is such an immigrant city that people don't realize the rest of the country is not like that. The next generation of Muslims will not have a strong identification with religion. They will think of themselves as Americans first and foremost.
Persecuting them or singling them out is the best way to get them NOT to identify as Americans and become a diaspora, holding onto to religious instead of a national identity.
Best way to defeat terrorism longterm is to treat the causes not the symptoms.
You need a plane ticket to Detroit, stat. What you've said is exactly 0% applicable to the Muslim community there, and it's sizable.
RE: RE: Immigrant families lose their native identification
You need a plane ticket to Detroit, stat. What you've said is exactly 0% applicable to the Muslim community there, and it's sizable.
Exactly! Some people are just reading the wrong shit that is passed around on Facebook I guess. Send him to Detroit like you said. More specifically...Dearborn MI. Just go to youtube and type "Muslim Dearborn" and just watch. Here is one for you... Dearborn MI - ( New Window )
RE: RE: RE: Immigrant families lose their native identification
You need a plane ticket to Detroit, stat. What you've said is exactly 0% applicable to the Muslim community there, and it's sizable.
Exactly! Some people are just reading the wrong shit that is passed around on Facebook I guess. Send him to Detroit like you said. More specifically...Dearborn MI. Just go to youtube and type "Muslim Dearborn" and just watch. Here is one for you... Dearborn MI - ( New Window )
I'd like to see something a little more nuanced. Drive through Palisades Park, NJ sometime. 40% Korean, with signs in Korean on a lot of storefronts. While that might show that assimilation is happening slower or only partially, there hasn't been a suicide bombing to date.
RE: RE: Immigrant families lose their native identification
as they move from generation to generation. My nephews grew up in California and they don't identify as Italian at all. And they are Italian on both sides--third and fourth generation.
A study showed young Jews living out West do not really have any identification with Israel. That was unheard of when I was growing up in Brooklyn.
NY is such an immigrant city that people don't realize the rest of the country is not like that. The next generation of Muslims will not have a strong identification with religion. They will think of themselves as Americans first and foremost.
Persecuting them or singling them out is the best way to get them NOT to identify as Americans and become a diaspora, holding onto to religious instead of a national identity.
Best way to defeat terrorism longterm is to treat the causes not the symptoms.
While that certainly is more the case here than in Europe, you are not getting the same degree of assimilation as in generations past. The ease of travel back to their country of origin as well as some segments of society advocating that they NOT assimilate, that assimilation is cultural fascism (hyperbole conceded) and the ability to function in this country without speaking English makes things different than before.
Eh, I had family who lived in this country for 50+ years and never learned 50 words of English. In modern society, with all of the common media that bind us together and reduced prejudice/exclusiveness etc., I think 2nd generation assimilation is likely more robust than it was 100 years ago. It's just that current problems seem bigger than problems that you cant remember. Much like people who feel like the world is more dangerous and out of control, when it is safer than it has ever been.
The notions of assimilation are taken for granted...
for instance, second-generation Hispanic immigrants from certain countries actually do worse in certain metrics than first-generation, most notably crime rate. Especially with the de-emphasis on any sort of distinctly American cultural heritage, it's not clear that assimilation will continue to be a priority.
Of course there is an argument to be made that our tradition of assimilation was always overstated, that immigrants often returned to their countries of origin, that pockets of native language enclaves persisted for decades after arrival going as far back as the early Nineteenth Century.
But on the balance, the pressures to assimilate aren't necessarily what they were at earlier points in our history, it's not necessarily a safe assumption that the present and future will resemble the past.
In case anyone's interested, Sam Harris has a well reasoned and intelligent take on the matter of radical islam. His podcast is called Waking Up, on iTunes or google it.
Sam Harris does an excellent job on this topic.
It just stuns and dismays me how reasoned discourse is almost completely absent from this incredibly serious global problem. Harris is probably most famous in this matter for his ridiculous exchange with Ben Aflack on Bill Maher. I mean, an actor of really average intelligence and with zero education or knowledge on the matter gets serious traction and support by hurling absurd accusations of bigotry and racism (as if religion were a race!). We see some of that here on BBI where people aren't even willing to acknowledge the most obvisou and indisputable facts of the problem.
Anyway, I'm glad there's people like Sam Harris fighting the good fight. I am afraid, however, we're very clearly losing the war.
Generally I think the pressure to assimilate is greater now
You have fewer enclaves of immigrants where you can get by with no assimilation. 120 years ago a Jew getting off the boat at Ellis Island could go to a neighborhood where a critical mass of people spoke yiddish. You rented an apartment from someone who spoke the language, and didnt have to deal with a power company, a cable company, a cell phone company, big box stores etc, where it's largely English only (or +Spanish maybe). There was a yiddish newspaper. You had no designs on a job outside the neighborhood -- you were going to be a vendor, clerk, etc. for a yiddish speaker. The customers you dealt with were going to be yiddish speakers.
In 2017, not speaking the language is much more limiting, and once you know English, some assimilation (by exposure) is much more likely. It's basically impossible to just deal with businesses where your language is spoken (ex. Spanish). It's a lot harder to count on a life where you could work for 50 years within an enclaves of people just like you.
I think we overstate what assimilation was. And should not just assume that assimilation will happen. I probably disagree with any notion that assimilation was some sort of device where non-European immigrants were put into the machine on one end and popped out like a white, rural/suburban 5th generation WASP on the other end (I know Dune didnt say that). I think it was always messier than that.
on the one hand, the assumption that everyone will assimilate because we did in the past is a poor one for a variety of reasons, and it accepts a pretty caricatured view of immigration history. On the other hand, the assumption that Muslims (or Hispanics, if that's your bugaboo) are uniquely incapable of assimilation is unreasonable; as Deej points out there are unique challenges in this day and age but unique pressures to at least learn language that may not have existed in the days of yore.
There are special pressures on Muslims re assimilation
You cant ignore the religious gap. Hispanics come here and can sit side by side in the pews of a Catholic church with an Irish family whose ancestors came over during the potato famine. They can eat in the same restaurants too.
Muslims cant do that. In particular, an observant Muslim has to eat halal food. If you grew up in a country where halal food predominated, it's no problem there. Here it is hard. Same thing I see with orthodox jews. Either you go to their restaurants, or you cant break bread with them. They cant go to the neighbors for dinner. Etc.
And then you have the prejudice and fear of course. It's an issue that cant be ignored on the assimilation question. It makes it harder.
RE: Generally I think the pressure to assimilate is greater now
You have fewer enclaves of immigrants where you can get by with no assimilation. 120 years ago a Jew getting off the boat at Ellis Island could go to a neighborhood where a critical mass of people spoke yiddish. You rented an apartment from someone who spoke the language, and didnt have to deal with a power company, a cable company, a cell phone company, big box stores etc, where it's largely English only (or +Spanish maybe). There was a yiddish newspaper. You had no designs on a job outside the neighborhood -- you were going to be a vendor, clerk, etc. for a yiddish speaker. The customers you dealt with were going to be yiddish speakers.
In 2017, not speaking the language is much more limiting, and once you know English, some assimilation (by exposure) is much more likely. It's basically impossible to just deal with businesses where your language is spoken (ex. Spanish). It's a lot harder to count on a life where you could work for 50 years within an enclaves of people just like you.
You now get ballots in 6-8 languages. Your cable company offers stations in a multitude of languages. You don't have to watch American television (which may not be a bad thing). Most hospitals now have the ability to deal with many different languages (a good thing). And 150 years ago once you were over here you were generally here to stay, with contact with the old country being letters (at best) as opposed to a cellular phone contract with low rates to the place you left.
RE: There are special pressures on Muslims re assimilation
You cant ignore the religious gap. Hispanics come here and can sit side by side in the pews of a Catholic church with an Irish family whose ancestors came over during the potato famine. They can eat in the same restaurants too.
Muslims cant do that. In particular, an observant Muslim has to eat halal food. If you grew up in a country where halal food predominated, it's no problem there. Here it is hard. Same thing I see with orthodox jews. Either you go to their restaurants, or you cant break bread with them. They cant go to the neighbors for dinner. Etc.
And then you have the prejudice and fear of course. It's an issue that cant be ignored on the assimilation question. It makes it harder.
The religious difference is undoubtedly important (as with Judaism though there are umpteen Muslims of varying degrees of piety for whom these dietary prohibitions are honored in whole, in part or not at all). There are also simply the social and religious pressures against conformity. Social pressures against conformity existed in varying degrees and forms for all immigrants, but the promise of some sort of divine retribution for assimilation is rather unique.
RE: RE: Generally I think the pressure to assimilate is greater now
You have fewer enclaves of immigrants where you can get by with no assimilation. 120 years ago a Jew getting off the boat at Ellis Island could go to a neighborhood where a critical mass of people spoke yiddish. You rented an apartment from someone who spoke the language, and didnt have to deal with a power company, a cable company, a cell phone company, big box stores etc, where it's largely English only (or +Spanish maybe). There was a yiddish newspaper. You had no designs on a job outside the neighborhood -- you were going to be a vendor, clerk, etc. for a yiddish speaker. The customers you dealt with were going to be yiddish speakers.
In 2017, not speaking the language is much more limiting, and once you know English, some assimilation (by exposure) is much more likely. It's basically impossible to just deal with businesses where your language is spoken (ex. Spanish). It's a lot harder to count on a life where you could work for 50 years within an enclaves of people just like you.
You now get ballots in 6-8 languages. Your cable company offers stations in a multitude of languages. You don't have to watch American television (which may not be a bad thing). Most hospitals now have the ability to deal with many different languages (a good thing). And 150 years ago once you were over here you were generally here to stay, with contact with the old country being letters (at best) as opposed to a cellular phone contract with low rates to the place you left.
Yes, you can list things. Now wrap them up into an analysis. 120 years ago you could read the Forward (yiddish newspaper). Doctors didnt do much, you couldnt afford them, and it's likely there was some jewish doctor in the neighborhood (even if not US trained).
Im not saying that the balance is totally on once side here. But I think pretending that back then you were forced to assimilate and now there is no pressure I think is just wrong. I've laid out my point.
It's overly simplistic to say that assimilation was just an easy thing
for any Europeans. By 19th/early 20th century standards, for example, most Italians weren't considered to be truly white Europeans. In fact, I have a copy of my great-grandmother's naturalization certificate from the '30s. Under "race", it says Northern Italian. There's no country of North Italy. It was a distinction drawn because, by the beliefs of the time, there was a tangible racial difference between an immigrant from, say, Piemonte or Liguria and one from Sicily or Calabria. My grandfather has mentioned the same thing to me - his father was very insistent on the superiority of northern Italians. Today we see that as ridiculous, but it was a very real distinction at the time.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Immigrant families lose their native identification
You need a plane ticket to Detroit, stat. What you've said is exactly 0% applicable to the Muslim community there, and it's sizable.
Exactly! Some people are just reading the wrong shit that is passed around on Facebook I guess. Send him to Detroit like you said. More specifically...Dearborn MI. Just go to youtube and type "Muslim Dearborn" and just watch. Here is one for you... Dearborn MI - ( New Window )
I'd like to see something a little more nuanced. Drive through Palisades Park, NJ sometime. 40% Korean, with signs in Korean on a lot of storefronts. While that might show that assimilation is happening slower or only partially, there hasn't been a suicide bombing to date.
Koreans don't worship a God that wants them to kill non-Koreans, and base a large part of their religion(s) on emulating a violent and intolerant warlord.
You have to address the beliefs in the orthodoxy and the authority it gives its practitioners. Koreans will assimilate, like most others, because their religious convictions are not in conflict with those of our societies.
And there are no "reformed" Muslims per se. At least according to the orthodoxy. There are "bad" Muslims and apostates only, depending on their lack of practice or having left the religion. Yes, of course there are millions of Muslims that have attenuated their convictions based on cultural exposure to more universal human rights, and chosen to ignore much of what is in the religious texts.
But this is a hundreds of millions of people problem, once you widen the religious-based beliefs from martyrdom, down through jihad, to more common problems of jew and non-Muslim hatred and religious supremacy, women's rights, gay rights, child marriage and FGM (in some cultures), honor-killing, etc.
It takes serious religious beliefs to make people treat each other so inhumanely. And it's time to have adult conversations about the core texts inspiring and validating them. And to stop treating people as victims all the time (which of course many of them are, of their own co-religionists, but not from "Islamophobia).
To the extent assimilation is a problem, and I think it's a way overstated red herrings, the real problem is then, what happens when assimilation fails. Finding ways to assimlate people is a waste of time and, I think at least, smacks of blaming the victim and places an additional, and again, my opinion, untoward burden on the state and the people who already live in it.
People have failed to assimilate for generations upon generations. The root cause of the problem is the essential values of islam, mostly the primacy of its theocracy over the secular rule of law, are fundementally in opposition to the precepts of Western modernity. Sorry if this offends Ben Aflack, but it's clearly the conclusion to which any reasonable person examining the facts will arrive.
This is, of course, purely anecdotal. However.....while my great-grandparents never became nearly as fluent in English as they were in Italian, and would generally speak to each other in Italian, they always spoke English with their children. In fact, my grandfather could speak little Italian despite being raised by two natives. They actually forbade him from it because they were insistent that their children be fully American. Becoming a "real American" was an obsession for them, as it was for most immigrants and their children according to him. Not sure that's quite the same case today.
Store signs in Arabic and Middle Eastern restaurants are threatening? I don't think so. Hence my request for nuance and comparison to Palisades Park.
Yeah, walk thru Williamsburg and you see signs in Hebrew. Walk thru Chinatown and you see signs in Chinese. Lower East Side (no longer super jewish), Williamsburg, and Chinatown all have populations equal/bigger than Dearborn.
This is, of course, purely anecdotal. However.....while my great-grandparents never became nearly as fluent in English as they were in Italian, and would generally speak to each other in Italian, they always spoke English with their children. In fact, my grandfather could speak little Italian despite being raised by two natives. They actually forbade him from it because they were insistent that their children be fully American. Becoming a "real American" was an obsession for them, as it was for most immigrants and their children according to him. Not sure that's quite the same case today.
Yeah that may be true for some current immigrants but I wouldnt paint with too broad a brush. I would be interested in seeing polling on comparative attitudes among immigrant populations.
why do you think it is the immigrant that is the one refusing the assimilate instead of the society in the country that will always consider them aliens
in England you can be 3rd Generation Bangladeshi ( originally Immigrating because Indian used to be a British Colony ) and NEVER ever be accepted as British.
If you are from Morocco decent and your family has lived in France for 60 years
you still will NEVER be considered French -- the racism and exclusion permeates these societies.
In US you don't have radicalization like you do in Europe because it doesn't matter where you come from .. as soon as you get your Passport you are considered as American as someone whose family came over in the Mayflower.
RE: RE: Mike - Did you click on the link I responded to?
Store signs in Arabic and Middle Eastern restaurants are threatening? I don't think so. Hence my request for nuance and comparison to Palisades Park.
Yeah, walk thru Williamsburg and you see signs in Hebrew. Walk thru Chinatown and you see signs in Chinese. Lower East Side (no longer super jewish), Williamsburg, and Chinatown all have populations equal/bigger than Dearborn.
Hell, what about restaurant signs in French, Italian and Spanish?
In case anyone's interested, Sam Harris has a well reasoned and intelligent take on the matter of radical islam. His podcast is called Waking Up, on iTunes or google it.
Sam Harris does an excellent job on this topic.
It just stuns and dismays me how reasoned discourse is almost completely absent from this incredibly serious global problem. Harris is probably most famous in this matter for his ridiculous exchange with Ben Aflack on Bill Maher. I mean, an actor of really average intelligence and with zero education or knowledge on the matter gets serious traction and support by hurling absurd accusations of bigotry and racism (as if religion were a race!). We see some of that here on BBI where people aren't even willing to acknowledge the most obvisou and indisputable facts of the problem.
Anyway, I'm glad there's people like Sam Harris fighting the good fight. I am afraid, however, we're very clearly losing the war.
Eh...one man's champion is another man's villain. Or in this case, one man's idea of an intellectual is another man's idea of a charlatan.
Sam Harris isn't nearly as good at what he does or intellectual as you guys think he is. Link - ( New Window )
is a natural goal as the receiving country of immigrants and refugees.
They're leaving a place deemed substandard, poor or dangerous, and entering this country with hopes of a better life and safety.
I don't think it's asking too much to have the immigrants expect to learn the native language, standard for the national anthem/pledge of allegiance, respect the traditions and laws of their new country.
these should be requirements for entry/asylum IMO.
It doesn't mean you have to lose any identification with your homeland or heritage, be proud of it if you are, but there is a reason people come here.
the people who come here and hate America are the dangerous ones and the ones who impede progress. and some of them are the ones who sap the resources from the more deserving.
a horrible misrepresentation about Sam's points and absolutely packed with lies.
I suggest you listen to the actual discussion between them and judge for yourself.
Link - ( New Window )
I've listened to it; hence, my posting that article. And I understand why you think it was such a great discussion by Sam Harris based on your posting habits.
These discussions are always about two opposing views with both sides trying to out-wit or out-shout the other sides. And this discussion/thread is no different. Reactionaries versus apologists...rinse and repeat. It gets tiresome.
is a natural goal as the receiving country of immigrants and refugees.
They're leaving a place deemed substandard, poor or dangerous, and entering this country with hopes of a better life and safety.
I don't think it's asking too much to have the immigrants expect to learn the native language, standard for the national anthem/pledge of allegiance, respect the traditions and laws of their new country.
these should be requirements for entry/asylum IMO.
It doesn't mean you have to lose any identification with your homeland or heritage, be proud of it if you are, but there is a reason people come here.
the people who come here and hate America are the dangerous ones and the ones who impede progress. and some of them are the ones who sap the resources from the more deserving.
standard s/b stand
RE: RE: RE: Immigrant families lose their native identification
Unfortunately it absolutely IS the religion that is the problem and we will one day end up with a true Muslim ban. You will see one of the European countries do it first because their situation will become more dire before ours does.
My guess is that it's not JUST the religion that's the problem. You're probably less likely to see a Muslim who leads a normal day-to-day life in a Western country going all Jihad than you are if, say, they lost a bunch of family members to a stray bomb, or if they attended the public beheading of a loved one.
I don't think there's anything inherent in the religion that will corrupt your average bloke, but it does seem to be an amplifying component when blended with other factors.
on the debate as well as an alternative. Link - ( New Window )
And honestly, I don't really care much of Omer Aziz. However, those, who make Sam Harris out to be this intellectual sage aren't really interested in a nuanced approach to difficult topics as much as they are just interested in confirming their own views. If there's a landlord for an echo chamber, Sam Harris is that guy.
RE: Generally I think the pressure to assimilate is greater now
You have fewer enclaves of immigrants where you can get by with no assimilation. 120 years ago a Jew getting off the boat at Ellis Island could go to a neighborhood where a critical mass of people spoke yiddish. You rented an apartment from someone who spoke the language, and didnt have to deal with a power company, a cable company, a cell phone company, big box stores etc, where it's largely English only (or +Spanish maybe). There was a yiddish newspaper. You had no designs on a job outside the neighborhood -- you were going to be a vendor, clerk, etc. for a yiddish speaker. The customers you dealt with were going to be yiddish speakers.
In 2017, not speaking the language is much more limiting, and once you know English, some assimilation (by exposure) is much more likely. It's basically impossible to just deal with businesses where your language is spoken (ex. Spanish). It's a lot harder to count on a life where you could work for 50 years within an enclaves of people just like you.
I think you need to get out more. There are enclaves and people can get almost everything in their own language and get their foods and other stuff that they had back home. Not saying that's a bad thing, but it can lessen the impetus to assimilation.
RE: It's overly simplistic to say that assimilation was just an easy thing
for any Europeans. By 19th/early 20th century standards, for example, most Italians weren't considered to be truly white Europeans. In fact, I have a copy of my great-grandmother's naturalization certificate from the '30s. Under "race", it says Northern Italian. There's no country of North Italy. It was a distinction drawn because, by the beliefs of the time, there was a tangible racial difference between an immigrant from, say, Piemonte or Liguria and one from Sicily or Calabria. My grandfather has mentioned the same thing to me - his father was very insistent on the superiority of northern Italians. Today we see that as ridiculous, but it was a very real distinction at the time.
To be fair, that came from Italy where the northern areas looked down on Southern Italians, who they didn't even consider Italian.
RE: RE: Generally I think the pressure to assimilate is greater now
You have fewer enclaves of immigrants where you can get by with no assimilation. 120 years ago a Jew getting off the boat at Ellis Island could go to a neighborhood where a critical mass of people spoke yiddish. You rented an apartment from someone who spoke the language, and didnt have to deal with a power company, a cable company, a cell phone company, big box stores etc, where it's largely English only (or +Spanish maybe). There was a yiddish newspaper. You had no designs on a job outside the neighborhood -- you were going to be a vendor, clerk, etc. for a yiddish speaker. The customers you dealt with were going to be yiddish speakers.
In 2017, not speaking the language is much more limiting, and once you know English, some assimilation (by exposure) is much more likely. It's basically impossible to just deal with businesses where your language is spoken (ex. Spanish). It's a lot harder to count on a life where you could work for 50 years within an enclaves of people just like you.
I think you need to get out more. There are enclaves and people can get almost everything in their own language and get their foods and other stuff that they had back home. Not saying that's a bad thing, but it can lessen the impetus to assimilation.
I get out plenty, thanks.
My point is that it is harder to do that compared to 120 years ago. Because you need more contact with large, standardized corporations (cable cos etc.).
is a natural goal as the receiving country of immigrants and refugees.
They're leaving a place deemed substandard, poor or dangerous, and entering this country with hopes of a better life and safety.
I don't think it's asking too much to have the immigrants expect to learn the native language, standard for the national anthem/pledge of allegiance, respect the traditions and laws of their new country.
these should be requirements for entry/asylum IMO.
It doesn't mean you have to lose any identification with your homeland or heritage, be proud of it if you are, but there is a reason people come here.
the people who come here and hate America are the dangerous ones and the ones who impede progress. and some of them are the ones who sap the resources from the more deserving.
standard s/b stand
Ultimately I think this is right. America is not a parcel of land inviting all who want to set up a tent to live here. To the extent we admit non-asylum/refugee immigrants, part and parcel of that invitation is that you participate in our civil society. Does that mean 100% conformity? No, that's impossible and in any event there is no one standard for what an American is. But what it does mean is that you shouldnt live a life separate from the country. Being an American should mean something more than literally being here.
pretending like you don't speak or understand English. The vast majority of immigrants assimilate because it's necessary to work and live. That doesn't mean they don't speak a different language at home or in the community.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Immigrant families lose their native identification
My guess is that it's not JUST the religion that's the problem. You're probably less likely to see a Muslim who leads a normal day-to-day life in a Western country going all Jihad than you are if, say, they lost a bunch of family members to a stray bomb, or if they attended the public beheading of a loved one.
I don't think there's anything inherent in the religion that will corrupt your average bloke, but it does seem to be an amplifying component when blended with other factors.
Actually...I would argue that your typical non-westernized Muslims prescribe to the life and religious ideals of "enshalla" or "ensha-allah," which means life is as god wills it. This means that while there is a semblance of blood feud, etc. in response to wrongs committed against them, in general, Muslims are not nearly as reactive as they get made out to be by the public solely based on their religion. I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with your second paragraph with even more emphasis that your everyday Muslims are even less reactive to wrong done to them.
I dont have a problem with this just because I dont like who said it. We should say it. ISIS and friend romanticize the suicide bomber. Call him a hero and martyr. There should be voices coming from the other direction.
You're not going to dissuade people from strapping on bomb vests by making available a really compelling white paper.
I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with your second paragraph with even more emphasis that your everyday Muslims are even less reactive to wrong done to them.
Fair enough, but I think it depends upon what is being reacted to. If a person is surrounded by people who perceive slights, injustices and acts of brutality committed against them, if there's strong evidence that many of these perceptions are actually realities, if you've suffered against some of these acts yourself, if you're routinely exposed to a certain set of people who will quote scripture as justification for terrible acts in response, and/or you follow that religion yourself, I see that as a mixture that can more likely lead someone down a murderous path than if you've been raised to belief your religion rejects murderous retribution.
Last night there were Muslim, Christian, Sikh, etc
cab drivers and others coming together to help the victims. Extremism is losing the war.
That's a platitude. Extremism is perpetrating several high-profile attacks each year, and the reaction to it is reshaping the political landscape in numerous Western countries.
RE: Last night there were Muslim, Christian, Sikh, etc
on the debate as well as an alternative. Link - ( New Window )
This is a terrific essay and rebuttal of Omer Aziz's buffoonish, opportunistic criticism of Harris and Nawaz. Aziz is maybe a rung or two above Al Sharpton.
Reading this thread, I think I understand the frustration Sam Harris feels trying to talk reasonably with Aziz.
RE: RE: Last night there were Muslim, Christian, Sikh, etc
cab drivers and others coming together to help the victims. Extremism is losing the war.
That's a platitude. Extremism is perpetrating several high-profile attacks each year, and the reaction to it is reshaping the political landscape in numerous Western countries.
You can call it what you want but extremism is losing the war. The US hasn't had a significant attack since 9/11.
are typically on par, in both length and depth, with vanilla Tweets from concerned but not especially knowledgeable citizens. The Pulse nightclub in Orlando, the Boston Marathon, Fort Hood, San Bernadino...an attack doesn't have to be 9/11 scale to be significant. A self-proclaimed caliphate conquered a country's worth of territory, including major cities, and inspired dozens of terrorist attacks worldwide. I'd like to think extremism is losing too, but it is not losing simply because I wish it was so.
RE: RE: RE: Last night there were Muslim, Christian, Sikh, etc
cab drivers and others coming together to help the victims. Extremism is losing the war.
That's a platitude. Extremism is perpetrating several high-profile attacks each year, and the reaction to it is reshaping the political landscape in numerous Western countries.
You can call it what you want but extremism is losing the war. The US hasn't had a significant attack since 9/11.
If you don't think Fort Hood, San Bernadino and Orlando were significant we have very different definitions of that word.
but I'd like some non-frothing takes on the Islamic insurgency in the Philippines. The ISIS-linked group seems to have taken over a regional capital, Marawi (pop appx 200K). Is this a bridge too far for the group, or is the country sclerotic enough that Duterte might not be able to respond effectively? What role, if any, will we play, in light of Duterte's public posture and his statements about human rights? Link - ( New Window )
a horrible misrepresentation about Sam's points and absolutely packed with lies.
I suggest you listen to the actual discussion between them and judge for yourself.
Link - ( New Window )
I've listened to it; hence, my posting that article. And I understand why you think it was such a great discussion by Sam Harris based on your posting habits.
These discussions are always about two opposing views with both sides trying to out-wit or out-shout the other sides. And this discussion/thread is no different. Reactionaries versus apologists...rinse and repeat. It gets tiresome.
RC - Thanks for the response. What part of Sam Harris' arguments over the influence of religious beliefs (e.g. rewards of martyrdom, promotion of religious supremacy, embracing of jihad prescribed in the Islamic texts over and over) , or any others, do you not agree with ? And what is your evidence ?
Rather than linking articles, etc., maybe you can get into some specifics.
Not sure who you categorize as "reactionaries" ? Does that include people that have looked at texts and actual actions made in the name of those texts for the past 1500 years ?
RE: RE: RE: RE: Last night there were Muslim, Christian, Sikh, etc
cab drivers and others coming together to help the victims. Extremism is losing the war.
That's a platitude. Extremism is perpetrating several high-profile attacks each year, and the reaction to it is reshaping the political landscape in numerous Western countries.
You can call it what you want but extremism is losing the war. The US hasn't had a significant attack since 9/11.
If you don't think Fort Hood, San Bernadino and Orlando were significant we have very different definitions of that word.
Yeah, the Boston Marathon bombing was insignificant, try telling that to his parents.
Or the three other deceased victim's families or the 16+ people who lost limbs or 200 other people injured.
with people giving examples of people acting like decent human beings ?
Who on this thread would have the ignorance to argue it's "all Muslims" ?
The responses are always the same and are terrible platitudes. Why are people more concerned about hurting peoples' feelings over religious beliefs that inspire this mayhem ?
but I'd like some non-frothing takes on the Islamic insurgency in the Philippines. The ISIS-linked group seems to have taken over a regional capital, Marawi (pop appx 200K). Is this a bridge too far for the group, or is the country sclerotic enough that Duterte might not be able to respond effectively? What role, if any, will we play, in light of Duterte's public posture and his statements about human rights? Link - ( New Window )
Former Moro Islamic Liberation Front fighters who probably have a new source of funding. Duterte and his predecessors were never able to defeat them, but they were never establish what they would now call a caliphate. If I remember correctly, they were never able to establish much of a presence on Luzon.
Speaking of sclerosis, I doubt Washington will do more than use this as an excuse for another pissing contest while not addressing the issue. However, I don't think the Philippine military will throw away their weapons and run like the Iraqis did.
My guess is that it's not JUST the religion that's the problem. You're probably less likely to see a Muslim who leads a normal day-to-day life in a Western country going all Jihad than you are if, say, they lost a bunch of family members to a stray bomb, or if they attended the public beheading of a loved one.
I don't think there's anything inherent in the religion that will corrupt your average bloke, but it does seem to be an amplifying component when blended with other factors.
Actually...I would argue that your typical non-westernized Muslims prescribe to the life and religious ideals of "enshalla" or "ensha-allah," which means life is as god wills it. This means that while there is a semblance of blood feud, etc. in response to wrongs committed against them, in general, Muslims are not nearly as reactive as they get made out to be by the public solely based on their religion. I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with your second paragraph with even more emphasis that your everyday Muslims are even less reactive to wrong done to them.
RC - You realize "God's will" in your statement is spelled out in the texts that justify submission to an ideology that embraces spreading it by the sword right ?
And of course there are various levels reactions among different groups for a variety of factors. Do you not think the protests and murders over free speech, cartoons, etc. in western europe over the last 15 years or so is reactive ? Expecting Europeans to stand up for free speech and general human morality and well-being, and human rights is not bigotry and racism.
These are all based on "ideas" no different than Nazi racial justification, just protected because they are supposedly given by God through an angel, to a warlord pedophile that rode on a flying horse ? And we are protecting these immoral ideas why ?
RE: RE: RE: RE: Last night there were Muslim, Christian, Sikh, etc
cab drivers and others coming together to help the victims. Extremism is losing the war.
That's a platitude. Extremism is perpetrating several high-profile attacks each year, and the reaction to it is reshaping the political landscape in numerous Western countries.
You can call it what you want but extremism is losing the war. The US hasn't had a significant attack since 9/11.
If you don't think Fort Hood, San Bernadino and Orlando were significant we have very different definitions of that word.
No, I don't consider mentally ill people snapping like Orlando the equivalent of this attack.
RE: RE: RE: Last night there were Muslim, Christian, Sikh, etc
cab drivers and others coming together to help the victims. Extremism is losing the war.
That's a platitude. Extremism is perpetrating several high-profile attacks each year, and the reaction to it is reshaping the political landscape in numerous Western countries.
You can call it what you want but extremism is losing the war. The US hasn't had a significant attack since 9/11.
The acts of human decency by certain people has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.
There have been over 30,000 deadly attacks made in the name of Islam et al, since 9/11, across the world.
We are losing this battle consistently every time someone new criticizes people using free speech to attack the horrible ideas promoted by Islam.
It's a war of ideas and we are losing all the time thanks to political correctness, victimology poker, the abandonment of basic principles of human rights, moral relativism and intellectual dishonesty and fear over hurting people's feelings over "ideas."
Store signs in Arabic and Middle Eastern restaurants are threatening? I don't think so. Hence my request for nuance and comparison to Palisades Park.
Yeah, walk thru Williamsburg and you see signs in Hebrew. Walk thru Chinatown and you see signs in Chinese. Lower East Side (no longer super jewish), Williamsburg, and Chinatown all have populations equal/bigger than Dearborn.
njm- Sorry I think I missed your link and having an issue finding it. Nevertheless, I just scanned your posts on here and I don't disagree with your calls for nuance or you argument that street signs are not a threat.
To be honest, I am not too interested in the assimilation arguments and was only trying to argue why Islam makes it so different from every one else.
Assimilation is a waste of time until the core beliefs can be fully criticized, just like those of all other religions in the world (in the west).
Until people acknowledge the 800 lb gorilla in the room, I just don't think it matters who ate or didn't eat a few bananas (grin).
I'll respond, even though you don't care to hear it.
That is part of the problem, especially in Europe and in the press in Europe and to a lesser extent here. Avoiding saying it is just obfuscation and using euphemisms to avoid speaking the truth.
Some of us use it enough. It's an accurate description, though I prefer "Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist" since it is the fundamentals of Islam that are being acted upon, used for justification and inspiration in the name of God.
For people only pushing shariah and political Islam (and not outright murdering little girls at concerts, etc,) and calling any criticism of the ideas asserted by the texts as bigots, etc. (apologists), I prefer "Islamist."
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Last night there were Muslim, Christian, Sikh, etc
My guess is that it's not JUST the religion that's the problem. You're probably less likely to see a Muslim who leads a normal day-to-day life in a Western country going all Jihad than you are if, say, they lost a bunch of family members to a stray bomb, or if they attended the public beheading of a loved one.
I don't think there's anything inherent in the religion that will corrupt your average bloke, but it does seem to be an amplifying component when blended with other factors.
Actually...I would argue that your typical non-westernized Muslims prescribe to the life and religious ideals of "enshalla" or "ensha-allah," which means life is as god wills it. This means that while there is a semblance of blood feud, etc. in response to wrongs committed against them, in general, Muslims are not nearly as reactive as they get made out to be by the public solely based on their religion. I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with your second paragraph with even more emphasis that your everyday Muslims are even less reactive to wrong done to them.
RC - You realize "God's will" in your statement is spelled out in the texts that justify submission to an ideology that embraces spreading it by the sword right ?
And of course there are various levels reactions among different groups for a variety of factors. Do you not think the protests and murders over free speech, cartoons, etc. in western europe over the last 15 years or so is reactive ? Expecting Europeans to stand up for free speech and general human morality and well-being, and human rights is not bigotry and racism.
These are all based on "ideas" no different than Nazi racial justification, just protected because they are supposedly given by God through an angel, to a warlord pedophile that rode on a flying horse ? And we are protecting these immoral ideas why ?
There are far more nuanced factors in the rise of extremism than merely religious ones that you and others are trying to generalize and vilify. However, if we want to oversimplify it like Sam Harris often does, then we can say the same for other religions when it comes to those who want to use religion to perpetuate violence against others. There is such complexity involving political, social, and economical factors that we must consider to really understand the rise and perpetuation of extremism but many people refuse to do so since religion is the low hanging fruit that's there for the picking. However, having read many of your posts on this topic over the years, I would rather not get into a back and forth with you as it will be a waste of time for you and me.
My personal experiences having dealt with hundreds of Muslims and extremism over my career and adult life go counter to your views on Islam and Muslims (not even sure what your experience with Islam and Muslims is). So I'll merely state that my argument is based on my anecdotal experiences. You don't have to agree, and honestly, I don't really care much.
Just change your handle to "Drive-By" and be done with it.
I think that's a very appropriate response unless you want to take to point out the misleading data. Victimology?
"It's a war of ideas and we are losing all the time thanks to political correctness, victimology poker, the abandonment of basic principles of human rights, moral relativism and intellectual dishonesty and fear over hurting people's feelings over "ideas."
I'm not wasting the time to point out the misleading data in his post.
I'll respond, even though you don't care to hear it.
That is part of the problem, especially in Europe and in the press in Europe and to a lesser extent here. Avoiding saying it is just obfuscation and using euphemisms to avoid speaking the truth.
Some of us use it enough. It's an accurate description, though I prefer "Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist" since it is the fundamentals of Islam that are being acted upon, used for justification and inspiration in the name of God.
For people only pushing shariah and political Islam (and not outright murdering little girls at concerts, etc,) and calling any criticism of the ideas asserted by the texts as bigots, etc. (apologists), I prefer "Islamist."
And what does it accomplish? Theres a reason why anti-terror experts don't use those words. The same reason Trump didn't in Saudi Arabia, before he left the Middle East and went to Israel. Nothing in your post is a solution to the radical Islam problem.
The US approach has been on the money over the last 10 years. Vetting of immigrants and visitors, security and the counter terrorism efforts have done excellent job.
The radicals are losing the war. Look at how the people came together in the UK today. They may pull off an attack occasionally but long term the future isn't bright for them. With education and opportunity fewer will join the cause.
My guess is that it's not JUST the religion that's the problem. You're probably less likely to see a Muslim who leads a normal day-to-day life in a Western country going all Jihad than you are if, say, they lost a bunch of family members to a stray bomb, or if they attended the public beheading of a loved one.
I don't think there's anything inherent in the religion that will corrupt your average bloke, but it does seem to be an amplifying component when blended with other factors.
Actually...I would argue that your typical non-westernized Muslims prescribe to the life and religious ideals of "enshalla" or "ensha-allah," which means life is as god wills it. This means that while there is a semblance of blood feud, etc. in response to wrongs committed against them, in general, Muslims are not nearly as reactive as they get made out to be by the public solely based on their religion. I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with your second paragraph with even more emphasis that your everyday Muslims are even less reactive to wrong done to them.
RC - You realize "God's will" in your statement is spelled out in the texts that justify submission to an ideology that embraces spreading it by the sword right ?
And of course there are various levels reactions among different groups for a variety of factors. Do you not think the protests and murders over free speech, cartoons, etc. in western europe over the last 15 years or so is reactive ? Expecting Europeans to stand up for free speech and general human morality and well-being, and human rights is not bigotry and racism.
These are all based on "ideas" no different than Nazi racial justification, just protected because they are supposedly given by God through an angel, to a warlord pedophile that rode on a flying horse ? And we are protecting these immoral ideas why ?
There are far more nuanced factors in the rise of extremism than merely religious ones that you and others are trying to generalize and vilify. However, if we want to oversimplify it like Sam Harris often does, then we can say the same for other religions when it comes to those who want to use religion to perpetuate violence against others. There is such complexity involving political, social, and economical factors that we must consider to really understand the rise and perpetuation of extremism but many people refuse to do so since religion is the low hanging fruit that's there for the picking. However, having read many of your posts on this topic over the years, I would rather not get into a back and forth with you as it will be a waste of time for you and me.
My personal experiences having dealt with hundreds of Muslims and extremism over my career and adult life go counter to your views on Islam and Muslims (not even sure what your experience with Islam and Muslims is). So I'll merely state that my argument is based on my anecdotal experiences. You don't have to agree, and honestly, I don't really care much.
RC. so basically you have no argument or evidence. I don't doubt that you have many positive experiences that provide your anecdotal information.
Now it's "low hanging fruit" to blame an ideology that promises eternal paradise for murdering innocent women and children ? Do you not blame Christian terrorists for murdering abortion doctors on the bible ?
Can you name another religion that uses religious texts to inspire and justify/validate suicide bombing/martyrdom ? Must be a low hanging shot in the dark on that one. Forgive me for seeing a link that is validated and quoted word for word, over and over again by the perpetrators. I suppose virtually every article in every issue of ISIS's magazine, for example, is "twisting" the religion.
And you can certainly say the same for many other religions to some minimal degree, of course, but as you know, no one takes the fact that it's ok to kill your neighbor for working on the sabath, seriously anymore. If there are a few that do, they deserve all the scorn we can muster, just like a large number of immoral laws described by the Islamic texts deserve.
Unfortunately, people like you would rather see free speech criticism of those ideas in the public domain, restricted and silenced. If that is not the case, maybe you could let us know why your anectodal information should suffice for us to suspend our freedom of speech principles that western civilization has fought and died for, for centuries.
You do realize that on this subject you are out right possessed, stridently argumentative, obsessed, unable to process information, learn, grow, or understand feedback, and be self aware?
I'll respond, even though you don't care to hear it.
That is part of the problem, especially in Europe and in the press in Europe and to a lesser extent here. Avoiding saying it is just obfuscation and using euphemisms to avoid speaking the truth.
Some of us use it enough. It's an accurate description, though I prefer "Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist" since it is the fundamentals of Islam that are being acted upon, used for justification and inspiration in the name of God.
For people only pushing shariah and political Islam (and not outright murdering little girls at concerts, etc,) and calling any criticism of the ideas asserted by the texts as bigots, etc. (apologists), I prefer "Islamist."
And what does it accomplish? Theres a reason why anti-terror experts don't use those words. The same reason Trump didn't in Saudi Arabia, before he left the Middle East and went to Israel. Nothing in your post is a solution to the radical Islam problem.
The US approach has been on the money over the last 10 years. Vetting of immigrants and visitors, security and the counter terrorism efforts have done excellent job.
The radicals are losing the war. Look at how the people came together in the UK today. They may pull off an attack occasionally but long term the future isn't bright for them. With education and opportunity fewer will join the cause.
RJ 30 - How about facing the truth ? Is that not enough ? I don't support rubbing peoples noses in it on their home soil. I agree that these conversations are not going to be easy. But we are heading towards a technological armageddon on this issue. I think some hurt feelings about 1400 year old superstitions might be a safer alternative. We can start by not calling everyone who calls for open dialogue on the scriptures "racists" "bigots" and "Islamophobes."
As to your take on how we are winning this war, I don't see how you could possibly argue that this is the case given the central focus of the immigration issues here and in western europe, for one example. Sure, we haven't had anything as bad as 9/11, but the volume of smaller attacks, investigations and attacks avoided, the money being spent, have all escalated greatly. France has 15,000 people on their terror list, 25% of whom are high risk. This attack last night was one person (with maybe some help along the way).
You do realize that on this subject you are out right possessed, stridently argumentative, obsessed, unable to process information, learn, grow, or understand feedback, and be self aware?
For years and years now.
Bill- I find it fun to come on here and argue this stuff once in a while. Sorry you feel that way.
You believe that calling others beliefs immoral and blaming texts a tiny tiny tiny percentage can interpret in their original language or teach from the original is necessary
You believe that calling others beliefs immoral and blaming texts a tiny tiny tiny percentage can interpret in their original language or teach from the original is necessary
Go over there and tell them
Yes, just like has been done to other religions, beliefs and texts that we as human beings, men of reason and science, have done of the years.
Not sure why you would find it so novel an idea or why you think this religion gets a pass.
in lands with the lowest consumable water, the highest number of cloudless days, some of the lowest levels of education, with only a tiny tiny few who learn the language of the Koran at universities, with great despotism, scarcity of expression, the fewest media outlets per nation and where they do not test for or notice or treat or counsel schizophrenia, bi polar, depression, OCD, ADHD, PTSD...where often the mosque is the only hope for answers, charity and truth to power...the only essential first step to solutions is telling them their religion is the worst in the world.
Cool. Maybe you are right. Why are you on a football message board? The flight to Bahrain is $884 dollars round trip.
My point is not to wish you to go there
My point is that you are extremely passionate about a subject where there is no useful audience for your point
in lands with the lowest consumable water, the highest number of cloudless days, some of the lowest levels of education, with only a tiny tiny few who learn the language of the Koran at universities, with great despotism, scarcity of expression, the fewest media outlets per nation and where they do not test for or notice or treat or counsel schizophrenia, bi polar, depression, OCD, ADHD, PTSD...where often the mosque is the only hope for answers, charity and truth to power...the only essential first step to solutions is telling them their religion is the worst in the world.
Cool. Maybe you are right. Why are you on a football message board? The flight to Bahrain is $884 dollars round trip.
My point is not to wish you to go there
My point is that you are extremely passionate about a subject where there is no useful audience for your point
Great to see you. Gonna steer clear of this debate, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the Philippines if you have a second. Hope you're doing well.
If, the point is to understand, influence and promote a better, safer world - it would be worth considering why modern Christian and Jewish societies have less religion-inspired violence. Especially considering the root texts for both religions upon academic analysis prove to be more violent and violence promoting.
It might be worth considering the impacts of poverty, access to education, impacts of generations of war, government corruption, and occupations, might be causes and religious, violent extremism might be symptoms.
But only if the point is to promote a better, safer world.
I guess i would toss one more question into the closed loop:
If the religion is so prone to follow the exact letter of the Koran then:
How come they dont charge us on horseback or camelback? Its prescribed in the Koran. True.
how come they would ever allow a woman from an foreign country be seen with out covering her head? Its in the same Koran you say they follow to the letter?
And how come if they follow the letter of the Koran...this is a problem thought pattern that started in 1938? If the Koran is the problem how come the Thomas Cook Company took newlyweds to the Middle East since King George III and they all came back? Did they lose the Koran from 1700 to 1938? I mean if the only reason is the violence in the Koran is official and fully followed by all the followers of this worst of all religions...how come Queen Victoria ever came back from her vacation?
who taught for 40 years at the University of Cairo. She was not 110 pounds. She was a German Protestant and not a nice person and never wore anything but second hand Chanel and stole a lot of their artifacts and never made more than any other teacher ( not very much) and walked to school from a poor section of town.
She came back without a scratch.
Must have been no Koran in Eygpt during those 40 years
What is the range of belief and questioning and compliance to the Koran?
from zero to approaching 100, just like anything else.
Quote:
So you really think they dont self examine and search for answers ?
I don't believe I ever would say such a thing. There is no evidence to suggest this of which I am aware.
Quote:
Alone of all humans...they dont self reflect? Really?
ditto...of course not. it's the problem with the questioning of the texts outside of oneself that is the issue. e.g. opening one's mouth about it. The texts are clear on the individual's right to interpret for themselves, but that doesn't allow for contrarian views to be aired. Add on the penalties, etc., and the recipe becomes clear.
Quote:
Then why are their so many offshoots?
There are certainly a ton of different interpretations, it's just that so few of them refute the recurring dogma that inspires the violence, penalties for apostates, blasphemy, etc. And none bow to human rights or the rights of non-Muslims unless it is coincidental.
Quote:
With the full range of interpretations humans give from rejection to absorbtion
yes, of course, but this means very little when questioning it's validity brings punishment, murder for cartoons, etc.
Quote:
And a Mike...in this century which religion has killed the most non believers in horrible ways ? Budhism or Islam?
Please expand. A core virtue of Buddhism is not to injure anyone. One would have to go through hoops to find a justification in the texts, certainly as it compares to Islam. Not to say Buddhists have not caused tribal violence, it's just that it is not supported by even a liberal interpretation of the texts. Perhaps you mean the zen buddhism aspects of kamikazes or something to do with Mao. Not sure what you mean.
Quote:
Careful...facts are inconvenient
Would be happy to see facts that potentially change my mind. Feel free to give them or suggest any articles or books that make arguments that dispute mine. I will gladly read, respond and thank you for it.
Its all there if you wanted to be an expert on the connection between religious inspired violence, genocide, mass killings in the name of religious interpretations.
If you want to be an expert in the worlds worst religion then challenge your self. Think a a family with their hands and ears sliced off by the DKBA thinks that Islam is the worst religion?
What about the series of Burmese kings who killed all practioners of the slightly different strains of Buddhism that was practiced by their predecessors...because their priests insisted it was written?
I guess i would toss one more question into the closed loop:
If the religion is so prone to follow the exact letter of the Koran then:
How come they dont charge us on horseback or camelback? Its prescribed in the Koran. True.
how come they would ever allow a woman from an foreign country be seen with out covering her head? Its in the same Koran you say they follow to the letter?
And how come if they follow the letter of the Koran...this is a problem thought pattern that started in 1938? If the Koran is the problem how come the Thomas Cook Company took newlyweds to the Middle East since King George III and they all came back? Did they lose the Koran from 1700 to 1938? I mean if the only reason is the violence in the Koran is official and fully followed by all the followers of this worst of all religions...how come Queen Victoria ever came back from her vacation?
You are picking out exceptions to make the same point over and over. That it's not all Muslims, that parts of the Quran are interpreted by some as being more or less literal, that there are conflicts (of course there are, it was written and interpreted by thousands of different human beings).
The fact that you need to even make such arguments shows that we are not discussing evidence. We have been through this a few times before. I do not blame evolution, people, free will or anything else and I accept that people are doing and have done the best they can given their circumstances, including all Muslims.
You are searching for nuance that I agree 100% exists, I don't doubt that I am mostly at fault for being argumentative and a dick about it. Do I really need to say over and over again "it's not all Muslims?" and the rest of it ? Granted, you make the arguments in a much more knowledgeable and sophisticated way than anyone else, but it doesn't change the fact that your argument is based upon the same logic.
Yes, not all Germans were Nazis, and not all Nazis killed Jews. Doesn't change the core anti-semitic ideology and laws created around those beliefs of Nazism.
Ditto on your aunt. Is that supposed to be evidence for a debate we are having that I don't know about ? When did I argue that parts and eras of Islamic history weren't more tolerant than others ?
Some jews survived late 30s Germany and got out before the laws changed, or were even allowed to leave. Doesn't change what happened once the ideology took root and people stopped fighting against it, until there was no choice and 70 million people died (many other nations/civil war/factors of course).
Not sure how that is supposed to dispute the evidence that people act up beliefs that are made clear in the texts when they are able to do so, and when there is little public dispute (other than secular or non-secular tyrants/rulers enforcing laws to the degree that they are able).
This is not about the past or casting blame on people who were responsible for letting it get where we are, it's about the insulation from criticism that this one ideology is granted. And we have clearly seen where this has led us, as well as the current trajectory. What Burmese kings did because of their priests is nothing more than a reminder of what happens when ideas spin out of control in the name of religion/God.
If people would rather not discuss it and just assume I see the world as black and white and am a reactionary/bigot/racist/etc, that is fine. I am certainly guilty of making similar judgements of other people, based on their refusal to acknowledge all the slightest evidence that there is a link between Islam and terrorism and arguing for ignoring it, or that no good will come from discussing it.
And your points about certainty all go without saying. The fact that you need to make those points indicate that I am doing a horrible job arguing and/or you feel they put me in my place as someone who is taking the easy way out and just wants to blame all Muslims for all the ills in the world. At this point, I'm not sure what I can say to convince you otherwise.
Either way, it's totally cool and I always appreciate your contributions and the thought-provocation that follows it.
If, the point is to understand, influence and promote a better, safer world - it would be worth considering why modern Christian and Jewish societies have less religion-inspired violence. Especially considering the root texts for both religions upon academic analysis prove to be more violent and violence promoting.
It might be worth considering the impacts of poverty, access to education, impacts of generations of war, government corruption, and occupations, might be causes and religious, violent extremism might be symptoms.
But only if the point is to promote a better, safer world.
Christian - Why do you feel the need to put such effort into justifying a reason to debate "ideas." Aren't we smart enough to see when people are using it for demagoguery and other self-serving and evil motives, generally ? Ideas should stand on their own merit or be cast into the historical dustbin, no ?
it's a fair question to ask what in Islam is giving encouragement and comfort to those who would do this. And some of the literature on the subject, such as the work of Efraim Karsh, does a good job of explaining this in its historical context.
Seventy years ago, it would have been a fair question to ask what in Christianity led to anti-Semitism, because for much of Christian history Jews living within or near Christian communities had been treated poorly, often quite brutally. Even if the Holocaust wasn't directed by people who were Christian in any meaningful sense of the word, plenty of the people who participated in it in Germany and especially in Nazi-occupied territory were living out decades or centuries-old hatreds. At this point, that question doesn't seem particularly apposite, but the intersection of history and faith throughout the Christian era suggested seventy years ago that it was.
So again, I don't think it's an unfair, bigoted question to ask of Islam and terrorism. But as Bill points out in quite learned fashion, it's equally fair to rejoin that for centuries Westerners, including unveiled women, walked freely in much of the Muslim world, and the present state of affairs may be better understood as being as much the product of history as of faith, or at least of particularized interpretations of that faith that are powerful now, again for unique historical reasons.
You can call a spade a spade, but make sure you're actually describing a spade and not just echoing an undergrad blogger with a shelf full of David Horowitz and Sam Harris tomes.
Assuming the goal is reduction/elimination of violent terrorism. Understanding the actors are not centralized and operate within stable and unstable societies that support, cause, condone and object to varying degrees. And understanding the most efficient resolution to any problem is understanding the cause and attacking the root.
Why have Muslim majority societies operated without violent terrorism in many regions for swaths of 100s of years? Why do Muslim majority nations and societies operate without violent terrorism now? Why have Muslim majority societies contextualized violent texts to time and place effectively for giants swaths of time? Is it more likely there are inherent differences in the humanity of Muslim societies that condone and act out in terror or differences in the conditions they live?
Why do violent texts leap from the dustpan into the present for societies routinely across theological and philosophical boundaries, time and time again throughout history?
Ending the discussion at "Islam bad" is boring.
But just for fun, it is zero sum, what's the solution?
Islam was ascendant under various standards for roughly a millennium. It wasn't until the 18th and 19th Century that it became clear that the Ottoman Empire - still nominally a caliphate - was hopelessly moribund and that the industrialized or industrializing Western powers could effectively impose their will. Although violence against non-Muslims or against perceived apostasy had occurred throughout history, some of the first instances of significant violence against minority communities within Muslim territories began after it became clear that they could not match the West militarily. And with a few exceptions (Gallipolli, the defeat of the invading Greek army after WWI, Afghanistan against the Russians, arguably the early stages of ISIS) Muslim-controlled countries have not been able to stand toe to toe with Western armies. So suicide attacks against Western armies and Western-allied governments and then suicide attacks against the West itself can be seen almost as a response to impotence. It is fairly easy to find holes in that or exceptions to it, but it's at least a coherent explanation.
Islam was ascendant under various standards for roughly a millennium. It wasn't until the 18th and 19th Century that it became clear that the Ottoman Empire - still nominally a caliphate - was hopelessly moribund and that the industrialized or industrializing Western powers could effectively impose their will. Although violence against non-Muslims or against perceived apostasy had occurred throughout history, some of the first instances of significant violence against minority communities within Muslim territories began after it became clear that they could not match the West militarily. And with a few exceptions (Gallipolli, the defeat of the invading Greek army after WWI, Afghanistan against the Russians, arguably the early stages of ISIS) Muslim-controlled countries have not been able to stand toe to toe with Western armies. So suicide attacks against Western armies and Western-allied governments and then suicide attacks against the West itself can be seen almost as a response to impotence. It is fairly easy to find holes in that or exceptions to it, but it's at least a coherent explanation.
Something that seems to be given short shrift here is the impact of tribe as opposed to, or in conjunction with, religion.
BTW, any response to my comment on the Philippines?
that there is no central or leading figure in Islam beyond Mohammad and the Quran. There is no Pope of Bishop of Canterbury. Each Imam or Ayatollah is free to interpret the Quran as he sees fit or as it matches his ideology in order to attract followers. With 2 billion followers worldwide, it is quite easy to find radicals and while the % is quite small, the ultimate size of the religion means there will be a significant number of the more radical interpretations of the Quran. 0.1% of 1000 is 1. 0.1% of 2 Billion is 2 million.
That explanation would make more sense if nations were behind the terror attacks. While Iran and some Saudi bad actors may provide some funding and support, for the most part it's a small group of extremists with no ties to a country.
Many of the attacks ISIS claims responsibility for were carried out by some nut with no real ties to ISIS other watching a video.
That crap is what I find most frustrating. It's complete BS and insinuates "liberal" policies support the terrorists. I can't think of a more stupid or counterproductive argument. Note how they don't provide a specific examples of what the policy should be and they completely ignore the success currents policies are having in preventing attacks. It's the perfect Fox News meme.
Did you know that the US undertook military actions against the Muslim minority jihads in 1899 and 1903 and 1905?
Islam got to the Philipines in the 13th century. If not for spanish conquest in the 1500s, the Phillipines, like Indonesia, would still be Muslim
As we know, the Spanish followed the ancient scripts as did the muslims. One of them had guns. So obviously, the best script won.
But the exception was the Moros on Mindano who held out against Spanish conquest and conversion.
Because they were more fundamentalist? No. Because the Chinese threatened to attack the Spanish and drove them away in the 1600s.
"When the American came in 1899, The native Moro Muslims and Lumads were supplanted by American colonization programs, with Christians from other islands assigned control of key areas and disrupting the natives' administrative structures to support the United States' dominion and extraction of food and lumber." ( Handbook of Terror and Insurgency of Southeast Asia)
When food is needed the the Philippine government, Philippine military and Filipino militias used extremely violent tactics against natives to support the settlers they wanted to seed the island. The government and the US corporations ( kind of a money laden web right there) targeted a Christian population of 75% Christians from the more crowded and less fertile islands. The forced colonization became quite violent and approached genocidal . Which the Christians said the Bible justified. The Moros fought back. Which they said the Quran justified. Money won. Resentment of generations was set in motion
Over time, the native locals have used their identity as islam and at times tried communism as an powerful way to redress wrongs (and raise money from China) and back to islam led rationales for fighting the imported structures.
over the century the muslims got agitated and then calmed as non religious issues took prominence. In particular they fought with the US against the Japanese
Now....is it religion or money?
Ok...take a timeline from 1565. Note the correlation of Chinese desire for food and lumber and the virulence of Islamic reaction.
So what is the cause here?
Money?
Colonization?
Strict following of ancient texts?
Off shore oil?
I say lets not look at any complexities. I read on BBI the only answer is to condemn the violence of the worlds only bad religion. If we dont do that then no solution will ever work.
As you all know, for most of the last century high end wood furniture was made of mahogany as our own reserves of cherry and walnut ( used the most in colonial and 19th century furniture ( witness the use of cherry in the Arts and Crafts Movement furniture moved to oak as cherry got more expensive).
Most of the early American use of Mahogany comes from Honduras ( which was too expensive when it required tax to the Brits as it used to be British Honduras) until it was taxed and logged to fast.
Then the majority of it came from Mindano.
So that heirloom from your kindly grandmother got here when our corporations got poor but pliable Christians to log it as opposed to the natives who were Islamic and like...inconveniently owned the land.
Now honorable Chinese corporations want things to slide back their way while dishonorable Chinese organizations want to sell everyone heroin and meth.
So as you can see they hate us for our freedom and their Quran absolutely requires them to be barbarians. Even the little children. When are we going to start condemming this worst of all possible religions?
Why are all you people liberal do gooders who think being PC is a solution?
Its them. They are evil. With an evil religion they all follow. Its an evil book. Its time we told them that.
is used to address these terrorist attacks makes any real difference other than making certain people feel better. There's definite downsides, as it basically means Western liberal democracies (small "l", obviously) are taking the bait that ISIS is laying out for us.
I've said it before, but ISIS is not going to kill everyone in the west by killing 20 people every couple months, as horrible and despicable as these attacks are.
They are trying to bait the West into declaring war on their entire religion. This will make it easier to recruit, and will fulfill the "prophecy" of the holy war that they believe they are divinely guaranteed to win.
As for the actual problem itself, I'm not sure what to do...but I do know that there are areas of the country that have significant Muslim immigrant populations, including NYC, Dearborn, Minnesota, and New England, where the immigrant community is essentially the same as any other new immigrant generation.
Living in NYC, you deal with Muslim immigrants every day. Going to Rutgers, I know a significant number of Muslims. They're just regular people, and it really puts into perspective that these are just, well, normal dudes, and taking ISIS's bait is playing into their hands.
Then say get rid of all Muslims and the problem is over. Simple on the surface and we are about 40% simple minded people.
If you took a poll and asked people if we should ban all Muslims from the country, or did so right after an attack...want to bet you would get 35-40% would say yes?
The "Certain" followers all religions I know of ( and followers of a religion range from certain to uncertain and the majority cant stay consistently in one mind to begin with) have a great deal of difficulty with modernity.
This is especially true of isolated places, harsh places low in an easy life, and worlds with few outlets and the principle of free speech. Logically, those places have a high percentage of folks who are "certain" and the price of being different when resources are scarce are quite high.
The most interesting example of this are the cargo cults of some Southern Pacific islands.
Most are animist worshipers of natural objects and superstitions since pre history.
Many islands did not see ships since they were off the shipping lanes of wind driven vessels. So their worlds were no different in 1938AD than 1938BC.
However in WWII strange gods moved across the water in the distance trailing smoke. Now power driven ships could take direct lanes regardless of the winds.
Sometimes things they never saw before would wash up on shore. Gifts of the new gods to the people. For being good.
What did the wise men say? The obvious answer is pray to the new gods.
What happened?
Well they did not know anything about WWII. What they saw is that by praying to the new gods...more ships came.
Some sent sparks and soon giant fly's swarmed with the gods. Many were tankers and supply ships but they did not know that. Sometimes ships would break up and sink...but they only saw times of great gifts wash up on shore.
The praying intensified for clearly they were reaching the new gods and the new gods were rewarding them.
The cargo cult religions were rewarded for their devotion for unbeknownst to them after the war...shipping increased as the post war economy of Asia got better.
in the 1950s to the 1980s ( yes that recently) most of these islands came in contact with the actual world. Sickness and disease followed. Incomprehensible things occurred.
The Reaction? We got what we deserved abandoning the old gods and the old prayers.
Michael Rockefeller likely perished washed up on shore in 1964 ( If memory serves) to be killed and perhaps eaten y cargo cult cannibals.
Lets not forget to condemm them for their religion. One of the worst in the world and clearly inferior to ours.
Simple. If they are inconvenient...its their books...whoops I mean their palm fronds and rock scratches and their books
Then say get rid of all Muslims and the problem is over. Simple on the surface and we are about 40% simple minded people.
If you took a poll and asked people if we should ban all Muslims from the country, or did so right after an attack...want to bet you would get 35-40% would say yes?
I wouldn't take that bet, you're probably right.
What would be interesting, however, is what the % would be in places where there actually *is* a statistically significant Muslim immigrant population. I wonder what that number would look like in Dearborn or Minnesota (which, as I understand, has a big Somali population).
RE: I don't understand how changing the verbiage that
is used to address these terrorist attacks makes any real difference other than making certain people feel better. There's definite downsides, as it basically means Western liberal democracies (small "l", obviously) are taking the bait that ISIS is laying out for us.
I've said it before, but ISIS is not going to kill everyone in the west by killing 20 people every couple months, as horrible and despicable as these attacks are.
They are trying to bait the West into declaring war on their entire religion. This will make it easier to recruit, and will fulfill the "prophecy" of the holy war that they believe they are divinely guaranteed to win.
As for the actual problem itself, I'm not sure what to do...but I do know that there are areas of the country that have significant Muslim immigrant populations, including NYC, Dearborn, Minnesota, and New England, where the immigrant community is essentially the same as any other new immigrant generation.
Living in NYC, you deal with Muslim immigrants every day. Going to Rutgers, I know a significant number of Muslims. They're just regular people, and it really puts into perspective that these are just, well, normal dudes, and taking ISIS's bait is playing into their hands.
Most of what you said about Muslims in the US is true and that is because the rest of America doesn't care what your religion is, as long as you don't try to force it down somebody's throat.
However, ISIS is going to overrun territories because they believe in the Caliphate - not because someone is calling them Radical Islamist Terrorists. When they were winning and seemed invincible, they recruited well. Now that they are losing, recruiting is not so good and their fighters are defecting.
ISIS is not baiting anybody except their own believers. They are for real in their belief in the Caliphate and don't need the West to enhance their goals. If every western trooper left Syria and Iraq right now and left them alone they wouldn't stop, they'd march right through any place that did not oppose them militarily.
Al Qaeda wanted westerners out of the Middle East and especially out of the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia) - they really weren't looking for expansion outside of the M.E., except maybe Ayman al-Zawahiri, and he was pretty much ignored. ISIS is looking at the world - remember they are on a mission from God.
RE: RE: I don't understand how changing the verbiage that
is used to address these terrorist attacks makes any real difference other than making certain people feel better. There's definite downsides, as it basically means Western liberal democracies (small "l", obviously) are taking the bait that ISIS is laying out for us.
I've said it before, but ISIS is not going to kill everyone in the west by killing 20 people every couple months, as horrible and despicable as these attacks are.
They are trying to bait the West into declaring war on their entire religion. This will make it easier to recruit, and will fulfill the "prophecy" of the holy war that they believe they are divinely guaranteed to win.
As for the actual problem itself, I'm not sure what to do...but I do know that there are areas of the country that have significant Muslim immigrant populations, including NYC, Dearborn, Minnesota, and New England, where the immigrant community is essentially the same as any other new immigrant generation.
Living in NYC, you deal with Muslim immigrants every day. Going to Rutgers, I know a significant number of Muslims. They're just regular people, and it really puts into perspective that these are just, well, normal dudes, and taking ISIS's bait is playing into their hands.
Most of what you said about Muslims in the US is true and that is because the rest of America doesn't care what your religion is, as long as you don't try to force it down somebody's throat.
However, ISIS is going to overrun territories because they believe in the Caliphate - not because someone is calling them Radical Islamist Terrorists. When they were winning and seemed invincible, they recruited well. Now that they are losing, recruiting is not so good and their fighters are defecting.
ISIS is not baiting anybody except their own believers. They are for real in their belief in the Caliphate and don't need the West to enhance their goals. If every western trooper left Syria and Iraq right now and left them alone they wouldn't stop, they'd march right through any place that did not oppose them militarily.
Al Qaeda wanted westerners out of the Middle East and especially out of the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia) - they really weren't looking for expansion outside of the M.E., except maybe Ayman al-Zawahiri, and he was pretty much ignored. ISIS is looking at the world - remember they are on a mission from God.
Well yeah, but I don't see how what you wrote is different from anything I wrote.
The "bait" is just an in between step. You're right, they wouldn't stop if Westerners left the ME, because they want a holy war to ensure so that their Caliphate is supreme.
But in order to do this, they need the holy war to materialize, and this entails the rest of the world declaring war on Islam and Muslims.
On a practical level, this also helps their recruiting.
So I don't really see where we are at odds with one another except when you say that they aren't baiting the West.
Terrorist attacks serve a purpose beyond simply killing people, and in this case, the purpose seems to be to create a war between Muslims and the rest of the world.
but onto one last point to njm and Dune: I dont think it will get better anytime soon.
As no growth continues in Europe and the social welfare economies of the Gulf take a beating from less than half the price of oil in the past...its the Pakistanis and Palestinians who do the grunt work who will get sent out into the world without jobs, homes or a future.
Add the aftershocks of our last bubble still not re paid and a collapsing made up bubble in China and the pressure is high in a lot of the world for awhile.
In chaos the search for Certainty reaches desperate levels for too many people
but onto one last point to njm and Dune: I dont think it will get better anytime soon.
As no growth continues in Europe and the social welfare economies of the Gulf take a beating from less than half the price of oil in the past...its the Pakistanis and Palestinians who do the grunt work who will get sent out into the world without jobs, homes or a future.
Add the aftershocks of our last bubble still not re paid and a collapsing made up bubble in China and the pressure is high in a lot of the world for awhile.
In chaos the search for Certainty reaches desperate levels for too many people
ISIS may be driven out of Mosul and Raqqa, but that doesn't change the unemployment rate of youth in the region, where they make up, what, 40% of the population. And refugees in Europe may have homes, but they don't have jobs or a future. And it will be interesting to see how Europeans react when their state controlled retirement benefit continue to be spent on (ungrateful) refugee social programs 2-3 years down the road. And the Greek, Italian and Spanish debt issues might not be in the headlines but they haven't gone away. While the names may change, the possibilities for ISIS 2.0 (with shadow ME Islamist financing) and Le Pen 2.0 are very real.
Add to that Moody's downgrading Chines debt today, probably years after it should have happened.
But pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
RE: RE: I don't understand how changing the verbiage that
Al Qaeda wanted westerners out of the Middle East and especially out of the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia) - they really weren't looking for expansion outside of the M.E., except maybe Ayman al-Zawahiri, and he was pretty much ignored. ISIS is looking at the world - remember they are on a mission from God.
Section-That was/is just there shorter term goal and certainly more emphasized and reported, as you would expect. Their longer term goal is martyrdom or complete victory for the one true faith. It's appealing because they can never lose. The belief system nullifies all other goals and people who don't understand this commonly assign a wealth of other motives to their behavior. This was made clear in more of AQs direct communications to Muslims and less so to the US and west.
But the goal of brining Islam to America and getting us to stop our immoral ways was made clear (one of) his letters to America. Link below. Link - ( New Window )
I don't think it was exactly as cut and dry as simply bringing Islam, in general, to America. These weren't missionaries (and you know that).
It was about bringing the US under the rule of radical Islam law.
I didn't read this whole thread, and considering the length (and my knowledge of your views via previous threads) I'm assuming that a large part of this was taken up by you and others debating whether "bringing Islam" is the same as "bringing under hard-line Islamic law".
The way you put it sure does sound like you think the mere presence of Islam is somehow an existential threat.
RE: RE: RE: I don't understand how changing the verbiage that
Well yeah, but I don't see how what you wrote is different from anything I wrote.
The "bait" is just an in between step. You're right, they wouldn't stop if Westerners left the ME, because they want a holy war to ensure so that their Caliphate is supreme.
But in order to do this, they need the holy war to materialize, and this entails the rest of the world declaring war on Islam and Muslims.
On a practical level, this also helps their recruiting.
So I don't really see where we are at odds with one another except when you say that they aren't baiting the West.
Terrorist attacks serve a purpose beyond simply killing people, and in this case, the purpose seems to be to create a war between Muslims and the rest of the world.
They don't need the rest of the world to declare war as evidenced by what they have done for the past 4 years. They have already declared war on the non-Muslim world. The rest of the world won't return the favor - apathy. They'll get push back from the US, UK and France, but most of their war will come from M.E. kingdoms protecting their countries. If they try to push through Turkey to get to Europe, Turkey will destroy them. Heck with minimal backing the Kurds have pretty much handed them their heads.
The rest of the Muslim world doesn't seem to want to participate, why should the West, except to pick away at their locals?
You do know that they do examine and self examine and have many different schools of thought about most subjects relating to their state and religion?
Lawrence Wright is just one place to start on this aspect of the topic. Then read his sources and bibliography he used.
Yes, big fan of LW and have read a lot of other sources since 9/11. It may seem that I only consider the viewpoints of people like SH and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who I recently met randomly at SFO...greatest person I could ever imagine meeting outside of my musical heroes....she is a true hero and the bravest person in the world, IMO), etc., but the truth is I never read any of their books until the last 2 years or so.
I have found that they make the best arguments based on the evidence they provide versus others. Sure, you can argue for a lot of other factors that exacerbate the problems (US foreign policy, poverty, history and culture) and all that is fantastic reading and information for looking at the problem from all the angles. But I have found the evidence of the dogma overwhelming (obviously). One can argue about how the interpretations vary greatly and choose different verses, but when there is so much God approved violence and intolerance to choose from (even setting aside the example set my Mo), the outcome of the beliefs is maps directly to the behavior and words of the perpetrators.
Don't want to beat a dead horse more than I already have so I'll stay away for a while.
That explanation would make more sense if nations were behind the terror attacks. While Iran and some Saudi bad actors may provide some funding and support, for the most part it's a small group of extremists with no ties to a country.
Many of the attacks ISIS claims responsibility for were carried out by some nut with no real ties to ISIS other watching a video.
That's not what I was suggesting. I was referring to the impotence of the Muslim world, exemplified in the impotence of the armies of Muslim countries, inspiring violence against minority communities within those countries and, more recently, violence against the non-Muslim West. Such violence need not take place under the rubric of state action, especially not if it is the impotence of those states that is the catalyst for the violence. Again, its a simple explanation and one that I don't necessarily accept as a complete one, but I think there is a kernel of truth to it.
RE: RE: RE: RE: I don't understand how changing the verbiage that
Well yeah, but I don't see how what you wrote is different from anything I wrote.
The "bait" is just an in between step. You're right, they wouldn't stop if Westerners left the ME, because they want a holy war to ensure so that their Caliphate is supreme.
But in order to do this, they need the holy war to materialize, and this entails the rest of the world declaring war on Islam and Muslims.
On a practical level, this also helps their recruiting.
So I don't really see where we are at odds with one another except when you say that they aren't baiting the West.
Terrorist attacks serve a purpose beyond simply killing people, and in this case, the purpose seems to be to create a war between Muslims and the rest of the world.
They don't need the rest of the world to declare war as evidenced by what they have done for the past 4 years. They have already declared war on the non-Muslim world. The rest of the world won't return the favor - apathy. They'll get push back from the US, UK and France, but most of their war will come from M.E. kingdoms protecting their countries. If they try to push through Turkey to get to Europe, Turkey will destroy them. Heck with minimal backing the Kurds have pretty much handed them their heads.
The rest of the Muslim world doesn't seem to want to participate, why should the West, except to pick away at their locals?
What I'm trying to say is they are trying to get the rest of the world to reciprocate and declare war.
I don't think it was exactly as cut and dry as simply bringing Islam, in general, to America. These weren't missionaries (and you know that).
It was about bringing the US under the rule of radical Islam law.
I didn't read this whole thread, and considering the length (and my knowledge of your views via previous threads) I'm assuming that a large part of this was taken up by you and others debating whether "bringing Islam" is the same as "bringing under hard-line Islamic law".
The way you put it sure does sound like you think the mere presence of Islam is somehow an existential threat.
Sonic- If you are addressing me, then I want to respond. I think Islam is an existential threat (setting aside all the issues around human rights and focusing on outright slaughter of infidels), ONLY to the extent that it is not subject to criticism from all under the banner of free speech and it's depending on the likelihood of being reformed.
But I do not see the practice of Islam in the US as being a threat in and of itself (and certainly not an existential one), and I whole heartedly support freedom of religion, as long as it doesn't harm people, even if I think they are all bogus.....but of course it depends on the goals of any one or two people carrying out an operation. It certainly is an existential threat to a gay person dancing at The Pulse in Orlando or a coworker of the San Bernardino jackass.
Needs to be balanced about technological capabilities (nuclear bombs, etc) and the timeline of spread of Islamism, opportunities for ISIS types to get weapons and get them into the west. There is not doubt they will be used as soon as they are able to do so.
RE: RE: RE: RE: I don't understand how changing the verbiage that
Well yeah, but I don't see how what you wrote is different from anything I wrote.
The "bait" is just an in between step. You're right, they wouldn't stop if Westerners left the ME, because they want a holy war to ensure so that their Caliphate is supreme.
But in order to do this, they need the holy war to materialize, and this entails the rest of the world declaring war on Islam and Muslims.
On a practical level, this also helps their recruiting.
So I don't really see where we are at odds with one another except when you say that they aren't baiting the West.
Terrorist attacks serve a purpose beyond simply killing people, and in this case, the purpose seems to be to create a war between Muslims and the rest of the world.
They don't need the rest of the world to declare war as evidenced by what they have done for the past 4 years. They have already declared war on the non-Muslim world. The rest of the world won't return the favor - apathy. They'll get push back from the US, UK and France, but most of their war will come from M.E. kingdoms protecting their countries. If they try to push through Turkey to get to Europe, Turkey will destroy them. Heck with minimal backing the Kurds have pretty much handed them their heads.
The rest of the Muslim world doesn't seem to want to participate, why should the West, except to pick away at their locals?
Don't forget that beyond the different ME kingdoms you have the great Sunni-Shia divide and all the tribes with their own territories and agendas. The idea of a unified Islam is a myth.
But with respect to the most extreme groups, the ultimate goal is impose strict (stricter than Wahabi?) sharia law to the US and all the west.
For the lost petty criminals in Europe, thats the lure of ISIS: to channel their frustration and sociopathy into a cause larger than themselves, to get the fame and recognition they seek, however distorted, and to finally have a chance to give that in-your-face middle finger to society, they hope, as a looping video on BBC or CNN or MSNBC or Fox, or as a viral video on social media.
I know this is not feasible, and I know it may sound like a joke, but I honestly believe that if the media were to reveal and report upon every humiliation suffered by the perpetrator, every embarrassing act and shortcoming they can get their hands on, that would actually present a deterrent.
but there are a lot of common threads between many of the foot soldiers flocking to join ISIS and the Taliban's foot soldiers coming from Pakistan and Afghanistan. Whether through foreign money or through opium sales, fighting with the Taliban was a way for young men with little or no economic opportunity to make money, to potentially afford to have a family (polygamy and everything that entails prices many men in that part of the world out of marriage and fatherhood), etc etc. If they survive a few campaign seasons, they're relatively affluent, they're powerful and they command respect. If they don't do so, they're destined to be paeans for the rest of their lives.
In some ways, the same is true in Western Europe. For a variety of reasons, the economic and even marriage prospects of poor Muslim immigrants or refugees, or their children, can be quite poor. Foreign fighters go from being irrelevant in a land whose rule by secular, European forces again reinforces that impotence to being powerful, to being wealthy (at least they're told they'll be wealthy - the loss of ISIS financial resources has limited this) and to a chance at familial and temporal success. Piety/zeal is useful but not especially necessary.
So the appeal of jihadism is quite comprehensible. The lone wolf terrorists may combine this with piety or zeal, or they may simply have enough psychopathy or sociopathy and the right coaching to get them to the point where they're willing to commit suicide attacks.
I don't think it was exactly as cut and dry as simply bringing Islam, in general, to America. These weren't missionaries (and you know that).
It was about bringing the US under the rule of radical Islam law.
I didn't read this whole thread, and considering the length (and my knowledge of your views via previous threads) I'm assuming that a large part of this was taken up by you and others debating whether "bringing Islam" is the same as "bringing under hard-line Islamic law".
The way you put it sure does sound like you think the mere presence of Islam is somehow an existential threat.
Sonic- If you are addressing me, then I want to respond. I think Islam is an existential threat (setting aside all the issues around human rights and focusing on outright slaughter of infidels), ONLY to the extent that it is not subject to criticism from all under the banner of free speech and it's depending on the likelihood of being reformed.
But I do not see the practice of Islam in the US as being a threat in and of itself (and certainly not an existential one), and I whole heartedly support freedom of religion, as long as it doesn't harm people, even if I think they are all bogus.....but of course it depends on the goals of any one or two people carrying out an operation. It certainly is an existential threat to a gay person dancing at The Pulse in Orlando or a coworker of the San Bernardino jackass.
Needs to be balanced about technological capabilities (nuclear bombs, etc) and the timeline of spread of Islamism, opportunities for ISIS types to get weapons and get them into the west. There is not doubt they will be used as soon as they are able to do so.
You know, the way you've stated your views here is quite reasonable.
I do agree you on something you probably wouldn't expect me to, being that I'm fairly liberal (as known by previous discussions on the board)...
I think it's absurd that for some reason, criticism about the religion itself is somehow off limits to a portion of liberals (or rather, they view it to be).
I'm much more aligned with Bill Maher on this one. OBVIOUSLY I support freedom of religion, and I do not think anyone should be judged for their religion on an individual basis.
But when people act like any criticism of Islam is equivalent to actually discriminating against Muslims, it's absurd and ridiculous. I don't think saying that there needs to be some sort of liberalization within Islam (as has occurred in most strains of other Abrahamic religions) is tantamount to Islamophobia.
For the lost petty criminals in Europe, thats the lure of ISIS: to channel their frustration and sociopathy into a cause larger than themselves, to get the fame and recognition they seek, however distorted, and to finally have a chance to give that in-your-face middle finger to society, they hope, as a looping video on BBC or CNN or MSNBC or Fox, or as a viral video on social media.
I know this is not feasible, and I know it may sound like a joke, but I honestly believe that if the media were to reveal and report upon every humiliation suffered by the perpetrator, every embarrassing act and shortcoming they can get their hands on, that would actually present a deterrent.
That's why the Bush administration went to great lengths to label the 911 actors as drunks who hung out in strip bars.
But when people act like any criticism of Islam is equivalent to actually discriminating against Muslims, it's absurd and ridiculous. I don't think saying that there needs to be some sort of liberalization within Islam (as has occurred in most strains of other Abrahamic religions) is tantamount to Islamophobia.
Yes, that certainly occurs and it's certainly maddening, particularly when such people are very often the sorts who'd cheerfully jump on any bandwagon that criticizes Western religion. Even Maher's own audience often consists of people who laugh gleefully every time he chides Christianity, but get very uncomfortable when his target changes to Islam.
Yes, there are certainly many liberals who won't deign to be critical of something if that criticism might mar their conspicuous efforts to appear worldly, enlightened and sympathetic. But those people should pretty much just be ignored.
Most often I see people pointing to passages in the Koran. Passages that if carried out in real life would horrify me. And yet my holy book, the Torah, calls for some really nasty stuff too.
Samuel 15:3's call for genocide of the Amalekites: Now, go, and you shall smite Amalek, and you shall utterly destroy all that is his, and you shall not have pity on him: and you shall slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'
Sweet Psalm 137 with this gem: "O Daughter of Babylon, who is destined to be plundered, praiseworthy is he who repays you your recompense that you have done to us. Praiseworthy is he who will take and dash your infants against the rock."
Now is that the religion of any practicing Jew? No. Nor do I follow the many, many rules on how best to beat my slaves, although my religious tradition lays it all out there.
So what does it mean to criticize a religion? Seize upon their ancient texts? Ascribe the actions of the worst of its adherents to all believers? Why? When such a small % will ever become radicalized?
And do not confuse a reluctance to criticize a whole religion to blindness regarding the existence of people who commit terrorist acts in the name of the Muslim faith. I and everyone else with a brain is aware. The issue is that I just dont think calling it a problem with the religion, rather than a problem within the religion is accurate or helpful to policy outcomes. Because at the end of the day, I think cutting off craven Saudi funding sources and providing mental health and economic hope to would-be-terrorists would be a lot more effective than taking a red pen to the Koran.
That crap is what I find most frustrating. It's complete BS and insinuates "liberal" policies support the terrorists. I can't think of a more stupid or counterproductive argument. Note how they don't provide a specific examples of what the policy should be and they completely ignore the success currents policies are having in preventing attacks. It's the perfect Fox News meme.
I didn't like the "liberals part" and I don't support fox news, but the spirit of the comment is dead on.
That crap is what I find most frustrating. It's complete BS and insinuates "liberal" policies support the terrorists. I can't think of a more stupid or counterproductive argument. Note how they don't provide a specific examples of what the policy should be and they completely ignore the success currents policies are having in preventing attacks. It's the perfect Fox News meme.
I didn't like the "liberals part" and I don't support fox news, but the spirit of the comment is dead on.
She is referring to former classical liberals (small L) that used to support free speech and now condemn anyone asking for reform on and open dialogue about what Islam teaches. Not referring the American left.
Most often I see people pointing to passages in the Koran. Passages that if carried out in real life would horrify me. And yet my holy book, the Torah, calls for some really nasty stuff too.
Samuel 15:3's call for genocide of the Amalekites: Now, go, and you shall smite Amalek, and you shall utterly destroy all that is his, and you shall not have pity on him: and you shall slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'
Sweet Psalm 137 with this gem: "O Daughter of Babylon, who is destined to be plundered, praiseworthy is he who repays you your recompense that you have done to us. Praiseworthy is he who will take and dash your infants against the rock."
Now is that the religion of any practicing Jew? No. Nor do I follow the many, many rules on how best to beat my slaves, although my religious tradition lays it all out there.
So what does it mean to criticize a religion? Seize upon their ancient texts? Ascribe the actions of the worst of its adherents to all believers? Why? When such a small % will ever become radicalized?
And do not confuse a reluctance to criticize a whole religion to blindness regarding the existence of people who commit terrorist acts in the name of the Muslim faith. I and everyone else with a brain is aware. The issue is that I just dont think calling it a problem with the religion, rather than a problem within the religion is accurate or helpful to policy outcomes. Because at the end of the day, I think cutting off craven Saudi funding sources and providing mental health and economic hope to would-be-terrorists would be a lot more effective than taking a red pen to the Koran.
Deej - maybe I am missing something with your point, but hasn't Judaism gone through not only reform(s), but has it not also been allowed to have its orthodoxy attenuated through interpretations of its texts over the last few thousand years ?
If we do not support Muslim reformers looking to be able to do the same with the Quran and Hadiths we are not enabling it as a license for jihad, treatment of women, continued anti-semitism ?
Are we so afraid of hurting peoples feelings and allowing this to continue ? I have no illusions that it is not going to create horrible mayhem in the short term.
I continue to argue that this is much more preferable than waiting for someone looking to enter paradise to explode a nuclear device in Paris.
Until it is acceptable to draw cartoons, criticize Mo's example of behavior, demand clarification of violent, intolerant and anti-gay/women passages in the command, the current problems will continue.
In other words, Islam needs to be judged just like other religions, through the lenses of moral clarity, human rights, science, psychology and history, etc.
your point about decentralized religion is a major issue, obviously, and not lost on me or anyone else. There is seemingly no one to hold accountable at the end of the day.
The saudis and their religious leaders are closest thing though. This is a monumental task, no doubt.
I don't think it was exactly as cut and dry as simply bringing Islam, in general, to America. These weren't missionaries (and you know that).
It was about bringing the US under the rule of radical Islam law.
I didn't read this whole thread, and considering the length (and my knowledge of your views via previous threads) I'm assuming that a large part of this was taken up by you and others debating whether "bringing Islam" is the same as "bringing under hard-line Islamic law".
The way you put it sure does sound like you think the mere presence of Islam is somehow an existential threat.
Sonic- If you are addressing me, then I want to respond. I think Islam is an existential threat (setting aside all the issues around human rights and focusing on outright slaughter of infidels), ONLY to the extent that it is not subject to criticism from all under the banner of free speech and it's depending on the likelihood of being reformed.
But I do not see the practice of Islam in the US as being a threat in and of itself (and certainly not an existential one), and I whole heartedly support freedom of religion, as long as it doesn't harm people, even if I think they are all bogus.....but of course it depends on the goals of any one or two people carrying out an operation. It certainly is an existential threat to a gay person dancing at The Pulse in Orlando or a coworker of the San Bernardino jackass.
Needs to be balanced about technological capabilities (nuclear bombs, etc) and the timeline of spread of Islamism, opportunities for ISIS types to get weapons and get them into the west. There is not doubt they will be used as soon as they are able to do so.
You know, the way you've stated your views here is quite reasonable.
I do agree you on something you probably wouldn't expect me to, being that I'm fairly liberal (as known by previous discussions on the board)...
I think it's absurd that for some reason, criticism about the religion itself is somehow off limits to a portion of liberals (or rather, they view it to be).
I'm much more aligned with Bill Maher on this one. OBVIOUSLY I support freedom of religion, and I do not think anyone should be judged for their religion on an individual basis.
But when people act like any criticism of Islam is equivalent to actually discriminating against Muslims, it's absurd and ridiculous. I don't think saying that there needs to be some sort of liberalization within Islam (as has occurred in most strains of other Abrahamic religions) is tantamount to Islamophobia.
Sonic - Thanks. This is certainly the most maddening part of this whole thing....the mislabeling of the criticism of ideas and the choking out of freedoms of speech. It's all been laid out in Europe from Theo Van Gogh and other events in the Netherlands, through Charlie Hebdo and the responses and lack of support, through the latest demands for laws to prosecute "hate speech" which is not hate speech. Hate speech is what the Imams are teaching. The double standards are horrific.
the violent and intolerant verses and claiming they are commands from a God that there is zero proof exists or that could have revealed the words, if I am being honest. But I'll settle for the tens of ones that I read about on a regular basis in what is left of news organizations willing to report it.
Again, what specific action are you proposing? Jumping up and down and yelling "Radical Islamic Terror is evil" accomplishs nothing. You are all criticsm and no real solutions.
I don't think I've hidden my hatred for intolerant, violent and divisive claims made in the name of God, and of religion that makes claims about revelations that are not worth the paper they are written on.
I hold all religions to this standard, or at least try to. If that exposes me because I actually care what is being said in the Mosques and on Arab TV, by reading MEMRI, ME Forum, etc, OK.
Again, what specific action are you proposing? Jumping up and down and yelling "Radical Islamic Terror is evil" accomplishs nothing. You are all criticsm and no real solutions.
I have made it pretty clear:
1. Support Muslim reformers.
2. Support open criticism of all beliefs/ideas.
3. Stop calling such speech "an attack on (all) Muslims," "Islamophobia" or similar.
4. Stop denying the correlation between the doctrine and the behavior.
In other words, treat Islam like any other belief system.
you just walked all the way back from years of blanket shrill statements
So now you are saying you believe one thing in your core but say another to be provocative?
But other people cant do that...they cant even be in a nation where a few of them might have read the whole Quran without falling under your condemnation that they believed in a sub standard religion compared to other now more moderate religions ( like "peaceful Buddhism" ( big miss on that very incorrect claim in actual history. Go ask the millions of Buddhists who died in the last 100 years and the last 500 years for believing in the wrong type of Buddhism).
You know...the Quran that is traditionally written in the eastern Arabian dialect of Classical Arabic. That is no longer spoken or read so you have to learn it first. But there is another problem with your assertion that their beliefs are inferior. Muhammad would have spoken the western dialect of Classical Arabic originating from Mecca, so there is already an element of translation inherent in the Quran...and few even know how to read the wrong language of the earliest writings.
Then add that few humans do and say what they believe and then also believe different things under different influences seven times a day.
Then add that the variety of beliefs under Islam is suddenly wide ranging by your latest posts
I wrote: "Any of the ones quoting
the violent and intolerant verses and claiming they are commands from a God that there is zero proof exists or that could have revealed the words,"
In answering your questions about "which Imams?"
Just like I would do the same of leaders of the Westboro Baptist Church, or leaders of the messianic ultra-orthodox Jewish movements who do the same thing using quotes from the OT ?
So I am referring to what I call "hate speech" as compared to what people often call criticism of Islam as "hate speech."
And I don't necessarily believe it should be banned. I was just making a (apparently insensitive) comment contrasting my opinion of actual hate speech.
There is no room for making claims about God's will that incites violence or intolerance, tribal hatred, sexual discrimination, punishments, etc, that goes against human well-being, when bad about specific groups of people that are not backed by science and reason.
Are you happy when the Wesboro baptist church uses quotes from the OT to tell us that God hates homosexuals and they should be punished ? That is hate speech. It is using claims from a text that has zero proof came from an actual God. It's fucking rubbish !
RE: RE: RE: Back on subject why they are radicalized
to an American bomb? If you want to be taken seriously about discussing radicalization you have to acknowledge the role the US plays. While our intentions my be noble (or not), our policies play a role.
RE: Do they matter to a boy, 16, who just lost his family
to an American bomb? If you want to be taken seriously about discussing radicalization you have to acknowledge the role the US plays. While our intentions my be noble (or not), our policies play a role.
I don't have to acknowledge anything and if you read above, or recall what i wrote earlier, I already acknowledged other factors, including foreign policy, but I will happily be more specific and say that war and killing of Muslims makes the problems worse.
My entire argument can me summed up here and feel free to disagree, call me names, ignore me, or anything else you wish:
1. Beliefs and ideas made about claims of what God wants or does not want, leads to actions that correlate directly to them. example: reward in paradise for martyrdom during jihad.
2. Islam is held to a different standard by the west, to the detriment of human well-being, since criticism of it is re-labeled hate speech or similar, rather than protected under free speech. example: outcries and condemnation over Charlie Hebdo cartoons that led to murder.
you just walked all the way back from years of blanket shrill statements
So now you are saying you believe one thing in your core but say another to be provocative?
But other people cant do that...they cant even be in a nation where a few of them might have read the whole Quran without falling under your condemnation that they believed in a sub standard religion compared to other now more moderate religions ( like "peaceful Buddhism" ( big miss on that very incorrect claim in actual history. Go ask the millions of Buddhists who died in the last 100 years and the last 500 years for believing in the wrong type of Buddhism).
You know...the Quran that is traditionally written in the eastern Arabian dialect of Classical Arabic. That is no longer spoken or read so you have to learn it first. But there is another problem with your assertion that their beliefs are inferior. Muhammad would have spoken the western dialect of Classical Arabic originating from Mecca, so there is already an element of translation inherent in the Quran...and few even know how to read the wrong language of the earliest writings.
Then add that few humans do and say what they believe and then also believe different things under different influences seven times a day.
Then add that the variety of beliefs under Islam is suddenly wide ranging by your latest posts
Thats a whole lot of swirl.
But you are certain about it.
Bill-
Terms like "sub-standard" and "inferior" are not accurate to what I have written, though I don't blame you for using those terms based on some of my posts.
I would prefer words like "dangerous" "hateful" "intolerant" and "divisive."
And you can make all the claims you wish about Buddhism, but to make my claims (as I have tried to express them, sometimes poorly) "wrong" you would need to:
1. Show how the doctrine of Buddhism is used, if not word for word, then in spirit of what was conveyed by the doctrine, to justify the violence. Just saying that Buddhists committed crimes as priests, etc, does not fit the bill. There needs to be a correlation between what a supernatural deity commands or doesn't command, that leads to it.
2. And in doing this successfully, I still reserve the right to balance the claims made by the Buddhist doctrine, as a whole, vs. the Islamic doctrine. Meaning, both can be bad, but I would argue that Islam is much worse.
Let's start there, if you follow what I am seeking to argue. If not, please ask if you wish to do so.
"Worse" I mean it in terms of harmful claims about what God wants or doesn't want....NOT that any of the people who believe some or part of the claims are worse people because of it. To be worse people, one needs to actually act on the claims. There are plenty horrific atheists or close to it in history. (Pol Pot, Stalin)..
The problem with Islam is that their interpretation of their
religion is still stuck in the middle ages. Christianity's interpretation of their religion has left most of that stuff behind. The Bible has all kinds of awful stuff in it and collectively folks have agreed to ignore those parts. Lots of muslims have done that too. The problem is that Islam on a whole hasn't been moderated to the degree that other religions have.
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
RE: The problem with Islam is that their interpretation of their
religion is still stuck in the middle ages. Christianity's interpretation of their religion has left most of that stuff behind. The Bible has all kinds of awful stuff in it and collectively folks have agreed to ignore those parts. Lots of muslims have done that too. The problem is that Islam on a whole hasn't been moderated to the degree that other religions have.
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
I agree. And that is the next stage of the discussion, along with other things, if it were up to me to do this in a more organized format.
The complications with reform in Islam, the protections against criticism, etc, would also follow, in my view. But these are all secondary to the problems with getting people to acknowledge the 2 points I made above about beliefs/ideas leading to outcomes, and that Islam gets a pass in the arena of free speech criticism.
RE: The problem with Islam is that their interpretation of their
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
The tribalism would be happening without the religion.
Made multiple times worse by putting claims of religious supremacy, awarded by a supreme deity, and rewarded with promises of everlasting paradise. How do you argue with someone who truly believes this ? How do you reduce the conflicts ? What logic can you possibly use to argue with God ?
RE: RE: RE: The problem with Islam is that their interpretation of their
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
The tribalism would be happening without the religion.
Made multiple times worse by putting claims of religious supremacy, awarded by a supreme deity, and rewarded with promises of everlasting paradise. How do you argue with someone who truly believes this ? How do you reduce the conflicts ? What logic can you possibly use to argue with God ?
And how is that relevant to a Sunni-Sunni or Shia-Shia tribal conflict? They happen.
RE: RE: The problem with Islam is that their interpretation of their
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
The tribalism would be happening without the religion.
Made multiple times worse by putting claims of religious supremacy, awarded by a supreme deity, and rewarded with promises of everlasting paradise. How do you argue with someone who truly believes this ? How do you reduce the conflicts ? What logic can you possibly use to argue with God ?
And how is that relevant to a Sunni-Sunni or Shia-Shia tribal conflict? They happen.
There would be no conflict based on religious grounds. It would have to be based on other dividing factors like race, nationality, tribes (specifically). I would never argue that there wouldn't be other cultural factors, just that the God-granted arguments in the dogma and doctrine are a greater license for it.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: The problem with Islam is that their interpretation of their
There would be no conflict based on religious grounds.
That's precisely the point I'm making
Quote:
It would have to be based on other dividing factors like race, nationality, tribes (specifically). I would never argue that there wouldn't be other cultural factors, just that the God-granted arguments in the dogma and doctrine are a greater license for it.
And you swing right back to religion. It's NOT that simple.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: The problem with Islam is that their interpretation of their
There would be no conflict based on religious grounds.
That's precisely the point I'm making
Quote:
It would have to be based on other dividing factors like race, nationality, tribes (specifically). I would never argue that there wouldn't be other cultural factors, just that the God-granted arguments in the dogma and doctrine are a greater license for it.
And you swing right back to religion. It's NOT that simple.
What exactly is not simple? I guess I'm not following your point.
hard to avoid considering anything one might attribute to a political schism is based on the followers of a religion, but I grant you that it was a more political schism than a religious one. And originally not a difference in the doctrine of the religious aspects.
Perhaps you could clarify the point you are trying to make.
You have not done the homework to be on solid ground about religion or your thesis or any comparators so you can't keep asking people to feed you as the MC.
Sorry...imho it's your thesis that is all over the map, retreats and expands to keep you entertained, not researched and not an honorable discussion on your part.
You have not done the homework to be on solid ground about religion or your thesis or any comparators so you can't keep asking people to feed you as the MC.
Sorry...imho it's your thesis that is all over the map, retreats and expands to keep you entertained, not researched and not an honorable discussion on your part.
No one is learning and it feels weak.
Have a good summer. Go Giants
OK Bill. I tried to answer questions and accusations as they came up and clarify my argument later on to bring it back, but if you feel that way, that's cool with me.
You know the cause of the explosion already?
Very sad.
Almost definitely terrorism. Possible it was a panic of some kind though.
It will have to get a lot worse in the UK and apparently in France, Sweden, Germany, Belgium and Italy, before anyone does much more than just go after networks and perpetrators.
The radicalization in the mosques and the stuff coming out of the mouths of the religious leaders in these countries, is toxic. Meanwhile, they are passing laws to limit and arrest people over the free speech of people criticizing the ideology behind terrorism as "Islamophobia."
One only needs to look at what happened after Charlie Hebdo to see what it will take for people to wake up.
I guess a bomb with shrapnel (ie nails).
Quote:
with the British helping out.
It will have to get a lot worse in the UK and apparently in France, Sweden, Germany, Belgium and Italy, before anyone does much more than just go after networks and perpetrators.
The radicalization in the mosques and the stuff coming out of the mouths of the religious leaders in these countries, is toxic. Meanwhile, they are passing laws to limit and arrest people over the free speech of people criticizing the ideology behind terrorism as "Islamophobia."
One only needs to look at what happened after Charlie Hebdo to see what it will take for people to wake up.
I would preach patience here.
You usually don't get your pants taken off after being trampled.
Also I saw Manchester tube station bomb found reports. A lot of these end up being bogus, obviously.
Quote:
In comment 13478716 River said:
Quote:
with the British helping out.
It will have to get a lot worse in the UK and apparently in France, Sweden, Germany, Belgium and Italy, before anyone does much more than just go after networks and perpetrators.
The radicalization in the mosques and the stuff coming out of the mouths of the religious leaders in these countries, is toxic. Meanwhile, they are passing laws to limit and arrest people over the free speech of people criticizing the ideology behind terrorism as "Islamophobia."
One only needs to look at what happened after Charlie Hebdo to see what it will take for people to wake up.
its worthwhile noting that in almost every case like this, the explanation of events and perpetrators that we get a few minutes after the event, are proven false when all the facts are know (and later revised).
I would preach patience here.
Preach whatever you want. This event doesn't change the broader, global problem, and the direction the west is heading.
Quote:
with the British helping out.
It will have to get a lot worse in the UK and apparently in France, Sweden, Germany, Belgium and Italy, before anyone does much more than just go after networks and perpetrators.
The radicalization in the mosques and the stuff coming out of the mouths of the religious leaders in these countries, is toxic. Meanwhile, they are passing laws to limit and arrest people over the free speech of people criticizing the ideology behind terrorism as "Islamophobia."
One only needs to look at what happened after Charlie Hebdo to see what it will take for people to wake up.
Mike, you should weigh in on football topics. It is, after all, a football message board. It would be a shame if you only had a political stance (especially on such a hot-button topic) to stand on.
knock it off.
It's great to see the early conclusions drawn, outrage reached, and then embarrassment when people realize their comments are here for eternity or until the thread inevitably becomes political and then gets deleted and then only existing on Brett's personal hard drive.
You're ruining it.
agree, it would be awful it's his shadow BBI site where he's a moderator and has conversations where people take mu seriously. anyway, it's not me living there. It's the people on the jump to conclusions mat.
Quote:
Might get something stuck tobyou.
agree, it would be awful it's his shadow BBI site where he's a moderator and has conversations where people take mu seriously. anyway, it's not me living there. It's the people on the jump to conclusions mat.
mu = him
Quote:
In comment 13478716 River said:
Quote:
with the British helping out.
It will have to get a lot worse in the UK and apparently in France, Sweden, Germany, Belgium and Italy, before anyone does much more than just go after networks and perpetrators.
The radicalization in the mosques and the stuff coming out of the mouths of the religious leaders in these countries, is toxic. Meanwhile, they are passing laws to limit and arrest people over the free speech of people criticizing the ideology behind terrorism as "Islamophobia."
One only needs to look at what happened after Charlie Hebdo to see what it will take for people to wake up.
Mike, you should weigh in on football topics. It is, after all, a football message board. It would be a shame if you only had a political stance (especially on such a hot-button topic) to stand on.
I suggest you stick to football topics and not read threads on current events and terrorism if you don't expect to see some posts somewhat political (or religious) related.
Kevin Rawlinson
Heres a summary of what we know so far after the incident in Manchester this evening:
Police have confirmed that at least 19 people have been killed in a suspected terror attack at an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena.
Officers said a further 50 were injured.
One explosion was reported to have hit the foyer of the building at about 10:30pm, British Transport police said.
Manchester Arena said the incident took place outside the venue in a public space.
Multiple witnesses said they heard an explosion, with one telling the Guardian the blast shook the building.
Great addition to this thread.
Quote:
Might get something stuck tobyou.
agree, it would be awful it's his shadow BBI site where he's a moderator and has conversations where people take mu seriously. anyway, it's not me living there. It's the people on the jump to conclusions mat.
I don't deserve this.
Quote:
In comment 13478767 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
Might get something stuck tobyou.
agree, it would be awful it's his shadow BBI site where he's a moderator and has conversations where people take mu seriously. anyway, it's not me living there. It's the people on the jump to conclusions mat.
I don't deserve this.
Well you do have this strange ability to re-post entire threads that had been deleted. Think of it as a compliment.
Quote:
They are generally noteably wrong.
Great addition to this thread.
Coming from you a compliment! No seriously, CNN is forever jumping the gun and totally wrong. The rush to report is more important than than waiting and getting it right.
Even younger. Grande appeals to girls of all ages.
I'm sick over it.
IS jihadi claims responsibility.
Was a suicide bomber.
___________________
Hashtags and platitudes ignoring the link between religious doctrine and what people actually believe, to follow.
IS jihadi claims responsibility.
Was a suicide bomber.
___________________
Hashtags and platitudes ignoring the link between religious doctrine and what people actually believe, to follow.
I guess the blew up balloon and speaker theory are done.
God bless the victims.
IS jihadi claims responsibility.
Was a suicide bomber.
___________________
Hashtags and platitudes ignoring the link between religious doctrine and what people actually believe, to follow.
link pleease
smh
Sounds about right from those scumbags.
smh
The Amish are over do - you never know
Is this sarcasm? I can't tell
Quote:
In comment 13478728 Mike in Marin said:
Quote:
In comment 13478716 River said:
Quote:
with the British helping out.
It will have to get a lot worse in the UK and apparently in France, Sweden, Germany, Belgium and Italy, before anyone does much more than just go after networks and perpetrators.
The radicalization in the mosques and the stuff coming out of the mouths of the religious leaders in these countries, is toxic. Meanwhile, they are passing laws to limit and arrest people over the free speech of people criticizing the ideology behind terrorism as "Islamophobia."
One only needs to look at what happened after Charlie Hebdo to see what it will take for people to wake up.
Mike, you should weigh in on football topics. It is, after all, a football message board. It would be a shame if you only had a political stance (especially on such a hot-button topic) to stand on.
I suggest you stick to football topics and not read threads on current events and terrorism if you don't expect to see some posts somewhat political (or religious) related.
Since your recent history includes zero football contributions, I feel fine about my footing... on a football message board.
You really are a stain.
let's hope that those injured are not serious.
Wtf?
I hadn't heard this... this makes more sense. I heard that the bomb was inside, but towards an exit bottleneck. Getting a bomb inside an event like this made no sense at all.
RIP to the victims and those injured.
Quote:
and Israel?
Wtf?
Truly .... WTF.
- The Muslim population is multiplying 75% every 10 years.
The demographic model widely reported in the mainstream press reveals:
- By 2021, Britains Muslim population will reach about 4,900,000.
- By 2031, 8,600,000
- By 2041 15,000,000
- By 2051, nearly 26,000,000 (www.thecommentator.com)
From the British non-Muslim population, its birthrate is 2.1 per female - below the replacement level. In other words, the real numbers of non-Muslims will shrink.
It is estimated that in 2051 there will be a total of 77,000,000 British citizens. The respected Commentator newspaper concludes that if immigration policies continue as they arethen the Muslim population projection of 26 million by the year 2051 can be rationally defended.
So by the middle of this century, a third of the population will be Muslim
Other troubling signs in England:
Sharia courts administering Islamic justice in Britain are run by clerics who believe some offenders should have their hands chopped off, according to Muslim scholar Elham Manea. She described the prevailing attitude as "totalitarian" and as more backward than some parts of Pakistan.
Teaching children fundamental British values is an act of "cultural supremacism," according to the National Union of Teachers, which wants to replace the concept with one that includes "international rights."
More than 100,000 British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts, according to a 615-page survey.
Only one in three British Muslims (34%) would contact the police if they believed that somebody close to them had become involved with radical Islam. In addition, 23% of British Muslims said Islamic Sharia law should replace British law in areas with large Muslim populations.
Belmarsh maximum-security prison in London has become "like a jihadi training camp," according to testimony from a former inmate. The government was accused of burying a report on prison extremism. The report warned that staff have been reluctant to tackle Islamist behavior for fear of being labelled "racist."
Residents in Manchester received leaflets in their mailboxes, from a Muslim group called "Public Purity," calling for a public ban on dogs.
Voter fraud has been deliberately overlooked in Muslim communities because of "political correctness," according to a government report.
Link below. 615 pages of survey data, looks pretty scientific and unbiased to me.
"Full data from the ICM Unlimited survey Channel 4 programme What Muslims really think can be found by clicking on the link below.
The link provides full access to three (merged) documents, in order:
Full sample of Muslims
National representative control sample
Summary top line.
The summary top line compares findings from the Muslims sample and the control sample of a nationally representative sample of all GB adults, which permits easy comparison of responses to questions that were asked of both samples (questions only asked of Muslims are not included in the top line).
The programme, presented by Trevor Phillips, will be broadcast on Channel 4 at 10pm on Wednesday 13th April 2016."
CM Muslims survey for Channel 4 | 11th April 2016 - ( New Window )
Not by US bias?
Don't ever change.
Quote:
looks pretty scientific and unbiased to me.
Don't ever change.
Here's another article from the liberal Huffington Post with similar statistics. Point is the more Muslims the more radical and fundamental Muslims.
The Islamization of Great Britain - ( New Window )
Quote:
you never know it may not be the religion of peace this time - if so the media will be thrilled
You really are a stain.
If your brother in law died in 911 you would have a different perspective you douche
broken.
from the bottom of my heart, i am so so sorry. i don't have words.
Not a fan but that's a lot on a 23 year old.
Quote:
In comment 13478754 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 13478728 Mike in Marin said:
Quote:
In comment 13478716 River said:
Quote:
with the British helping out.
It will have to get a lot worse in the UK and apparently in France, Sweden, Germany, Belgium and Italy, before anyone does much more than just go after networks and perpetrators.
The radicalization in the mosques and the stuff coming out of the mouths of the religious leaders in these countries, is toxic. Meanwhile, they are passing laws to limit and arrest people over the free speech of people criticizing the ideology behind terrorism as "Islamophobia."
One only needs to look at what happened after Charlie Hebdo to see what it will take for people to wake up.
Mike, you should weigh in on football topics. It is, after all, a football message board. It would be a shame if you only had a political stance (especially on such a hot-button topic) to stand on.
I suggest you stick to football topics and not read threads on current events and terrorism if you don't expect to see some posts somewhat political (or religious) related.
Since your recent history includes zero football contributions, I feel fine about my footing... on a football message board.
So glad you are monitoring what I am posting or only reading. Been on this site for well over 20 years. Thanks for weighing in Comrade Stalin.
Unless it's an abortion doctor killing. Then it's obviously due to the interpretation of God's will in another text (that is also full of horrible ideas, but nothing compared to the Quran).
Now the same ideology is causing serious problems in Europe. Good thing for the Atlantic Ocean....for now.
We are too nice and politically correct for some of our cultures and people to survive given the current trends.
Quote:
In comment 13478822 capone said:
Quote:
you never know it may not be the religion of peace this time - if so the media will be thrilled
You really are a stain.
If your brother in law died in 911 you would have a different perspective you douche
No I wouldn't.
You remain a stain.
smh
Are we going to get your hot take on the Muslim doctors and medical staff working through the night to help the injured?
How about the Muslim cabbies offering free rides to help people connect with loved ones?
I doubt it.
Vetting for people entering this country already exists. Especially from troubled regions. Anyone suggesting that this hasn't been the case for quite some time is not handing out good information. There is a reason that this country has maintained a mostly clean sheet against terrorism at home since '01, and it's due to the everyday hard work of people keeping it that way.
*economic migrants
Quote:
screening ban to vet. not such a bad idea after all
Vetting for people entering this country already exists. Especially from troubled regions. Anyone suggesting that this hasn't been the case for quite some time is not handing out good information. There is a reason that this country has maintained a mostly clean sheet against terrorism at home since '01, and it's due to the everyday hard work of people keeping it that way.
I totally agree with you that our law enforcement, military, intelligence agencies are doing great work but even with their great work this site lists over 60 Islamic related terror attacks in the US since 9/11/2001. People use these arguments that terrorism isnt that pervase, more people are killed by random shootings, cars, bathtub accidents etc. but none of those causes of death have the enormous amounts of resources like those stated above, literally tens of thousands of people and billions and billions of dollars devoted to stop one thing - Islamic terrorism. Could you imagine how many terrorist attacks would occur if the US didnt have this Herculean effort?
Unfortunately for the peace loving, reformed Muslims you have this problem:
"As the Muslim population increases in the United States, so too will the number of Islamic terror attacks. This is because the pool from which the radicals recruit grows bigger. Studies show that between 5 - 25% of Muslims in America believe that violence in defense of Islam is justified. The number of potential terrorists therefore grows proportionately with the overall number, even if only a small minority actually plot terror.
Immigrants to America have killed and have plotted to kill. However, the real threat comes from successive generations of Muslims living in the West, which have proven to be more radical and more dangerous than their parents. Muslim immigration thus means that more Americans will eventually die."
Islamic Terror on American Soil - ( New Window )
"Terrorists only need to be right once; we need to be right every single time".President Bush
Thats the problem, as good as our people are and as thorough as our vetting process may be it only takes a few mistakes/oversites/deception and it results in dead Americans. And as stated above its just math that the more Muslim immigrants brought into the country the more terrorism will occur even if only 5% have radical views. Is it worth the risk?
A study showed young Jews living out West do not really have any identification with Israel. That was unheard of when I was growing up in Brooklyn.
NY is such an immigrant city that people don't realize the rest of the country is not like that. The next generation of Muslims will not have a strong identification with religion. They will think of themselves as Americans first and foremost.
Persecuting them or singling them out is the best way to get them NOT to identify as Americans and become a diaspora, holding onto to religious instead of a national identity.
Best way to defeat terrorism longterm is to treat the causes not the symptoms.
A study showed young Jews living out West do not really have any identification with Israel. That was unheard of when I was growing up in Brooklyn.
NY is such an immigrant city that people don't realize the rest of the country is not like that. The next generation of Muslims will not have a strong identification with religion. They will think of themselves as Americans first and foremost.
Persecuting them or singling them out is the best way to get them NOT to identify as Americans and become a diaspora, holding onto to religious instead of a national identity.
Best way to defeat terrorism longterm is to treat the causes not the symptoms.
the cause is Islam and the symptom is terrorism. The Quran is build around jihad and forbids revision such as a new testament since it is the unaltered word of Allah.
the mass immigration into places like the UK causes pockets of people who do not assimilate and instead adopt their religious and cultural identity (sharia law) to their new home--which is encouraged by the EU.
Persecuting them or singling them out is not the best way, but getting them to assimilate would be---which is impossible when flooding a country.
That's fair. But its also fair that you to acknowledge that the "Muslim ban" was in fact a 90-day ban initially against 7 highest risk Arab countries (Iraq was later retracted), while still honoring pre-existing visas and green cards.
Obviously the media and rights groups twisted as much more far-reaching than this.
The reality is we know who the enemy is. There are more practical and common sense ways to fight this war than what we currently do for politically correctness reasons. Trump's approach was hasty, over-reaching and clumsy, no doubt, but the spirit of it was on the right track.
the cause is Islam and the symptom is terrorism. The Quran is build around jihad and forbids revision such as a new testament since it is the unaltered word of Allah.
the mass immigration into places like the UK causes pockets of people who do not assimilate and instead adopt their religious and cultural identity (sharia law) to their new home--which is encouraged by the EU.
Persecuting them or singling them out is not the best way, but getting them to assimilate would be---which is impossible when flooding a country.
This problem is only going to get worse. Many people say the people responsible are just "radicals" as if there are only a handful of them. There are millions of these radicals. Tens of millions. The other thing is that the radicals in the Muslim world are the ones who have the power, hold political offices and control their military. This is no different than what we faced with the Nazi's. This religion also = law in those countries. Their mission is to squash the western world. They will tell you if you care to listen that they want to populate the western countries and then take over. They do not want to assimilate.
Unfortunately it absolutely IS the religion that is the problem and we will one day end up with a true Muslim ban. You will see one of the European countries do it first because their situation will become more dire before ours does.
Using any religion as your base to commit such fucking stupid acts means they are full of shit. Fuck them and their mothers for conceiving them.
I hope soon they will go meet their makers soon and let them judge them.
Fucking cowards
That's a false statement, "noteably wrong"
Quote:
In comment 13478822 capone said:
Quote:
you never know it may not be the religion of peace this time - if so the media will be thrilled
You really are a stain.
If your brother in law died in 911 you would have a different perspective you douche
No, I wouldn't and neither do many others who lost loved ones. It's a sad excuse for bigotry. You honor no one.
I don't believe the data supports that claim
But they were "pouring in" after the first ban was struck down.
Using any religion as your base to commit such fucking stupid acts means they are full of shit. Fuck them and their mothers for conceiving them.
I hope soon they will go meet their makers soon and let them judge them.
Fucking cowards
+1
A study showed young Jews living out West do not really have any identification with Israel. That was unheard of when I was growing up in Brooklyn.
NY is such an immigrant city that people don't realize the rest of the country is not like that. The next generation of Muslims will not have a strong identification with religion. They will think of themselves as Americans first and foremost.
Persecuting them or singling them out is the best way to get them NOT to identify as Americans and become a diaspora, holding onto to religious instead of a national identity.
Best way to defeat terrorism longterm is to treat the causes not the symptoms.
While that certainly is more the case here than in Europe, you are not getting the same degree of assimilation as in generations past. The ease of travel back to their country of origin as well as some segments of society advocating that they NOT assimilate, that assimilation is cultural fascism (hyperbole conceded) and the ability to function in this country without speaking English makes things different than before.
BREAKING: Suspected Manchester bomber identified as 22-year-old Salmon Ramadan Abedi, according to official, @PeteWilliamsNBC reports
Horrible incident, hoping for the best for those injured and RIP to those who didn't survive.
BREAKING: Suspected Manchester bomber identified as 22-year-old Salmon Ramadan Abedi, according to official, @PeteWilliamsNBC reports
That settles it. Definitely IRA.
Sam Harris does an excellent job on this topic.
Link - ( New Window )
A study showed young Jews living out West do not really have any identification with Israel. That was unheard of when I was growing up in Brooklyn.
NY is such an immigrant city that people don't realize the rest of the country is not like that. The next generation of Muslims will not have a strong identification with religion. They will think of themselves as Americans first and foremost.
Persecuting them or singling them out is the best way to get them NOT to identify as Americans and become a diaspora, holding onto to religious instead of a national identity.
Best way to defeat terrorism longterm is to treat the causes not the symptoms.
You need a plane ticket to Detroit, stat. What you've said is exactly 0% applicable to the Muslim community there, and it's sizable.
You need a plane ticket to Detroit, stat. What you've said is exactly 0% applicable to the Muslim community there, and it's sizable.
Exactly! Some people are just reading the wrong shit that is passed around on Facebook I guess. Send him to Detroit like you said. More specifically...Dearborn MI. Just go to youtube and type "Muslim Dearborn" and just watch. Here is one for you...
Dearborn MI - ( New Window )
Quote:
You need a plane ticket to Detroit, stat. What you've said is exactly 0% applicable to the Muslim community there, and it's sizable.
Exactly! Some people are just reading the wrong shit that is passed around on Facebook I guess. Send him to Detroit like you said. More specifically...Dearborn MI. Just go to youtube and type "Muslim Dearborn" and just watch. Here is one for you... Dearborn MI - ( New Window )
I'd like to see something a little more nuanced. Drive through Palisades Park, NJ sometime. 40% Korean, with signs in Korean on a lot of storefronts. While that might show that assimilation is happening slower or only partially, there hasn't been a suicide bombing to date.
Quote:
as they move from generation to generation. My nephews grew up in California and they don't identify as Italian at all. And they are Italian on both sides--third and fourth generation.
A study showed young Jews living out West do not really have any identification with Israel. That was unheard of when I was growing up in Brooklyn.
NY is such an immigrant city that people don't realize the rest of the country is not like that. The next generation of Muslims will not have a strong identification with religion. They will think of themselves as Americans first and foremost.
Persecuting them or singling them out is the best way to get them NOT to identify as Americans and become a diaspora, holding onto to religious instead of a national identity.
Best way to defeat terrorism longterm is to treat the causes not the symptoms.
While that certainly is more the case here than in Europe, you are not getting the same degree of assimilation as in generations past. The ease of travel back to their country of origin as well as some segments of society advocating that they NOT assimilate, that assimilation is cultural fascism (hyperbole conceded) and the ability to function in this country without speaking English makes things different than before.
Eh, I had family who lived in this country for 50+ years and never learned 50 words of English. In modern society, with all of the common media that bind us together and reduced prejudice/exclusiveness etc., I think 2nd generation assimilation is likely more robust than it was 100 years ago. It's just that current problems seem bigger than problems that you cant remember. Much like people who feel like the world is more dangerous and out of control, when it is safer than it has ever been.
Of course there is an argument to be made that our tradition of assimilation was always overstated, that immigrants often returned to their countries of origin, that pockets of native language enclaves persisted for decades after arrival going as far back as the early Nineteenth Century.
But on the balance, the pressures to assimilate aren't necessarily what they were at earlier points in our history, it's not necessarily a safe assumption that the present and future will resemble the past.
Quote:
In case anyone's interested, Sam Harris has a well reasoned and intelligent take on the matter of radical islam. His podcast is called Waking Up, on iTunes or google it.
Sam Harris does an excellent job on this topic.
It just stuns and dismays me how reasoned discourse is almost completely absent from this incredibly serious global problem. Harris is probably most famous in this matter for his ridiculous exchange with Ben Aflack on Bill Maher. I mean, an actor of really average intelligence and with zero education or knowledge on the matter gets serious traction and support by hurling absurd accusations of bigotry and racism (as if religion were a race!). We see some of that here on BBI where people aren't even willing to acknowledge the most obvisou and indisputable facts of the problem.
Anyway, I'm glad there's people like Sam Harris fighting the good fight. I am afraid, however, we're very clearly losing the war.
In 2017, not speaking the language is much more limiting, and once you know English, some assimilation (by exposure) is much more likely. It's basically impossible to just deal with businesses where your language is spoken (ex. Spanish). It's a lot harder to count on a life where you could work for 50 years within an enclaves of people just like you.
Muslims cant do that. In particular, an observant Muslim has to eat halal food. If you grew up in a country where halal food predominated, it's no problem there. Here it is hard. Same thing I see with orthodox jews. Either you go to their restaurants, or you cant break bread with them. They cant go to the neighbors for dinner. Etc.
And then you have the prejudice and fear of course. It's an issue that cant be ignored on the assimilation question. It makes it harder.
In 2017, not speaking the language is much more limiting, and once you know English, some assimilation (by exposure) is much more likely. It's basically impossible to just deal with businesses where your language is spoken (ex. Spanish). It's a lot harder to count on a life where you could work for 50 years within an enclaves of people just like you.
You now get ballots in 6-8 languages. Your cable company offers stations in a multitude of languages. You don't have to watch American television (which may not be a bad thing). Most hospitals now have the ability to deal with many different languages (a good thing). And 150 years ago once you were over here you were generally here to stay, with contact with the old country being letters (at best) as opposed to a cellular phone contract with low rates to the place you left.
Muslims cant do that. In particular, an observant Muslim has to eat halal food. If you grew up in a country where halal food predominated, it's no problem there. Here it is hard. Same thing I see with orthodox jews. Either you go to their restaurants, or you cant break bread with them. They cant go to the neighbors for dinner. Etc.
And then you have the prejudice and fear of course. It's an issue that cant be ignored on the assimilation question. It makes it harder.
The religious difference is undoubtedly important (as with Judaism though there are umpteen Muslims of varying degrees of piety for whom these dietary prohibitions are honored in whole, in part or not at all). There are also simply the social and religious pressures against conformity. Social pressures against conformity existed in varying degrees and forms for all immigrants, but the promise of some sort of divine retribution for assimilation is rather unique.
Quote:
You have fewer enclaves of immigrants where you can get by with no assimilation. 120 years ago a Jew getting off the boat at Ellis Island could go to a neighborhood where a critical mass of people spoke yiddish. You rented an apartment from someone who spoke the language, and didnt have to deal with a power company, a cable company, a cell phone company, big box stores etc, where it's largely English only (or +Spanish maybe). There was a yiddish newspaper. You had no designs on a job outside the neighborhood -- you were going to be a vendor, clerk, etc. for a yiddish speaker. The customers you dealt with were going to be yiddish speakers.
In 2017, not speaking the language is much more limiting, and once you know English, some assimilation (by exposure) is much more likely. It's basically impossible to just deal with businesses where your language is spoken (ex. Spanish). It's a lot harder to count on a life where you could work for 50 years within an enclaves of people just like you.
You now get ballots in 6-8 languages. Your cable company offers stations in a multitude of languages. You don't have to watch American television (which may not be a bad thing). Most hospitals now have the ability to deal with many different languages (a good thing). And 150 years ago once you were over here you were generally here to stay, with contact with the old country being letters (at best) as opposed to a cellular phone contract with low rates to the place you left.
Yes, you can list things. Now wrap them up into an analysis. 120 years ago you could read the Forward (yiddish newspaper). Doctors didnt do much, you couldnt afford them, and it's likely there was some jewish doctor in the neighborhood (even if not US trained).
Im not saying that the balance is totally on once side here. But I think pretending that back then you were forced to assimilate and now there is no pressure I think is just wrong. I've laid out my point.
Quote:
In comment 13479260 jcn56 said:
Quote:
You need a plane ticket to Detroit, stat. What you've said is exactly 0% applicable to the Muslim community there, and it's sizable.
Exactly! Some people are just reading the wrong shit that is passed around on Facebook I guess. Send him to Detroit like you said. More specifically...Dearborn MI. Just go to youtube and type "Muslim Dearborn" and just watch. Here is one for you... Dearborn MI - ( New Window )
I'd like to see something a little more nuanced. Drive through Palisades Park, NJ sometime. 40% Korean, with signs in Korean on a lot of storefronts. While that might show that assimilation is happening slower or only partially, there hasn't been a suicide bombing to date.
Koreans don't worship a God that wants them to kill non-Koreans, and base a large part of their religion(s) on emulating a violent and intolerant warlord.
You have to address the beliefs in the orthodoxy and the authority it gives its practitioners. Koreans will assimilate, like most others, because their religious convictions are not in conflict with those of our societies.
And there are no "reformed" Muslims per se. At least according to the orthodoxy. There are "bad" Muslims and apostates only, depending on their lack of practice or having left the religion. Yes, of course there are millions of Muslims that have attenuated their convictions based on cultural exposure to more universal human rights, and chosen to ignore much of what is in the religious texts.
But this is a hundreds of millions of people problem, once you widen the religious-based beliefs from martyrdom, down through jihad, to more common problems of jew and non-Muslim hatred and religious supremacy, women's rights, gay rights, child marriage and FGM (in some cultures), honor-killing, etc.
It takes serious religious beliefs to make people treat each other so inhumanely. And it's time to have adult conversations about the core texts inspiring and validating them. And to stop treating people as victims all the time (which of course many of them are, of their own co-religionists, but not from "Islamophobia).
People have failed to assimilate for generations upon generations. The root cause of the problem is the essential values of islam, mostly the primacy of its theocracy over the secular rule of law, are fundementally in opposition to the precepts of Western modernity. Sorry if this offends Ben Aflack, but it's clearly the conclusion to which any reasonable person examining the facts will arrive.
Yeah, walk thru Williamsburg and you see signs in Hebrew. Walk thru Chinatown and you see signs in Chinese. Lower East Side (no longer super jewish), Williamsburg, and Chinatown all have populations equal/bigger than Dearborn.
Yeah that may be true for some current immigrants but I wouldnt paint with too broad a brush. I would be interested in seeing polling on comparative attitudes among immigrant populations.
in England you can be 3rd Generation Bangladeshi ( originally Immigrating because Indian used to be a British Colony ) and NEVER ever be accepted as British.
If you are from Morocco decent and your family has lived in France for 60 years
you still will NEVER be considered French -- the racism and exclusion permeates these societies.
In US you don't have radicalization like you do in Europe because it doesn't matter where you come from .. as soon as you get your Passport you are considered as American as someone whose family came over in the Mayflower.
Quote:
Store signs in Arabic and Middle Eastern restaurants are threatening? I don't think so. Hence my request for nuance and comparison to Palisades Park.
Yeah, walk thru Williamsburg and you see signs in Hebrew. Walk thru Chinatown and you see signs in Chinese. Lower East Side (no longer super jewish), Williamsburg, and Chinatown all have populations equal/bigger than Dearborn.
Hell, what about restaurant signs in French, Italian and Spanish?
Quote:
In comment 13479175 trueblueinpw said:
Quote:
In case anyone's interested, Sam Harris has a well reasoned and intelligent take on the matter of radical islam. His podcast is called Waking Up, on iTunes or google it.
Sam Harris does an excellent job on this topic.
It just stuns and dismays me how reasoned discourse is almost completely absent from this incredibly serious global problem. Harris is probably most famous in this matter for his ridiculous exchange with Ben Aflack on Bill Maher. I mean, an actor of really average intelligence and with zero education or knowledge on the matter gets serious traction and support by hurling absurd accusations of bigotry and racism (as if religion were a race!). We see some of that here on BBI where people aren't even willing to acknowledge the most obvisou and indisputable facts of the problem.
Anyway, I'm glad there's people like Sam Harris fighting the good fight. I am afraid, however, we're very clearly losing the war.
Eh...one man's champion is another man's villain. Or in this case, one man's idea of an intellectual is another man's idea of a charlatan.
Sam Harris isn't nearly as good at what he does or intellectual as you guys think he is.
Link - ( New Window )
I suggest you listen to the actual discussion between them and judge for yourself.
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
They're leaving a place deemed substandard, poor or dangerous, and entering this country with hopes of a better life and safety.
I don't think it's asking too much to have the immigrants expect to learn the native language, standard for the national anthem/pledge of allegiance, respect the traditions and laws of their new country.
these should be requirements for entry/asylum IMO.
It doesn't mean you have to lose any identification with your homeland or heritage, be proud of it if you are, but there is a reason people come here.
the people who come here and hate America are the dangerous ones and the ones who impede progress. and some of them are the ones who sap the resources from the more deserving.
I suggest you listen to the actual discussion between them and judge for yourself.
Link - ( New Window )
I've listened to it; hence, my posting that article. And I understand why you think it was such a great discussion by Sam Harris based on your posting habits.
These discussions are always about two opposing views with both sides trying to out-wit or out-shout the other sides. And this discussion/thread is no different. Reactionaries versus apologists...rinse and repeat. It gets tiresome.
They're leaving a place deemed substandard, poor or dangerous, and entering this country with hopes of a better life and safety.
I don't think it's asking too much to have the immigrants expect to learn the native language, standard for the national anthem/pledge of allegiance, respect the traditions and laws of their new country.
these should be requirements for entry/asylum IMO.
It doesn't mean you have to lose any identification with your homeland or heritage, be proud of it if you are, but there is a reason people come here.
the people who come here and hate America are the dangerous ones and the ones who impede progress. and some of them are the ones who sap the resources from the more deserving.
standard s/b stand
Unfortunately it absolutely IS the religion that is the problem and we will one day end up with a true Muslim ban. You will see one of the European countries do it first because their situation will become more dire before ours does.
My guess is that it's not JUST the religion that's the problem. You're probably less likely to see a Muslim who leads a normal day-to-day life in a Western country going all Jihad than you are if, say, they lost a bunch of family members to a stray bomb, or if they attended the public beheading of a loved one.
I don't think there's anything inherent in the religion that will corrupt your average bloke, but it does seem to be an amplifying component when blended with other factors.
Quote:
this is getting way to common and it's only going to get worse if we don't wake up.
I don't believe the data supports that claim
Fuck off asshole.
And honestly, I don't really care much of Omer Aziz. However, those, who make Sam Harris out to be this intellectual sage aren't really interested in a nuanced approach to difficult topics as much as they are just interested in confirming their own views. If there's a landlord for an echo chamber, Sam Harris is that guy.
In 2017, not speaking the language is much more limiting, and once you know English, some assimilation (by exposure) is much more likely. It's basically impossible to just deal with businesses where your language is spoken (ex. Spanish). It's a lot harder to count on a life where you could work for 50 years within an enclaves of people just like you.
I think you need to get out more. There are enclaves and people can get almost everything in their own language and get their foods and other stuff that they had back home. Not saying that's a bad thing, but it can lessen the impetus to assimilation.
To be fair, that came from Italy where the northern areas looked down on Southern Italians, who they didn't even consider Italian.
Quote:
You have fewer enclaves of immigrants where you can get by with no assimilation. 120 years ago a Jew getting off the boat at Ellis Island could go to a neighborhood where a critical mass of people spoke yiddish. You rented an apartment from someone who spoke the language, and didnt have to deal with a power company, a cable company, a cell phone company, big box stores etc, where it's largely English only (or +Spanish maybe). There was a yiddish newspaper. You had no designs on a job outside the neighborhood -- you were going to be a vendor, clerk, etc. for a yiddish speaker. The customers you dealt with were going to be yiddish speakers.
In 2017, not speaking the language is much more limiting, and once you know English, some assimilation (by exposure) is much more likely. It's basically impossible to just deal with businesses where your language is spoken (ex. Spanish). It's a lot harder to count on a life where you could work for 50 years within an enclaves of people just like you.
I think you need to get out more. There are enclaves and people can get almost everything in their own language and get their foods and other stuff that they had back home. Not saying that's a bad thing, but it can lessen the impetus to assimilation.
I get out plenty, thanks.
My point is that it is harder to do that compared to 120 years ago. Because you need more contact with large, standardized corporations (cable cos etc.).
Quote:
is a natural goal as the receiving country of immigrants and refugees.
They're leaving a place deemed substandard, poor or dangerous, and entering this country with hopes of a better life and safety.
I don't think it's asking too much to have the immigrants expect to learn the native language, standard for the national anthem/pledge of allegiance, respect the traditions and laws of their new country.
these should be requirements for entry/asylum IMO.
It doesn't mean you have to lose any identification with your homeland or heritage, be proud of it if you are, but there is a reason people come here.
the people who come here and hate America are the dangerous ones and the ones who impede progress. and some of them are the ones who sap the resources from the more deserving.
standard s/b stand
Ultimately I think this is right. America is not a parcel of land inviting all who want to set up a tent to live here. To the extent we admit non-asylum/refugee immigrants, part and parcel of that invitation is that you participate in our civil society. Does that mean 100% conformity? No, that's impossible and in any event there is no one standard for what an American is. But what it does mean is that you shouldnt live a life separate from the country. Being an American should mean something more than literally being here.
I don't think there's anything inherent in the religion that will corrupt your average bloke, but it does seem to be an amplifying component when blended with other factors.
Actually...I would argue that your typical non-westernized Muslims prescribe to the life and religious ideals of "enshalla" or "ensha-allah," which means life is as god wills it. This means that while there is a semblance of blood feud, etc. in response to wrongs committed against them, in general, Muslims are not nearly as reactive as they get made out to be by the public solely based on their religion. I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with your second paragraph with even more emphasis that your everyday Muslims are even less reactive to wrong done to them.
I dont have a problem with this just because I dont like who said it. We should say it. ISIS and friend romanticize the suicide bomber. Call him a hero and martyr. There should be voices coming from the other direction.
You're not going to dissuade people from strapping on bomb vests by making available a really compelling white paper.
Fair enough, but I think it depends upon what is being reacted to. If a person is surrounded by people who perceive slights, injustices and acts of brutality committed against them, if there's strong evidence that many of these perceptions are actually realities, if you've suffered against some of these acts yourself, if you're routinely exposed to a certain set of people who will quote scripture as justification for terrible acts in response, and/or you follow that religion yourself, I see that as a mixture that can more likely lead someone down a murderous path than if you've been raised to belief your religion rejects murderous retribution.
That's a platitude. Extremism is perpetrating several high-profile attacks each year, and the reaction to it is reshaping the political landscape in numerous Western countries.
What in the world??
This is a terrific essay and rebuttal of Omer Aziz's buffoonish, opportunistic criticism of Harris and Nawaz. Aziz is maybe a rung or two above Al Sharpton.
Reading this thread, I think I understand the frustration Sam Harris feels trying to talk reasonably with Aziz.
Quote:
cab drivers and others coming together to help the victims. Extremism is losing the war.
That's a platitude. Extremism is perpetrating several high-profile attacks each year, and the reaction to it is reshaping the political landscape in numerous Western countries.
You can call it what you want but extremism is losing the war. The US hasn't had a significant attack since 9/11.
Quote:
In comment 13479678 Ron Johnson 30 said:
Quote:
cab drivers and others coming together to help the victims. Extremism is losing the war.
That's a platitude. Extremism is perpetrating several high-profile attacks each year, and the reaction to it is reshaping the political landscape in numerous Western countries.
You can call it what you want but extremism is losing the war. The US hasn't had a significant attack since 9/11.
If you don't think Fort Hood, San Bernadino and Orlando were significant we have very different definitions of that word.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
a horrible misrepresentation about Sam's points and absolutely packed with lies.
I suggest you listen to the actual discussion between them and judge for yourself.
Link - ( New Window )
I've listened to it; hence, my posting that article. And I understand why you think it was such a great discussion by Sam Harris based on your posting habits.
These discussions are always about two opposing views with both sides trying to out-wit or out-shout the other sides. And this discussion/thread is no different. Reactionaries versus apologists...rinse and repeat. It gets tiresome.
RC - Thanks for the response. What part of Sam Harris' arguments over the influence of religious beliefs (e.g. rewards of martyrdom, promotion of religious supremacy, embracing of jihad prescribed in the Islamic texts over and over) , or any others, do you not agree with ? And what is your evidence ?
Rather than linking articles, etc., maybe you can get into some specifics.
Not sure who you categorize as "reactionaries" ? Does that include people that have looked at texts and actual actions made in the name of those texts for the past 1500 years ?
Quote:
In comment 13479715 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
In comment 13479678 Ron Johnson 30 said:
Quote:
cab drivers and others coming together to help the victims. Extremism is losing the war.
That's a platitude. Extremism is perpetrating several high-profile attacks each year, and the reaction to it is reshaping the political landscape in numerous Western countries.
You can call it what you want but extremism is losing the war. The US hasn't had a significant attack since 9/11.
If you don't think Fort Hood, San Bernadino and Orlando were significant we have very different definitions of that word.
Yeah, the Boston Marathon bombing was insignificant, try telling that to his parents.
Or the three other deceased victim's families or the 16+ people who lost limbs or 200 other people injured.
chalk up a loss for extremism.
Some of you are morons.
Who on this thread would have the ignorance to argue it's "all Muslims" ?
The responses are always the same and are terrible platitudes. Why are people more concerned about hurting peoples' feelings over religious beliefs that inspire this mayhem ?
Former Moro Islamic Liberation Front fighters who probably have a new source of funding. Duterte and his predecessors were never able to defeat them, but they were never establish what they would now call a caliphate. If I remember correctly, they were never able to establish much of a presence on Luzon.
Speaking of sclerosis, I doubt Washington will do more than use this as an excuse for another pissing contest while not addressing the issue. However, I don't think the Philippine military will throw away their weapons and run like the Iraqis did.
Quote:
My guess is that it's not JUST the religion that's the problem. You're probably less likely to see a Muslim who leads a normal day-to-day life in a Western country going all Jihad than you are if, say, they lost a bunch of family members to a stray bomb, or if they attended the public beheading of a loved one.
I don't think there's anything inherent in the religion that will corrupt your average bloke, but it does seem to be an amplifying component when blended with other factors.
Actually...I would argue that your typical non-westernized Muslims prescribe to the life and religious ideals of "enshalla" or "ensha-allah," which means life is as god wills it. This means that while there is a semblance of blood feud, etc. in response to wrongs committed against them, in general, Muslims are not nearly as reactive as they get made out to be by the public solely based on their religion. I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with your second paragraph with even more emphasis that your everyday Muslims are even less reactive to wrong done to them.
RC - You realize "God's will" in your statement is spelled out in the texts that justify submission to an ideology that embraces spreading it by the sword right ?
And of course there are various levels reactions among different groups for a variety of factors. Do you not think the protests and murders over free speech, cartoons, etc. in western europe over the last 15 years or so is reactive ? Expecting Europeans to stand up for free speech and general human morality and well-being, and human rights is not bigotry and racism.
These are all based on "ideas" no different than Nazi racial justification, just protected because they are supposedly given by God through an angel, to a warlord pedophile that rode on a flying horse ? And we are protecting these immoral ideas why ?
Quote:
In comment 13479715 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
In comment 13479678 Ron Johnson 30 said:
Quote:
cab drivers and others coming together to help the victims. Extremism is losing the war.
That's a platitude. Extremism is perpetrating several high-profile attacks each year, and the reaction to it is reshaping the political landscape in numerous Western countries.
You can call it what you want but extremism is losing the war. The US hasn't had a significant attack since 9/11.
If you don't think Fort Hood, San Bernadino and Orlando were significant we have very different definitions of that word.
No, I don't consider mentally ill people snapping like Orlando the equivalent of this attack.
Quote:
In comment 13479678 Ron Johnson 30 said:
Quote:
cab drivers and others coming together to help the victims. Extremism is losing the war.
That's a platitude. Extremism is perpetrating several high-profile attacks each year, and the reaction to it is reshaping the political landscape in numerous Western countries.
You can call it what you want but extremism is losing the war. The US hasn't had a significant attack since 9/11.
The acts of human decency by certain people has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.
There have been over 30,000 deadly attacks made in the name of Islam et al, since 9/11, across the world.
We are losing this battle consistently every time someone new criticizes people using free speech to attack the horrible ideas promoted by Islam.
It's a war of ideas and we are losing all the time thanks to political correctness, victimology poker, the abandonment of basic principles of human rights, moral relativism and intellectual dishonesty and fear over hurting people's feelings over "ideas."
Just change your handle to "Drive-By" and be done with it.
Quote:
Store signs in Arabic and Middle Eastern restaurants are threatening? I don't think so. Hence my request for nuance and comparison to Palisades Park.
Yeah, walk thru Williamsburg and you see signs in Hebrew. Walk thru Chinatown and you see signs in Chinese. Lower East Side (no longer super jewish), Williamsburg, and Chinatown all have populations equal/bigger than Dearborn.
njm- Sorry I think I missed your link and having an issue finding it. Nevertheless, I just scanned your posts on here and I don't disagree with your calls for nuance or you argument that street signs are not a threat.
To be honest, I am not too interested in the assimilation arguments and was only trying to argue why Islam makes it so different from every one else.
Assimilation is a waste of time until the core beliefs can be fully criticized, just like those of all other religions in the world (in the west).
Until people acknowledge the 800 lb gorilla in the room, I just don't think it matters who ate or didn't eat a few bananas (grin).
I'll respond, even though you don't care to hear it.
That is part of the problem, especially in Europe and in the press in Europe and to a lesser extent here. Avoiding saying it is just obfuscation and using euphemisms to avoid speaking the truth.
Some of us use it enough. It's an accurate description, though I prefer "Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist" since it is the fundamentals of Islam that are being acted upon, used for justification and inspiration in the name of God.
For people only pushing shariah and political Islam (and not outright murdering little girls at concerts, etc,) and calling any criticism of the ideas asserted by the texts as bigots, etc. (apologists), I prefer "Islamist."
No, I don't consider mentally ill people snapping like Orlando the equivalent of this attack.
Stop feeding the troll.
Quote:
In comment 13479544 santacruzom said:
Quote:
My guess is that it's not JUST the religion that's the problem. You're probably less likely to see a Muslim who leads a normal day-to-day life in a Western country going all Jihad than you are if, say, they lost a bunch of family members to a stray bomb, or if they attended the public beheading of a loved one.
I don't think there's anything inherent in the religion that will corrupt your average bloke, but it does seem to be an amplifying component when blended with other factors.
Actually...I would argue that your typical non-westernized Muslims prescribe to the life and religious ideals of "enshalla" or "ensha-allah," which means life is as god wills it. This means that while there is a semblance of blood feud, etc. in response to wrongs committed against them, in general, Muslims are not nearly as reactive as they get made out to be by the public solely based on their religion. I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with your second paragraph with even more emphasis that your everyday Muslims are even less reactive to wrong done to them.
RC - You realize "God's will" in your statement is spelled out in the texts that justify submission to an ideology that embraces spreading it by the sword right ?
And of course there are various levels reactions among different groups for a variety of factors. Do you not think the protests and murders over free speech, cartoons, etc. in western europe over the last 15 years or so is reactive ? Expecting Europeans to stand up for free speech and general human morality and well-being, and human rights is not bigotry and racism.
These are all based on "ideas" no different than Nazi racial justification, just protected because they are supposedly given by God through an angel, to a warlord pedophile that rode on a flying horse ? And we are protecting these immoral ideas why ?
There are far more nuanced factors in the rise of extremism than merely religious ones that you and others are trying to generalize and vilify. However, if we want to oversimplify it like Sam Harris often does, then we can say the same for other religions when it comes to those who want to use religion to perpetuate violence against others. There is such complexity involving political, social, and economical factors that we must consider to really understand the rise and perpetuation of extremism but many people refuse to do so since religion is the low hanging fruit that's there for the picking. However, having read many of your posts on this topic over the years, I would rather not get into a back and forth with you as it will be a waste of time for you and me.
My personal experiences having dealt with hundreds of Muslims and extremism over my career and adult life go counter to your views on Islam and Muslims (not even sure what your experience with Islam and Muslims is). So I'll merely state that my argument is based on my anecdotal experiences. You don't have to agree, and honestly, I don't really care much.
Quote:
So we don't use "Muslim Terrorist" enough?
Just change your handle to "Drive-By" and be done with it.
I think that's a very appropriate response unless you want to take to point out the misleading data. Victimology?
"It's a war of ideas and we are losing all the time thanks to political correctness, victimology poker, the abandonment of basic principles of human rights, moral relativism and intellectual dishonesty and fear over hurting people's feelings over "ideas."
I'm not wasting the time to point out the misleading data in his post.
Quote:
So we don't use "Muslim Terrorist" enough?
I'll respond, even though you don't care to hear it.
That is part of the problem, especially in Europe and in the press in Europe and to a lesser extent here. Avoiding saying it is just obfuscation and using euphemisms to avoid speaking the truth.
Some of us use it enough. It's an accurate description, though I prefer "Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist" since it is the fundamentals of Islam that are being acted upon, used for justification and inspiration in the name of God.
For people only pushing shariah and political Islam (and not outright murdering little girls at concerts, etc,) and calling any criticism of the ideas asserted by the texts as bigots, etc. (apologists), I prefer "Islamist."
And what does it accomplish? Theres a reason why anti-terror experts don't use those words. The same reason Trump didn't in Saudi Arabia, before he left the Middle East and went to Israel. Nothing in your post is a solution to the radical Islam problem.
The US approach has been on the money over the last 10 years. Vetting of immigrants and visitors, security and the counter terrorism efforts have done excellent job.
The radicals are losing the war. Look at how the people came together in the UK today. They may pull off an attack occasionally but long term the future isn't bright for them. With education and opportunity fewer will join the cause.
Quote:
In comment 13479592 RC02XX said:
Quote:
In comment 13479544 santacruzom said:
Quote:
My guess is that it's not JUST the religion that's the problem. You're probably less likely to see a Muslim who leads a normal day-to-day life in a Western country going all Jihad than you are if, say, they lost a bunch of family members to a stray bomb, or if they attended the public beheading of a loved one.
I don't think there's anything inherent in the religion that will corrupt your average bloke, but it does seem to be an amplifying component when blended with other factors.
Actually...I would argue that your typical non-westernized Muslims prescribe to the life and religious ideals of "enshalla" or "ensha-allah," which means life is as god wills it. This means that while there is a semblance of blood feud, etc. in response to wrongs committed against them, in general, Muslims are not nearly as reactive as they get made out to be by the public solely based on their religion. I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with your second paragraph with even more emphasis that your everyday Muslims are even less reactive to wrong done to them.
RC - You realize "God's will" in your statement is spelled out in the texts that justify submission to an ideology that embraces spreading it by the sword right ?
And of course there are various levels reactions among different groups for a variety of factors. Do you not think the protests and murders over free speech, cartoons, etc. in western europe over the last 15 years or so is reactive ? Expecting Europeans to stand up for free speech and general human morality and well-being, and human rights is not bigotry and racism.
These are all based on "ideas" no different than Nazi racial justification, just protected because they are supposedly given by God through an angel, to a warlord pedophile that rode on a flying horse ? And we are protecting these immoral ideas why ?
There are far more nuanced factors in the rise of extremism than merely religious ones that you and others are trying to generalize and vilify. However, if we want to oversimplify it like Sam Harris often does, then we can say the same for other religions when it comes to those who want to use religion to perpetuate violence against others. There is such complexity involving political, social, and economical factors that we must consider to really understand the rise and perpetuation of extremism but many people refuse to do so since religion is the low hanging fruit that's there for the picking. However, having read many of your posts on this topic over the years, I would rather not get into a back and forth with you as it will be a waste of time for you and me.
My personal experiences having dealt with hundreds of Muslims and extremism over my career and adult life go counter to your views on Islam and Muslims (not even sure what your experience with Islam and Muslims is). So I'll merely state that my argument is based on my anecdotal experiences. You don't have to agree, and honestly, I don't really care much.
RC. so basically you have no argument or evidence. I don't doubt that you have many positive experiences that provide your anecdotal information.
Now it's "low hanging fruit" to blame an ideology that promises eternal paradise for murdering innocent women and children ? Do you not blame Christian terrorists for murdering abortion doctors on the bible ?
Can you name another religion that uses religious texts to inspire and justify/validate suicide bombing/martyrdom ? Must be a low hanging shot in the dark on that one. Forgive me for seeing a link that is validated and quoted word for word, over and over again by the perpetrators. I suppose virtually every article in every issue of ISIS's magazine, for example, is "twisting" the religion.
And you can certainly say the same for many other religions to some minimal degree, of course, but as you know, no one takes the fact that it's ok to kill your neighbor for working on the sabath, seriously anymore. If there are a few that do, they deserve all the scorn we can muster, just like a large number of immoral laws described by the Islamic texts deserve.
Unfortunately, people like you would rather see free speech criticism of those ideas in the public domain, restricted and silenced. If that is not the case, maybe you could let us know why your anectodal information should suffice for us to suspend our freedom of speech principles that western civilization has fought and died for, for centuries.
For years and years now.
Quote:
In comment 13480008 Ron Johnson 30 said:
Quote:
So we don't use "Muslim Terrorist" enough?
I'll respond, even though you don't care to hear it.
That is part of the problem, especially in Europe and in the press in Europe and to a lesser extent here. Avoiding saying it is just obfuscation and using euphemisms to avoid speaking the truth.
Some of us use it enough. It's an accurate description, though I prefer "Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist" since it is the fundamentals of Islam that are being acted upon, used for justification and inspiration in the name of God.
For people only pushing shariah and political Islam (and not outright murdering little girls at concerts, etc,) and calling any criticism of the ideas asserted by the texts as bigots, etc. (apologists), I prefer "Islamist."
And what does it accomplish? Theres a reason why anti-terror experts don't use those words. The same reason Trump didn't in Saudi Arabia, before he left the Middle East and went to Israel. Nothing in your post is a solution to the radical Islam problem.
The US approach has been on the money over the last 10 years. Vetting of immigrants and visitors, security and the counter terrorism efforts have done excellent job.
The radicals are losing the war. Look at how the people came together in the UK today. They may pull off an attack occasionally but long term the future isn't bright for them. With education and opportunity fewer will join the cause.
RJ 30 - How about facing the truth ? Is that not enough ? I don't support rubbing peoples noses in it on their home soil. I agree that these conversations are not going to be easy. But we are heading towards a technological armageddon on this issue. I think some hurt feelings about 1400 year old superstitions might be a safer alternative. We can start by not calling everyone who calls for open dialogue on the scriptures "racists" "bigots" and "Islamophobes."
As to your take on how we are winning this war, I don't see how you could possibly argue that this is the case given the central focus of the immigration issues here and in western europe, for one example. Sure, we haven't had anything as bad as 9/11, but the volume of smaller attacks, investigations and attacks avoided, the money being spent, have all escalated greatly. France has 15,000 people on their terror list, 25% of whom are high risk. This attack last night was one person (with maybe some help along the way).
Oh really, because I was really hoping to be able to change your mind, Deej.
For years and years now.
Bill- I find it fun to come on here and argue this stuff once in a while. Sorry you feel that way.
Go over there and tell them
Go over there and tell them
Yes, just like has been done to other religions, beliefs and texts that we as human beings, men of reason and science, have done of the years.
Not sure why you would find it so novel an idea or why you think this religion gets a pass.
Quote:
the free speech persecution complex isnt helping you convince anyone of anything.
Oh really, because I was really hoping to be able to change your mind, Deej.
Why wouldnt you be able to change my mind? Because Im a terrorist loving bleeding heart liberal?
in lands with the lowest consumable water, the highest number of cloudless days, some of the lowest levels of education, with only a tiny tiny few who learn the language of the Koran at universities, with great despotism, scarcity of expression, the fewest media outlets per nation and where they do not test for or notice or treat or counsel schizophrenia, bi polar, depression, OCD, ADHD, PTSD...where often the mosque is the only hope for answers, charity and truth to power...the only essential first step to solutions is telling them their religion is the worst in the world.
Cool. Maybe you are right. Why are you on a football message board? The flight to Bahrain is $884 dollars round trip.
My point is not to wish you to go there
My point is that you are extremely passionate about a subject where there is no useful audience for your point
in lands with the lowest consumable water, the highest number of cloudless days, some of the lowest levels of education, with only a tiny tiny few who learn the language of the Koran at universities, with great despotism, scarcity of expression, the fewest media outlets per nation and where they do not test for or notice or treat or counsel schizophrenia, bi polar, depression, OCD, ADHD, PTSD...where often the mosque is the only hope for answers, charity and truth to power...the only essential first step to solutions is telling them their religion is the worst in the world.
Cool. Maybe you are right. Why are you on a football message board? The flight to Bahrain is $884 dollars round trip.
My point is not to wish you to go there
My point is that you are extremely passionate about a subject where there is no useful audience for your point
Your points are well taken. Thanks.
Quote:
In comment 13480281 Deej said:
Quote:
the free speech persecution complex isnt helping you convince anyone of anything.
Oh really, because I was really hoping to be able to change your mind, Deej.
Why wouldnt you be able to change my mind? Because Im a terrorist loving bleeding heart liberal?
I was joking. Because I know you don't agree with me and don't expect it to change based on your posts on the subject.
So you really think they dont self examine and search for answers ?
Alone of all humans...they dont self reflect? Really?
Then why are their so many offshoots?
With the full range of interpretations humans give from rejection to absorbtion
And a Mike...in this century which religion has killed the most non believers in horrible ways ? Budhism or Islam?
Careful...facts are inconvenient
Hope you and yours are doing well my friend
It might be worth considering the impacts of poverty, access to education, impacts of generations of war, government corruption, and occupations, might be causes and religious, violent extremism might be symptoms.
But only if the point is to promote a better, safer world.
If the religion is so prone to follow the exact letter of the Koran then:
How come they dont charge us on horseback or camelback? Its prescribed in the Koran. True.
how come they would ever allow a woman from an foreign country be seen with out covering her head? Its in the same Koran you say they follow to the letter?
And how come if they follow the letter of the Koran...this is a problem thought pattern that started in 1938? If the Koran is the problem how come the Thomas Cook Company took newlyweds to the Middle East since King George III and they all came back? Did they lose the Koran from 1700 to 1938? I mean if the only reason is the violence in the Koran is official and fully followed by all the followers of this worst of all religions...how come Queen Victoria ever came back from her vacation?
She came back without a scratch.
Must have been no Koran in Eygpt during those 40 years
Please expand. A core virtue of Buddhism is not to injure anyone. One would have to go through hoops to find a justification in the texts, certainly as it compares to Islam. Not to say Buddhists have not caused tribal violence, it's just that it is not supported by even a liberal interpretation of the texts. Perhaps you mean the zen buddhism aspects of kamikazes or something to do with Mao. Not sure what you mean.
If you want to be an expert in the worlds worst religion then challenge your self. Think a a family with their hands and ears sliced off by the DKBA thinks that Islam is the worst religion?
What about the series of Burmese kings who killed all practioners of the slightly different strains of Buddhism that was practiced by their predecessors...because their priests insisted it was written?
and on and on and on
Know what I think the worst religion is?
Certainty
Certainty is a belief system
It has a trinity called Labeling, Mind Reading and Repeating.
It has an infallible Pope for life.
Oneself.
And its Pope does take confessions.
Hands out absolution to the self and penance to everyone else
If the religion is so prone to follow the exact letter of the Koran then:
How come they dont charge us on horseback or camelback? Its prescribed in the Koran. True.
how come they would ever allow a woman from an foreign country be seen with out covering her head? Its in the same Koran you say they follow to the letter?
And how come if they follow the letter of the Koran...this is a problem thought pattern that started in 1938? If the Koran is the problem how come the Thomas Cook Company took newlyweds to the Middle East since King George III and they all came back? Did they lose the Koran from 1700 to 1938? I mean if the only reason is the violence in the Koran is official and fully followed by all the followers of this worst of all religions...how come Queen Victoria ever came back from her vacation?
You are picking out exceptions to make the same point over and over. That it's not all Muslims, that parts of the Quran are interpreted by some as being more or less literal, that there are conflicts (of course there are, it was written and interpreted by thousands of different human beings).
The fact that you need to even make such arguments shows that we are not discussing evidence. We have been through this a few times before. I do not blame evolution, people, free will or anything else and I accept that people are doing and have done the best they can given their circumstances, including all Muslims.
You are searching for nuance that I agree 100% exists, I don't doubt that I am mostly at fault for being argumentative and a dick about it. Do I really need to say over and over again "it's not all Muslims?" and the rest of it ? Granted, you make the arguments in a much more knowledgeable and sophisticated way than anyone else, but it doesn't change the fact that your argument is based upon the same logic.
Yes, not all Germans were Nazis, and not all Nazis killed Jews. Doesn't change the core anti-semitic ideology and laws created around those beliefs of Nazism.
Ditto on your aunt. Is that supposed to be evidence for a debate we are having that I don't know about ? When did I argue that parts and eras of Islamic history weren't more tolerant than others ?
Some jews survived late 30s Germany and got out before the laws changed, or were even allowed to leave. Doesn't change what happened once the ideology took root and people stopped fighting against it, until there was no choice and 70 million people died (many other nations/civil war/factors of course).
Not sure how that is supposed to dispute the evidence that people act up beliefs that are made clear in the texts when they are able to do so, and when there is little public dispute (other than secular or non-secular tyrants/rulers enforcing laws to the degree that they are able).
This is not about the past or casting blame on people who were responsible for letting it get where we are, it's about the insulation from criticism that this one ideology is granted. And we have clearly seen where this has led us, as well as the current trajectory. What Burmese kings did because of their priests is nothing more than a reminder of what happens when ideas spin out of control in the name of religion/God.
If people would rather not discuss it and just assume I see the world as black and white and am a reactionary/bigot/racist/etc, that is fine. I am certainly guilty of making similar judgements of other people, based on their refusal to acknowledge all the slightest evidence that there is a link between Islam and terrorism and arguing for ignoring it, or that no good will come from discussing it.
And your points about certainty all go without saying. The fact that you need to make those points indicate that I am doing a horrible job arguing and/or you feel they put me in my place as someone who is taking the easy way out and just wants to blame all Muslims for all the ills in the world. At this point, I'm not sure what I can say to convince you otherwise.
Either way, it's totally cool and I always appreciate your contributions and the thought-provocation that follows it.
It might be worth considering the impacts of poverty, access to education, impacts of generations of war, government corruption, and occupations, might be causes and religious, violent extremism might be symptoms.
But only if the point is to promote a better, safer world.
Christian - Why do you feel the need to put such effort into justifying a reason to debate "ideas." Aren't we smart enough to see when people are using it for demagoguery and other self-serving and evil motives, generally ? Ideas should stand on their own merit or be cast into the historical dustbin, no ?
Lawrence Wright is just one place to start on this aspect of the topic. Then read his sources and bibliography he used.
Seventy years ago, it would have been a fair question to ask what in Christianity led to anti-Semitism, because for much of Christian history Jews living within or near Christian communities had been treated poorly, often quite brutally. Even if the Holocaust wasn't directed by people who were Christian in any meaningful sense of the word, plenty of the people who participated in it in Germany and especially in Nazi-occupied territory were living out decades or centuries-old hatreds. At this point, that question doesn't seem particularly apposite, but the intersection of history and faith throughout the Christian era suggested seventy years ago that it was.
So again, I don't think it's an unfair, bigoted question to ask of Islam and terrorism. But as Bill points out in quite learned fashion, it's equally fair to rejoin that for centuries Westerners, including unveiled women, walked freely in much of the Muslim world, and the present state of affairs may be better understood as being as much the product of history as of faith, or at least of particularized interpretations of that faith that are powerful now, again for unique historical reasons.
You can call a spade a spade, but make sure you're actually describing a spade and not just echoing an undergrad blogger with a shelf full of David Horowitz and Sam Harris tomes.
https://twitter.com/BlairImani/status/866821360919732224
Why have Muslim majority societies operated without violent terrorism in many regions for swaths of 100s of years? Why do Muslim majority nations and societies operate without violent terrorism now? Why have Muslim majority societies contextualized violent texts to time and place effectively for giants swaths of time? Is it more likely there are inherent differences in the humanity of Muslim societies that condone and act out in terror or differences in the conditions they live?
Why do violent texts leap from the dustpan into the present for societies routinely across theological and philosophical boundaries, time and time again throughout history?
Ending the discussion at "Islam bad" is boring.
But just for fun, it is zero sum, what's the solution?
Something that seems to be given short shrift here is the impact of tribe as opposed to, or in conjunction with, religion.
BTW, any response to my comment on the Philippines?
Many of the attacks ISIS claims responsibility for were carried out by some nut with no real ties to ISIS other watching a video.
That crap is what I find most frustrating. It's complete BS and insinuates "liberal" policies support the terrorists. I can't think of a more stupid or counterproductive argument. Note how they don't provide a specific examples of what the policy should be and they completely ignore the success currents policies are having in preventing attacks. It's the perfect Fox News meme.
Who is supporting these acts? and how?
Rather than what tangled rationalizations are cited after the fact.
News flash. Sick people can justify what they do. Sick acts always are accompanied by words the perpetrator believes.
Some people do sneaky shit in the name of a "really good reason"
Thats a universal in human history.
Then add that almost no human stays in compliance with their own beliefs 100% of the time
Did you know that the US undertook military actions against the Muslim minority jihads in 1899 and 1903 and 1905?
Islam got to the Philipines in the 13th century. If not for spanish conquest in the 1500s, the Phillipines, like Indonesia, would still be Muslim
As we know, the Spanish followed the ancient scripts as did the muslims. One of them had guns. So obviously, the best script won.
But the exception was the Moros on Mindano who held out against Spanish conquest and conversion.
Because they were more fundamentalist? No. Because the Chinese threatened to attack the Spanish and drove them away in the 1600s.
"When the American came in 1899, The native Moro Muslims and Lumads were supplanted by American colonization programs, with Christians from other islands assigned control of key areas and disrupting the natives' administrative structures to support the United States' dominion and extraction of food and lumber." ( Handbook of Terror and Insurgency of Southeast Asia)
When food is needed the the Philippine government, Philippine military and Filipino militias used extremely violent tactics against natives to support the settlers they wanted to seed the island. The government and the US corporations ( kind of a money laden web right there) targeted a Christian population of 75% Christians from the more crowded and less fertile islands. The forced colonization became quite violent and approached genocidal . Which the Christians said the Bible justified. The Moros fought back. Which they said the Quran justified. Money won. Resentment of generations was set in motion
Over time, the native locals have used their identity as islam and at times tried communism as an powerful way to redress wrongs (and raise money from China) and back to islam led rationales for fighting the imported structures.
over the century the muslims got agitated and then calmed as non religious issues took prominence. In particular they fought with the US against the Japanese
Now....is it religion or money?
Ok...take a timeline from 1565. Note the correlation of Chinese desire for food and lumber and the virulence of Islamic reaction.
So what is the cause here?
Money?
Colonization?
Strict following of ancient texts?
Off shore oil?
I say lets not look at any complexities. I read on BBI the only answer is to condemn the violence of the worlds only bad religion. If we dont do that then no solution will ever work.
So those are my initial thoughts njm and Dune
Which is more important? The power or the money? I'll hazard a guess toward power.
Which is more important? The power or the money? I'll hazard a guess toward power.
But money, and the arms it buys, allows you to hold out. I think the Moros are an example of that.
Most of the early American use of Mahogany comes from Honduras ( which was too expensive when it required tax to the Brits as it used to be British Honduras) until it was taxed and logged to fast.
Then the majority of it came from Mindano.
So that heirloom from your kindly grandmother got here when our corporations got poor but pliable Christians to log it as opposed to the natives who were Islamic and like...inconveniently owned the land.
Now honorable Chinese corporations want things to slide back their way while dishonorable Chinese organizations want to sell everyone heroin and meth.
So as you can see they hate us for our freedom and their Quran absolutely requires them to be barbarians. Even the little children. When are we going to start condemming this worst of all possible religions?
Why are all you people liberal do gooders who think being PC is a solution?
Its them. They are evil. With an evil religion they all follow. Its an evil book. Its time we told them that.
See...that will stop it all
I've said it before, but ISIS is not going to kill everyone in the west by killing 20 people every couple months, as horrible and despicable as these attacks are.
They are trying to bait the West into declaring war on their entire religion. This will make it easier to recruit, and will fulfill the "prophecy" of the holy war that they believe they are divinely guaranteed to win.
As for the actual problem itself, I'm not sure what to do...but I do know that there are areas of the country that have significant Muslim immigrant populations, including NYC, Dearborn, Minnesota, and New England, where the immigrant community is essentially the same as any other new immigrant generation.
Living in NYC, you deal with Muslim immigrants every day. Going to Rutgers, I know a significant number of Muslims. They're just regular people, and it really puts into perspective that these are just, well, normal dudes, and taking ISIS's bait is playing into their hands.
If you took a poll and asked people if we should ban all Muslims from the country, or did so right after an attack...want to bet you would get 35-40% would say yes?
This is especially true of isolated places, harsh places low in an easy life, and worlds with few outlets and the principle of free speech. Logically, those places have a high percentage of folks who are "certain" and the price of being different when resources are scarce are quite high.
The most interesting example of this are the cargo cults of some Southern Pacific islands.
Most are animist worshipers of natural objects and superstitions since pre history.
Many islands did not see ships since they were off the shipping lanes of wind driven vessels. So their worlds were no different in 1938AD than 1938BC.
However in WWII strange gods moved across the water in the distance trailing smoke. Now power driven ships could take direct lanes regardless of the winds.
Sometimes things they never saw before would wash up on shore. Gifts of the new gods to the people. For being good.
What did the wise men say? The obvious answer is pray to the new gods.
What happened?
Well they did not know anything about WWII. What they saw is that by praying to the new gods...more ships came.
Some sent sparks and soon giant fly's swarmed with the gods. Many were tankers and supply ships but they did not know that. Sometimes ships would break up and sink...but they only saw times of great gifts wash up on shore.
The praying intensified for clearly they were reaching the new gods and the new gods were rewarding them.
The cargo cult religions were rewarded for their devotion for unbeknownst to them after the war...shipping increased as the post war economy of Asia got better.
in the 1950s to the 1980s ( yes that recently) most of these islands came in contact with the actual world. Sickness and disease followed. Incomprehensible things occurred.
The Reaction? We got what we deserved abandoning the old gods and the old prayers.
Michael Rockefeller likely perished washed up on shore in 1964 ( If memory serves) to be killed and perhaps eaten y cargo cult cannibals.
Lets not forget to condemm them for their religion. One of the worst in the world and clearly inferior to ours.
Simple. If they are inconvenient...its their books...whoops I mean their palm fronds and rock scratches and their books
If you took a poll and asked people if we should ban all Muslims from the country, or did so right after an attack...want to bet you would get 35-40% would say yes?
What would be interesting, however, is what the % would be in places where there actually *is* a statistically significant Muslim immigrant population. I wonder what that number would look like in Dearborn or Minnesota (which, as I understand, has a big Somali population).
I've said it before, but ISIS is not going to kill everyone in the west by killing 20 people every couple months, as horrible and despicable as these attacks are.
They are trying to bait the West into declaring war on their entire religion. This will make it easier to recruit, and will fulfill the "prophecy" of the holy war that they believe they are divinely guaranteed to win.
As for the actual problem itself, I'm not sure what to do...but I do know that there are areas of the country that have significant Muslim immigrant populations, including NYC, Dearborn, Minnesota, and New England, where the immigrant community is essentially the same as any other new immigrant generation.
Living in NYC, you deal with Muslim immigrants every day. Going to Rutgers, I know a significant number of Muslims. They're just regular people, and it really puts into perspective that these are just, well, normal dudes, and taking ISIS's bait is playing into their hands.
Most of what you said about Muslims in the US is true and that is because the rest of America doesn't care what your religion is, as long as you don't try to force it down somebody's throat.
However, ISIS is going to overrun territories because they believe in the Caliphate - not because someone is calling them Radical Islamist Terrorists. When they were winning and seemed invincible, they recruited well. Now that they are losing, recruiting is not so good and their fighters are defecting.
ISIS is not baiting anybody except their own believers. They are for real in their belief in the Caliphate and don't need the West to enhance their goals. If every western trooper left Syria and Iraq right now and left them alone they wouldn't stop, they'd march right through any place that did not oppose them militarily.
Al Qaeda wanted westerners out of the Middle East and especially out of the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia) - they really weren't looking for expansion outside of the M.E., except maybe Ayman al-Zawahiri, and he was pretty much ignored. ISIS is looking at the world - remember they are on a mission from God.
Quote:
is used to address these terrorist attacks makes any real difference other than making certain people feel better. There's definite downsides, as it basically means Western liberal democracies (small "l", obviously) are taking the bait that ISIS is laying out for us.
I've said it before, but ISIS is not going to kill everyone in the west by killing 20 people every couple months, as horrible and despicable as these attacks are.
They are trying to bait the West into declaring war on their entire religion. This will make it easier to recruit, and will fulfill the "prophecy" of the holy war that they believe they are divinely guaranteed to win.
As for the actual problem itself, I'm not sure what to do...but I do know that there are areas of the country that have significant Muslim immigrant populations, including NYC, Dearborn, Minnesota, and New England, where the immigrant community is essentially the same as any other new immigrant generation.
Living in NYC, you deal with Muslim immigrants every day. Going to Rutgers, I know a significant number of Muslims. They're just regular people, and it really puts into perspective that these are just, well, normal dudes, and taking ISIS's bait is playing into their hands.
Most of what you said about Muslims in the US is true and that is because the rest of America doesn't care what your religion is, as long as you don't try to force it down somebody's throat.
However, ISIS is going to overrun territories because they believe in the Caliphate - not because someone is calling them Radical Islamist Terrorists. When they were winning and seemed invincible, they recruited well. Now that they are losing, recruiting is not so good and their fighters are defecting.
ISIS is not baiting anybody except their own believers. They are for real in their belief in the Caliphate and don't need the West to enhance their goals. If every western trooper left Syria and Iraq right now and left them alone they wouldn't stop, they'd march right through any place that did not oppose them militarily.
Al Qaeda wanted westerners out of the Middle East and especially out of the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia) - they really weren't looking for expansion outside of the M.E., except maybe Ayman al-Zawahiri, and he was pretty much ignored. ISIS is looking at the world - remember they are on a mission from God.
Well yeah, but I don't see how what you wrote is different from anything I wrote.
The "bait" is just an in between step. You're right, they wouldn't stop if Westerners left the ME, because they want a holy war to ensure so that their Caliphate is supreme.
But in order to do this, they need the holy war to materialize, and this entails the rest of the world declaring war on Islam and Muslims.
On a practical level, this also helps their recruiting.
So I don't really see where we are at odds with one another except when you say that they aren't baiting the West.
Terrorist attacks serve a purpose beyond simply killing people, and in this case, the purpose seems to be to create a war between Muslims and the rest of the world.
Where did the money come from? Why?
but onto one last point to njm and Dune: I dont think it will get better anytime soon.
As no growth continues in Europe and the social welfare economies of the Gulf take a beating from less than half the price of oil in the past...its the Pakistanis and Palestinians who do the grunt work who will get sent out into the world without jobs, homes or a future.
Add the aftershocks of our last bubble still not re paid and a collapsing made up bubble in China and the pressure is high in a lot of the world for awhile.
In chaos the search for Certainty reaches desperate levels for too many people
Where did the money come from? Why?
but onto one last point to njm and Dune: I dont think it will get better anytime soon.
As no growth continues in Europe and the social welfare economies of the Gulf take a beating from less than half the price of oil in the past...its the Pakistanis and Palestinians who do the grunt work who will get sent out into the world without jobs, homes or a future.
Add the aftershocks of our last bubble still not re paid and a collapsing made up bubble in China and the pressure is high in a lot of the world for awhile.
In chaos the search for Certainty reaches desperate levels for too many people
ISIS may be driven out of Mosul and Raqqa, but that doesn't change the unemployment rate of youth in the region, where they make up, what, 40% of the population. And refugees in Europe may have homes, but they don't have jobs or a future. And it will be interesting to see how Europeans react when their state controlled retirement benefit continue to be spent on (ungrateful) refugee social programs 2-3 years down the road. And the Greek, Italian and Spanish debt issues might not be in the headlines but they haven't gone away. While the names may change, the possibilities for ISIS 2.0 (with shadow ME Islamist financing) and Le Pen 2.0 are very real.
Add to that Moody's downgrading Chines debt today, probably years after it should have happened.
But pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Quote:
Al Qaeda wanted westerners out of the Middle East and especially out of the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia) - they really weren't looking for expansion outside of the M.E., except maybe Ayman al-Zawahiri, and he was pretty much ignored. ISIS is looking at the world - remember they are on a mission from God.
Section-That was/is just there shorter term goal and certainly more emphasized and reported, as you would expect. Their longer term goal is martyrdom or complete victory for the one true faith. It's appealing because they can never lose. The belief system nullifies all other goals and people who don't understand this commonly assign a wealth of other motives to their behavior. This was made clear in more of AQs direct communications to Muslims and less so to the US and west.
But the goal of brining Islam to America and getting us to stop our immoral ways was made clear (one of) his letters to America. Link below.
Link - ( New Window )
It was about bringing the US under the rule of radical Islam law.
I didn't read this whole thread, and considering the length (and my knowledge of your views via previous threads) I'm assuming that a large part of this was taken up by you and others debating whether "bringing Islam" is the same as "bringing under hard-line Islamic law".
The way you put it sure does sound like you think the mere presence of Islam is somehow an existential threat.
Quote:
Well yeah, but I don't see how what you wrote is different from anything I wrote.
The "bait" is just an in between step. You're right, they wouldn't stop if Westerners left the ME, because they want a holy war to ensure so that their Caliphate is supreme.
But in order to do this, they need the holy war to materialize, and this entails the rest of the world declaring war on Islam and Muslims.
On a practical level, this also helps their recruiting.
So I don't really see where we are at odds with one another except when you say that they aren't baiting the West.
Terrorist attacks serve a purpose beyond simply killing people, and in this case, the purpose seems to be to create a war between Muslims and the rest of the world.
They don't need the rest of the world to declare war as evidenced by what they have done for the past 4 years. They have already declared war on the non-Muslim world. The rest of the world won't return the favor - apathy. They'll get push back from the US, UK and France, but most of their war will come from M.E. kingdoms protecting their countries. If they try to push through Turkey to get to Europe, Turkey will destroy them. Heck with minimal backing the Kurds have pretty much handed them their heads.
The rest of the Muslim world doesn't seem to want to participate, why should the West, except to pick away at their locals?
Lawrence Wright is just one place to start on this aspect of the topic. Then read his sources and bibliography he used.
Yes, big fan of LW and have read a lot of other sources since 9/11. It may seem that I only consider the viewpoints of people like SH and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who I recently met randomly at SFO...greatest person I could ever imagine meeting outside of my musical heroes....she is a true hero and the bravest person in the world, IMO), etc., but the truth is I never read any of their books until the last 2 years or so.
I have found that they make the best arguments based on the evidence they provide versus others. Sure, you can argue for a lot of other factors that exacerbate the problems (US foreign policy, poverty, history and culture) and all that is fantastic reading and information for looking at the problem from all the angles. But I have found the evidence of the dogma overwhelming (obviously). One can argue about how the interpretations vary greatly and choose different verses, but when there is so much God approved violence and intolerance to choose from (even setting aside the example set my Mo), the outcome of the beliefs is maps directly to the behavior and words of the perpetrators.
Don't want to beat a dead horse more than I already have so I'll stay away for a while.
Thanks.
Many of the attacks ISIS claims responsibility for were carried out by some nut with no real ties to ISIS other watching a video.
That's not what I was suggesting. I was referring to the impotence of the Muslim world, exemplified in the impotence of the armies of Muslim countries, inspiring violence against minority communities within those countries and, more recently, violence against the non-Muslim West. Such violence need not take place under the rubric of state action, especially not if it is the impotence of those states that is the catalyst for the violence. Again, its a simple explanation and one that I don't necessarily accept as a complete one, but I think there is a kernel of truth to it.
Quote:
In comment 13480779 section125 said:
Quote:
Well yeah, but I don't see how what you wrote is different from anything I wrote.
The "bait" is just an in between step. You're right, they wouldn't stop if Westerners left the ME, because they want a holy war to ensure so that their Caliphate is supreme.
But in order to do this, they need the holy war to materialize, and this entails the rest of the world declaring war on Islam and Muslims.
On a practical level, this also helps their recruiting.
So I don't really see where we are at odds with one another except when you say that they aren't baiting the West.
Terrorist attacks serve a purpose beyond simply killing people, and in this case, the purpose seems to be to create a war between Muslims and the rest of the world.
They don't need the rest of the world to declare war as evidenced by what they have done for the past 4 years. They have already declared war on the non-Muslim world. The rest of the world won't return the favor - apathy. They'll get push back from the US, UK and France, but most of their war will come from M.E. kingdoms protecting their countries. If they try to push through Turkey to get to Europe, Turkey will destroy them. Heck with minimal backing the Kurds have pretty much handed them their heads.
The rest of the Muslim world doesn't seem to want to participate, why should the West, except to pick away at their locals?
It was about bringing the US under the rule of radical Islam law.
I didn't read this whole thread, and considering the length (and my knowledge of your views via previous threads) I'm assuming that a large part of this was taken up by you and others debating whether "bringing Islam" is the same as "bringing under hard-line Islamic law".
The way you put it sure does sound like you think the mere presence of Islam is somehow an existential threat.
Sonic- If you are addressing me, then I want to respond. I think Islam is an existential threat (setting aside all the issues around human rights and focusing on outright slaughter of infidels), ONLY to the extent that it is not subject to criticism from all under the banner of free speech and it's depending on the likelihood of being reformed.
But I do not see the practice of Islam in the US as being a threat in and of itself (and certainly not an existential one), and I whole heartedly support freedom of religion, as long as it doesn't harm people, even if I think they are all bogus.....but of course it depends on the goals of any one or two people carrying out an operation. It certainly is an existential threat to a gay person dancing at The Pulse in Orlando or a coworker of the San Bernardino jackass.
Needs to be balanced about technological capabilities (nuclear bombs, etc) and the timeline of spread of Islamism, opportunities for ISIS types to get weapons and get them into the west. There is not doubt they will be used as soon as they are able to do so.
Quote:
In comment 13480779 section125 said:
Quote:
Well yeah, but I don't see how what you wrote is different from anything I wrote.
The "bait" is just an in between step. You're right, they wouldn't stop if Westerners left the ME, because they want a holy war to ensure so that their Caliphate is supreme.
But in order to do this, they need the holy war to materialize, and this entails the rest of the world declaring war on Islam and Muslims.
On a practical level, this also helps their recruiting.
So I don't really see where we are at odds with one another except when you say that they aren't baiting the West.
Terrorist attacks serve a purpose beyond simply killing people, and in this case, the purpose seems to be to create a war between Muslims and the rest of the world.
They don't need the rest of the world to declare war as evidenced by what they have done for the past 4 years. They have already declared war on the non-Muslim world. The rest of the world won't return the favor - apathy. They'll get push back from the US, UK and France, but most of their war will come from M.E. kingdoms protecting their countries. If they try to push through Turkey to get to Europe, Turkey will destroy them. Heck with minimal backing the Kurds have pretty much handed them their heads.
The rest of the Muslim world doesn't seem to want to participate, why should the West, except to pick away at their locals?
Don't forget that beyond the different ME kingdoms you have the great Sunni-Shia divide and all the tribes with their own territories and agendas. The idea of a unified Islam is a myth.
But with respect to the most extreme groups, the ultimate goal is impose strict (stricter than Wahabi?) sharia law to the US and all the west.
Regarding this excerpt:
I know this is not feasible, and I know it may sound like a joke, but I honestly believe that if the media were to reveal and report upon every humiliation suffered by the perpetrator, every embarrassing act and shortcoming they can get their hands on, that would actually present a deterrent.
In some ways, the same is true in Western Europe. For a variety of reasons, the economic and even marriage prospects of poor Muslim immigrants or refugees, or their children, can be quite poor. Foreign fighters go from being irrelevant in a land whose rule by secular, European forces again reinforces that impotence to being powerful, to being wealthy (at least they're told they'll be wealthy - the loss of ISIS financial resources has limited this) and to a chance at familial and temporal success. Piety/zeal is useful but not especially necessary.
So the appeal of jihadism is quite comprehensible. The lone wolf terrorists may combine this with piety or zeal, or they may simply have enough psychopathy or sociopathy and the right coaching to get them to the point where they're willing to commit suicide attacks.
still got your fastball
Quote:
I don't think it was exactly as cut and dry as simply bringing Islam, in general, to America. These weren't missionaries (and you know that).
It was about bringing the US under the rule of radical Islam law.
I didn't read this whole thread, and considering the length (and my knowledge of your views via previous threads) I'm assuming that a large part of this was taken up by you and others debating whether "bringing Islam" is the same as "bringing under hard-line Islamic law".
The way you put it sure does sound like you think the mere presence of Islam is somehow an existential threat.
Sonic- If you are addressing me, then I want to respond. I think Islam is an existential threat (setting aside all the issues around human rights and focusing on outright slaughter of infidels), ONLY to the extent that it is not subject to criticism from all under the banner of free speech and it's depending on the likelihood of being reformed.
But I do not see the practice of Islam in the US as being a threat in and of itself (and certainly not an existential one), and I whole heartedly support freedom of religion, as long as it doesn't harm people, even if I think they are all bogus.....but of course it depends on the goals of any one or two people carrying out an operation. It certainly is an existential threat to a gay person dancing at The Pulse in Orlando or a coworker of the San Bernardino jackass.
Needs to be balanced about technological capabilities (nuclear bombs, etc) and the timeline of spread of Islamism, opportunities for ISIS types to get weapons and get them into the west. There is not doubt they will be used as soon as they are able to do so.
I do agree you on something you probably wouldn't expect me to, being that I'm fairly liberal (as known by previous discussions on the board)...
I think it's absurd that for some reason, criticism about the religion itself is somehow off limits to a portion of liberals (or rather, they view it to be).
I'm much more aligned with Bill Maher on this one. OBVIOUSLY I support freedom of religion, and I do not think anyone should be judged for their religion on an individual basis.
But when people act like any criticism of Islam is equivalent to actually discriminating against Muslims, it's absurd and ridiculous. I don't think saying that there needs to be some sort of liberalization within Islam (as has occurred in most strains of other Abrahamic religions) is tantamount to Islamophobia.
Quote:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/zeyneptufekci/dont-let-isis-shape-the-news?utm_term=.tj0995GOM#.elZ11E8QA
Regarding this excerpt:
Quote:
For the lost petty criminals in Europe, thats the lure of ISIS: to channel their frustration and sociopathy into a cause larger than themselves, to get the fame and recognition they seek, however distorted, and to finally have a chance to give that in-your-face middle finger to society, they hope, as a looping video on BBC or CNN or MSNBC or Fox, or as a viral video on social media.
I know this is not feasible, and I know it may sound like a joke, but I honestly believe that if the media were to reveal and report upon every humiliation suffered by the perpetrator, every embarrassing act and shortcoming they can get their hands on, that would actually present a deterrent.
That's why the Bush administration went to great lengths to label the 911 actors as drunks who hung out in strip bars.
But when people act like any criticism of Islam is equivalent to actually discriminating against Muslims, it's absurd and ridiculous. I don't think saying that there needs to be some sort of liberalization within Islam (as has occurred in most strains of other Abrahamic religions) is tantamount to Islamophobia.
Yes, that certainly occurs and it's certainly maddening, particularly when such people are very often the sorts who'd cheerfully jump on any bandwagon that criticizes Western religion. Even Maher's own audience often consists of people who laugh gleefully every time he chides Christianity, but get very uncomfortable when his target changes to Islam.
Yes, there are certainly many liberals who won't deign to be critical of something if that criticism might mar their conspicuous efforts to appear worldly, enlightened and sympathetic. But those people should pretty much just be ignored.
Samuel 15:3's call for genocide of the Amalekites: Now, go, and you shall smite Amalek, and you shall utterly destroy all that is his, and you shall not have pity on him: and you shall slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'
Sweet Psalm 137 with this gem: "O Daughter of Babylon, who is destined to be plundered, praiseworthy is he who repays you your recompense that you have done to us. Praiseworthy is he who will take and dash your infants against the rock."
Now is that the religion of any practicing Jew? No. Nor do I follow the many, many rules on how best to beat my slaves, although my religious tradition lays it all out there.
So what does it mean to criticize a religion? Seize upon their ancient texts? Ascribe the actions of the worst of its adherents to all believers? Why? When such a small % will ever become radicalized?
And do not confuse a reluctance to criticize a whole religion to blindness regarding the existence of people who commit terrorist acts in the name of the Muslim faith. I and everyone else with a brain is aware. The issue is that I just dont think calling it a problem with the religion, rather than a problem within the religion is accurate or helpful to policy outcomes. Because at the end of the day, I think cutting off craven Saudi funding sources and providing mental health and economic hope to would-be-terrorists would be a lot more effective than taking a red pen to the Koran.
Quote:
That crap is what I find most frustrating. It's complete BS and insinuates "liberal" policies support the terrorists. I can't think of a more stupid or counterproductive argument. Note how they don't provide a specific examples of what the policy should be and they completely ignore the success currents policies are having in preventing attacks. It's the perfect Fox News meme.
I didn't like the "liberals part" and I don't support fox news, but the spirit of the comment is dead on.
Quote:
In comment 13480370 madgiantscow009 said:
Quote:
That crap is what I find most frustrating. It's complete BS and insinuates "liberal" policies support the terrorists. I can't think of a more stupid or counterproductive argument. Note how they don't provide a specific examples of what the policy should be and they completely ignore the success currents policies are having in preventing attacks. It's the perfect Fox News meme.
I didn't like the "liberals part" and I don't support fox news, but the spirit of the comment is dead on.
She is referring to former classical liberals (small L) that used to support free speech and now condemn anyone asking for reform on and open dialogue about what Islam teaches. Not referring the American left.
Samuel 15:3's call for genocide of the Amalekites: Now, go, and you shall smite Amalek, and you shall utterly destroy all that is his, and you shall not have pity on him: and you shall slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'
Sweet Psalm 137 with this gem: "O Daughter of Babylon, who is destined to be plundered, praiseworthy is he who repays you your recompense that you have done to us. Praiseworthy is he who will take and dash your infants against the rock."
Now is that the religion of any practicing Jew? No. Nor do I follow the many, many rules on how best to beat my slaves, although my religious tradition lays it all out there.
So what does it mean to criticize a religion? Seize upon their ancient texts? Ascribe the actions of the worst of its adherents to all believers? Why? When such a small % will ever become radicalized?
And do not confuse a reluctance to criticize a whole religion to blindness regarding the existence of people who commit terrorist acts in the name of the Muslim faith. I and everyone else with a brain is aware. The issue is that I just dont think calling it a problem with the religion, rather than a problem within the religion is accurate or helpful to policy outcomes. Because at the end of the day, I think cutting off craven Saudi funding sources and providing mental health and economic hope to would-be-terrorists would be a lot more effective than taking a red pen to the Koran.
Deej - maybe I am missing something with your point, but hasn't Judaism gone through not only reform(s), but has it not also been allowed to have its orthodoxy attenuated through interpretations of its texts over the last few thousand years ?
If we do not support Muslim reformers looking to be able to do the same with the Quran and Hadiths we are not enabling it as a license for jihad, treatment of women, continued anti-semitism ?
Are we so afraid of hurting peoples feelings and allowing this to continue ? I have no illusions that it is not going to create horrible mayhem in the short term.
I continue to argue that this is much more preferable than waiting for someone looking to enter paradise to explode a nuclear device in Paris.
Until it is acceptable to draw cartoons, criticize Mo's example of behavior, demand clarification of violent, intolerant and anti-gay/women passages in the command, the current problems will continue.
In other words, Islam needs to be judged just like other religions, through the lenses of moral clarity, human rights, science, psychology and history, etc.
The saudis and their religious leaders are closest thing though. This is a monumental task, no doubt.
Not an area close to any expertise of mine but an excellent read.
B2, thanks for the Lawrence Wright suggestion. Can always count on you for an informative homework assignment.
Quote:
In comment 13480846 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
I don't think it was exactly as cut and dry as simply bringing Islam, in general, to America. These weren't missionaries (and you know that).
It was about bringing the US under the rule of radical Islam law.
I didn't read this whole thread, and considering the length (and my knowledge of your views via previous threads) I'm assuming that a large part of this was taken up by you and others debating whether "bringing Islam" is the same as "bringing under hard-line Islamic law".
The way you put it sure does sound like you think the mere presence of Islam is somehow an existential threat.
Sonic- If you are addressing me, then I want to respond. I think Islam is an existential threat (setting aside all the issues around human rights and focusing on outright slaughter of infidels), ONLY to the extent that it is not subject to criticism from all under the banner of free speech and it's depending on the likelihood of being reformed.
But I do not see the practice of Islam in the US as being a threat in and of itself (and certainly not an existential one), and I whole heartedly support freedom of religion, as long as it doesn't harm people, even if I think they are all bogus.....but of course it depends on the goals of any one or two people carrying out an operation. It certainly is an existential threat to a gay person dancing at The Pulse in Orlando or a coworker of the San Bernardino jackass.
Needs to be balanced about technological capabilities (nuclear bombs, etc) and the timeline of spread of Islamism, opportunities for ISIS types to get weapons and get them into the west. There is not doubt they will be used as soon as they are able to do so.
You know, the way you've stated your views here is quite reasonable.
I do agree you on something you probably wouldn't expect me to, being that I'm fairly liberal (as known by previous discussions on the board)...
I think it's absurd that for some reason, criticism about the religion itself is somehow off limits to a portion of liberals (or rather, they view it to be).
I'm much more aligned with Bill Maher on this one. OBVIOUSLY I support freedom of religion, and I do not think anyone should be judged for their religion on an individual basis.
But when people act like any criticism of Islam is equivalent to actually discriminating against Muslims, it's absurd and ridiculous. I don't think saying that there needs to be some sort of liberalization within Islam (as has occurred in most strains of other Abrahamic religions) is tantamount to Islamophobia.
Sonic - Thanks. This is certainly the most maddening part of this whole thing....the mislabeling of the criticism of ideas and the choking out of freedoms of speech. It's all been laid out in Europe from Theo Van Gogh and other events in the Netherlands, through Charlie Hebdo and the responses and lack of support, through the latest demands for laws to prosecute "hate speech" which is not hate speech. Hate speech is what the Imams are teaching. The double standards are horrific.
Which is it?
All ? or Some?
I don't think I've hidden my hatred for intolerant, violent and divisive claims made in the name of God, and of religion that makes claims about revelations that are not worth the paper they are written on.
I hold all religions to this standard, or at least try to. If that exposes me because I actually care what is being said in the Mosques and on Arab TV, by reading MEMRI, ME Forum, etc, OK.
I have made it pretty clear:
1. Support Muslim reformers.
2. Support open criticism of all beliefs/ideas.
3. Stop calling such speech "an attack on (all) Muslims," "Islamophobia" or similar.
4. Stop denying the correlation between the doctrine and the behavior.
In other words, treat Islam like any other belief system.
Ayaan Hirsi-Ali
Zuhdi Jasser
Asra Nomani
And you like individuals of the same faith who are open minded, thoughtful and moderate
Did I capture your thoughts correctly?
So now you are saying you believe one thing in your core but say another to be provocative?
But other people cant do that...they cant even be in a nation where a few of them might have read the whole Quran without falling under your condemnation that they believed in a sub standard religion compared to other now more moderate religions ( like "peaceful Buddhism" ( big miss on that very incorrect claim in actual history. Go ask the millions of Buddhists who died in the last 100 years and the last 500 years for believing in the wrong type of Buddhism).
You know...the Quran that is traditionally written in the eastern Arabian dialect of Classical Arabic. That is no longer spoken or read so you have to learn it first. But there is another problem with your assertion that their beliefs are inferior. Muhammad would have spoken the western dialect of Classical Arabic originating from Mecca, so there is already an element of translation inherent in the Quran...and few even know how to read the wrong language of the earliest writings.
Then add that few humans do and say what they believe and then also believe different things under different influences seven times a day.
Then add that the variety of beliefs under Islam is suddenly wide ranging by your latest posts
Thats a whole lot of swirl.
But you are certain about it.
The United States has admitted that at least 105 Iraqi civilians were killed in an air strike it carried out in Mosul in March.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40051640
And you like individuals of the same faith who are open minded, thoughtful and moderate
Did I capture your thoughts correctly?
No, I do not believe everyone believes, says or does the same things.
The United States has admitted that at least 105 Iraqi civilians were killed in an air strike it carried out in Mosul in March.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40051640
RJ- Is purposefully targeting children and collateral damage the same thing ? Do intentions matter ?
Quote:
Imagine if you lost your family in this attack.
The United States has admitted that at least 105 Iraqi civilians were killed in an air strike it carried out in Mosul in March.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40051640
RJ- Is purposefully targeting children and collateral damage the same thing ? Do intentions matter ?
Do purported good intentions fix everything? Dont worry Muslim folks, when we accidentally kill civilians, it's with the best of intentions.
the violent and intolerant verses and claiming they are commands from a God that there is zero proof exists or that could have revealed the words,"
In answering your questions about "which Imams?"
Just like I would do the same of leaders of the Westboro Baptist Church, or leaders of the messianic ultra-orthodox Jewish movements who do the same thing using quotes from the OT ?
So I am referring to what I call "hate speech" as compared to what people often call criticism of Islam as "hate speech."
And I don't necessarily believe it should be banned. I was just making a (apparently insensitive) comment contrasting my opinion of actual hate speech.
There is no room for making claims about God's will that incites violence or intolerance, tribal hatred, sexual discrimination, punishments, etc, that goes against human well-being, when bad about specific groups of people that are not backed by science and reason.
Are you happy when the Wesboro baptist church uses quotes from the OT to tell us that God hates homosexuals and they should be punished ? That is hate speech. It is using claims from a text that has zero proof came from an actual God. It's fucking rubbish !
Quote:
In comment 13482127 Ron Johnson 30 said:
Quote:
Imagine if you lost your family in this attack.
The United States has admitted that at least 105 Iraqi civilians were killed in an air strike it carried out in Mosul in March.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40051640
RJ- Is purposefully targeting children and collateral damage the same thing ? Do intentions matter ?
Do purported good intentions fix everything? Dont worry Muslim folks, when we accidentally kill civilians, it's with the best of intentions.
No they do not fix everything, but they matter greatly. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Did I say they didn't matter ? Or that it is OK ?
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
I don't have to acknowledge anything and if you read above, or recall what i wrote earlier, I already acknowledged other factors, including foreign policy, but I will happily be more specific and say that war and killing of Muslims makes the problems worse.
My entire argument can me summed up here and feel free to disagree, call me names, ignore me, or anything else you wish:
1. Beliefs and ideas made about claims of what God wants or does not want, leads to actions that correlate directly to them. example: reward in paradise for martyrdom during jihad.
2. Islam is held to a different standard by the west, to the detriment of human well-being, since criticism of it is re-labeled hate speech or similar, rather than protected under free speech. example: outcries and condemnation over Charlie Hebdo cartoons that led to murder.
Thanks.
So now you are saying you believe one thing in your core but say another to be provocative?
But other people cant do that...they cant even be in a nation where a few of them might have read the whole Quran without falling under your condemnation that they believed in a sub standard religion compared to other now more moderate religions ( like "peaceful Buddhism" ( big miss on that very incorrect claim in actual history. Go ask the millions of Buddhists who died in the last 100 years and the last 500 years for believing in the wrong type of Buddhism).
You know...the Quran that is traditionally written in the eastern Arabian dialect of Classical Arabic. That is no longer spoken or read so you have to learn it first. But there is another problem with your assertion that their beliefs are inferior. Muhammad would have spoken the western dialect of Classical Arabic originating from Mecca, so there is already an element of translation inherent in the Quran...and few even know how to read the wrong language of the earliest writings.
Then add that few humans do and say what they believe and then also believe different things under different influences seven times a day.
Then add that the variety of beliefs under Islam is suddenly wide ranging by your latest posts
Thats a whole lot of swirl.
But you are certain about it.
Bill-
Terms like "sub-standard" and "inferior" are not accurate to what I have written, though I don't blame you for using those terms based on some of my posts.
I would prefer words like "dangerous" "hateful" "intolerant" and "divisive."
And you can make all the claims you wish about Buddhism, but to make my claims (as I have tried to express them, sometimes poorly) "wrong" you would need to:
1. Show how the doctrine of Buddhism is used, if not word for word, then in spirit of what was conveyed by the doctrine, to justify the violence. Just saying that Buddhists committed crimes as priests, etc, does not fit the bill. There needs to be a correlation between what a supernatural deity commands or doesn't command, that leads to it.
2. And in doing this successfully, I still reserve the right to balance the claims made by the Buddhist doctrine, as a whole, vs. the Islamic doctrine. Meaning, both can be bad, but I would argue that Islam is much worse.
Let's start there, if you follow what I am seeking to argue. If not, please ask if you wish to do so.
Thanks
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
I agree. And that is the next stage of the discussion, along with other things, if it were up to me to do this in a more organized format.
The complications with reform in Islam, the protections against criticism, etc, would also follow, in my view. But these are all secondary to the problems with getting people to acknowledge the 2 points I made above about beliefs/ideas leading to outcomes, and that Islam gets a pass in the arena of free speech criticism.
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
The tribalism would be happening without the religion.
Quote:
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
The tribalism would be happening without the religion.
Made multiple times worse by putting claims of religious supremacy, awarded by a supreme deity, and rewarded with promises of everlasting paradise. How do you argue with someone who truly believes this ? How do you reduce the conflicts ? What logic can you possibly use to argue with God ?
Quote:
In comment 13482375 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
The tribalism would be happening without the religion.
Made multiple times worse by putting claims of religious supremacy, awarded by a supreme deity, and rewarded with promises of everlasting paradise. How do you argue with someone who truly believes this ? How do you reduce the conflicts ? What logic can you possibly use to argue with God ?
And how is that relevant to a Sunni-Sunni or Shia-Shia tribal conflict? They happen.
Quote:
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
The tribalism would be happening without the religion.
That is true. One could argue that being a sports fan is also irrational tribalism. But it's generally also less harmful than religion.
Quote:
In comment 13482434 njm said:
Quote:
In comment 13482375 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
Of course, from my outsider's perspective, it's all a bunch of irrational baloney that causes us problems due to the tribalism it encourages.
The tribalism would be happening without the religion.
Made multiple times worse by putting claims of religious supremacy, awarded by a supreme deity, and rewarded with promises of everlasting paradise. How do you argue with someone who truly believes this ? How do you reduce the conflicts ? What logic can you possibly use to argue with God ?
And how is that relevant to a Sunni-Sunni or Shia-Shia tribal conflict? They happen.
There would be no conflict based on religious grounds. It would have to be based on other dividing factors like race, nationality, tribes (specifically). I would never argue that there wouldn't be other cultural factors, just that the God-granted arguments in the dogma and doctrine are a greater license for it.
There would be no conflict based on religious grounds.
That's precisely the point I'm making
And you swing right back to religion. It's NOT that simple.
Quote:
There would be no conflict based on religious grounds.
That's precisely the point I'm making
Quote:
It would have to be based on other dividing factors like race, nationality, tribes (specifically). I would never argue that there wouldn't be other cultural factors, just that the God-granted arguments in the dogma and doctrine are a greater license for it.
And you swing right back to religion. It's NOT that simple.
What exactly is not simple? I guess I'm not following your point.
Perhaps you could clarify the point you are trying to make.
Sorry...imho it's your thesis that is all over the map, retreats and expands to keep you entertained, not researched and not an honorable discussion on your part.
No one is learning and it feels weak.
Have a good summer. Go Giants
Sorry...imho it's your thesis that is all over the map, retreats and expands to keep you entertained, not researched and not an honorable discussion on your part.
No one is learning and it feels weak.
Have a good summer. Go Giants
OK Bill. I tried to answer questions and accusations as they came up and clarify my argument later on to bring it back, but if you feel that way, that's cool with me.
Have a great summer, as well.