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.
See...that will stop it all
I don't understand how changing the verbiage that Â
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 Â
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 Â
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 Â
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 Â
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 Â
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 Â
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, that’s 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, that’s 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.
How does one criticize a decentralized religion? Â
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
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, that’s 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.