ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 23rd May 2019, 03:36 PM   #281
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 20,851
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
My, we are getting desperate.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with my previous scribblings? If you were, you would realise how absurd, this alignment with One Nation you are suggesting, is. Just another example of sensation seeking outburst, methinks.
You are only as good as your last thread.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 05:04 PM   #282
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,017
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
No please don't. I didn't find the "arguments" compelling last time.
Exactly. It is a waste of time to argue with you about it.

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
I haven't seen that argument. Have a short version? I'd like to know what sets any creed, secular or religious, apart, such that it might not be discussed in terms of its formal structure and content without engaging aspects regarding its followers. Such an argument seems a real stretch, especially in light of, er, atheism!
I do have a short version, since you asked. Well... shorter anyway.

For many people, religion is a strong and important part of their culture, identity, and their self-image and self-worth. Thinking that the religion can be separated from the person is thinking that a person can be separated from their self-identity, which is absurd. When you attack a religion, you are attacking a person's culture and identity, which is why many religious people find attacks on their religion so personal. Thor2 does not understand this because he has never personally experienced this congruence between one's religion and one's identity, and does not believe that other people do. Many lifelong atheists share this view.

While the analogy to "love the sinner, hate the sin" is not perfect, obviously, the argument that one can attack Islam while not attacking Muslims takes the same form.

We may have had an entire thread specifically about this, but the discussion has certainly taken place on multiple threads.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 06:20 PM   #283
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,063
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
No please don't. I didn't find the "arguments" compelling last time.
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Exactly. It is a waste of time to argue with you about it.

This has now descended to the level of a schoolyard: "You are wrong" .... "No you are wrong" type arguments.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 06:21 PM   #284
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,063
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
You are only as good as your last thread.

Did you make that one up? Wow, I am impressed.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 06:34 PM   #285
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,017
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
This has now descended to the level of a schoolyard: "You are wrong" .... "No you are wrong" type arguments.
Which is why I didn't want to continue it.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2019, 01:03 AM   #286
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,575
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
It addresses the topic of the thread and why we shouldn’t go around singling out Muslims or anyone for that matter. I am not interested in playing games with attitudes of bigotry. I personally know how these attitudes affect people. A bit of empathy for fellow humans is enough to shut down this garbage.

You have a problem with terrorism then you deal with terrorism. You don’t go around raising suspicion about good people.


OK, so you don't have any sort of answer to the question. You are just deflecting to another topic instead. That's what religious people do when they can't defend things said in the bible.

It doesn't matter to me whether you have any sort answer, but the inescapable fact is that religious Muslims all around the world, in their tens of thousands if not actually hundreds of thousands, ARE posing a lethal threat to everyone who does not want to be forced into their particular fundamentalist beliefs from the Koran and Hadith's ... so far several hundred thousand such individuals have been deliberately murdered by those Islamc fundamentalists over the last 20 years ...

... and that is completely off any scale at all for any oppression done by Christians (or any other religion) ...

... to deny that Islamic religious belief is currently a massive problem is frankly dishonest, and it's dishonest in a way that makes the apologists themselves a dangerous part of the problem.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2019, 03:36 AM   #287
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 5,890
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Yes I rolled my eyes at this one too. Hard to say what message Archie is trying to enlighten us with here, and the 5 letter cuss word has me mystified also.
Rolled your eyes but didn't stop to think.

Indeed it's difficult to enlighten people when they have no interest in listening, only proselytising their ideology.

You don't like Muslims. Good for you. You don't care if they get killed by our bombs. We noticed. We are the goodies and they are the baddies. Hooray for us.

__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2019, 02:58 PM   #288
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,063
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Exactly. It is a waste of time to argue with you about it.

I do have a short version, since you asked. Well... shorter anyway.

For many people, religion is a strong and important part of their culture, identity, and their self-image and self-worth. Thinking that the religion can be separated from the person is thinking that a person can be separated from their self-identity, which is absurd. When you attack a religion, you are attacking a person's culture and identity, which is why many religious people find attacks on their religion so personal. Thor2 does not understand this because he has never personally experienced this congruence between one's religion and one's identity, and does not believe that other people do. Many lifelong atheists share this view.
Yes we heard this sort of waffle from you before. What is absurd, is the notion that a person can be separated by their "self identity", if they are separated from their religion. If that were true there are many thus separated on this forum, (poor lost souls), who were once believers in different religions. Contrary to you assertion about myself, I was once a believer in my youth. Can't recall a self identity rupture, when I made the break from theism however.

Quote:
While the analogy to "love the sinner, hate the sin" is not perfect, obviously, the argument that one can attack Islam while not attacking Muslims takes the same form.

We may have had an entire thread specifically about this, but the discussion has certainly taken place on multiple threads.

I prefer the analogy "love the patient, not the sickness", but you stick to yours if it gives you comfort.

If you would pay attention you would see I am trying to find ways to ease folk out of Islam, and other religions also, without singling out Islam. Some input along those lines would be welcome. The continued barrage of BS claiming nothing can be done, and Islam is no more of a problem than belief in goblins, is not welcome.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2019, 03:03 PM   #289
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,063
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Rolled your eyes but didn't stop to think.

Indeed it's difficult to enlighten people when they have no interest in listening, only proselytising their ideology.

You don't like Muslims. Good for you. You don't care if they get killed by our bombs. We noticed. We are the goodies and they are the baddies. Hooray for us.


Yes what a great strategy! Just make up a lot of stuff and hurl it at the other poster. No truth in the assertions? ....... Irrelevant.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2019, 06:20 PM   #290
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,023
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Neither Christianity or any other religioin is free from being potentially very dangerous in the beliefs of it's more fundementalist followers, but are you denying that at this present time (i.e. since 9-11, 2001) it is Islamic fundamentalists who have become by far the greater threat (10,000 times greater in fact) to people all over the world?
But the threat isn't their religion. The only reason they are Muslim fundamentalists is that they happen to live in countries where Islam is the main religion.

And just how much of a threat are they anyway? In the US your chances of being attacked by a terrorist are very slim, and it's more likely to be a Christian fundamentalist. Most Muslim terrorists are targeting other Muslims or people of a different ethnicity in their own countries, which gives you a clue as to what the real problem is.

Quote:
If you are denying that, then it's frankly a gross & quite disgraceful insult to the hundreds of thousands of people all over the world who have been deliberately murdered and/or very seriously injured by Islamic fundamentalists since 9-11-2001.
As much a gross & quite disgraceful insult to the hundreds of thousands of people who have been the victims of Christian terrorism?

When our president describes his illegal invasion of Iraq as a 'Crusade', US weapons are inscribed with Christian Bible verses, and Christians talk about forcing Muslims to eat pork and turning the Middle East into a 'sea of glass', you have to consider that maybe the problem isn't Islam. If it wasn't for our continual meddling in the M.E. to secure 'our' oil we wouldn't be the target of their anger.

If you can say that Islam is the reason for Islamic terrorists, than I can say that Christianity is to blame for all the deaths attributable to Christian nations, particularly the US. And I can find plenty of Bible verses proving that Christianity is anything but peaceful, as well as many quotes from our leaders invoking their Christian beliefs as justification for violence. Yet I bet you will protest that "that's different", because...

The truth is, the biggest threat to the whole World is not terrorism at all. Global Warming threatens to kill 250,000 people every year and force 100 million into extreme poverty by 2030. Which religious group is denying that Global Warming is a threat and trying to make it worse? - American Christians. And where do they get the justification for their denial? The Christian Bible. Our government and half our population are in the grip of Christian fundamentalists who are invoking the greatest act of destruction the World will ever see - while you worry about the 'potential' of Islamic fundamentalism.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

Last edited by Roger Ramjets; 24th May 2019 at 06:26 PM.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2019, 10:41 PM   #291
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I'm not sure I understand your point here. Are you arguing for more Western intervention in the affairs of other countries? That makes no sense.
Are you disputing the motives for the interventions in Libya and Syria? If you are, you would need to provide some evidence.
As for the African civil wars, Libya is in Africa, and you appear to oppose any outside intervention there: again, correct me if I'm wrong.
My point is that the justification the west makes to interfere in the conflicts in the middle east could just as easily be applied to countries with equally horrible dictators and conflicts. Yet we don't.
I understand why we do and don't, but that has nothing to do with actual care for the civilians and everything with our economic interests. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy in claiming our interventions in these countries are some noble and humanitarian effort.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
As a general point, one which I have made before, there is an ongoing debate at all levels of Western society about the desirability of intervention versus inaction. Is it right to simply stand back and watch civilians being massacred by well-armed dictators or murderous jihadists? I submit it is not. On the other hand, military intervention often creates more problems than it solves, especially if it as ill-conceived and poorly thought-out as the Iraq invasion.
You appear to be arguing for neither and both, simultaneously.
I really don't know what you're trying to say here: perhaps you could elaborate.
My opinion is that IF you decide to interfere and claim it is to help the people of the country, then actually have the decency to do so effectively, which means far more investment, both material and manpower, making sure the resources of the country you help actually end up in the control of the people living there and investing in repairing the infrastructure and education in said country.
But that means such an intervention is no longer profitable and thus we don't.



Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I'm sure you did. However, unless you can provide the source of those figures, there is no way for anyone else to have a look at them. Given the wildly differing estimates, from sources of varying credibility, I think it would help if you put up a few links.
https://unama.unmissions.org/protect...ilians-reports
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casual...f_the_Iraq_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casual...rian_Civil_War
And links contained therein and from the various years since 2003. Like I said, only take those deaths attributed to international forces and take the lower numbers.



Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Then you are presumably saying that the civilian deaths were not deliberate. Strange, because your original post made no mention of this:

Once more, you really need to clarify this point. The post I quote above talks about drones bombing villages, and of upwards of 100 Muslims being killed throughout the Middle East in retaliation. Is this some kind of accidental retaliation?
How would you call a 'war on terror' other than retaliation? And in what way were the civilians killed since 2003 by international forces terrorists?

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Your grasp of history is a little weak, I'm afraid.
Asad enjoyed a close relationship with Soviet Russia. So did Gadaffi ( as you say). Iraq benefitted substantially from Soviet arms sales during the Cold War. Which other 'terrible dictators' did you have in mind?
And in the Gulf war Assad was a staunch ally of the international coalition. Saddam was the US' bestest pal when he was gassing Iranians.
The Taliban were brave anti-communists that should be supplied with massive amounts of weaponry.
The Saudi king can still do no wrong, hell Trump is just about to bypass congress to supply him with MORE weapons to give to terrorists.
So I'd say your grasp of history is a bit coloured to exclude inconvenient facts as well.


Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Here again, you could benefit from some further research.
One of the main gripes in the Muslim world is its negative depiction by the West. This is exactly what you are doing here.
The Gulf states are not some homogenous block. There is significant variation in their laws and their societies in general. You appear to believe that Saudi Arabia is representative of the entire region. It is not.
The Wahabbi brand of Islam is mainly located in Saudi, and they have significant influence on that country. This is not true of any other country in the region. Some are more conservative, and some more liberal and tolerant.
Your depiction of 'fanatical clerics' dictating laws is inaccurate and unfair and an example of the kind of lazy stereotyping that is causing so much resentment in the Middle East.
I am not the one claiming that it is Muslims or Islam that is a problem, I am claiming it is the specific governments which are controlled by hereditary absolute monarchs under the influence of a very small amount of highly fanatical clerics that are a problem. Remove those, their 'religious police' and install an actual representative government and I suspect that export terrorism will drop very significantly as the majority of Saudis are NOT fanatics. They just happen to be ruled by them.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
As for funding extremism, not only have I not disputed it, it is a fact that I have cited many times on this very forum. I haven't seen you in the 9/11 and associated threads, so you may have missed this. Yes, absolutely: Saudi Arabia and -to an extent- Kuwait are very much responsible for this. There is some dispute about Qatar's part here: they deny it (which they would) but the other Gulf states maintain they still do it. Oman, on the other hand, is in no way linked to this, and neither is the UAE.
Then why do you rolleyes when it is pointed out that most muslims are NOT responsible or supportive of terrorism and thus it is not Islam that is a problem, but rather the misuse of Islam by a small, but rich, amount of people, taking advantage of the current miserable situation in the Middle east to sway impressionable and uneducated youths?
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2019, 10:46 PM   #292
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
OK, so you don't have any sort of answer to the question. You are just deflecting to another topic instead. That's what religious people do when they can't defend things said in the bible.

It doesn't matter to me whether you have any sort answer, but the inescapable fact is that religious Muslims all around the world, in their tens of thousands if not actually hundreds of thousands, ARE posing a lethal threat to everyone who does not want to be forced into their particular fundamentalist beliefs from the Koran and Hadith's ... so far several hundred thousand such individuals have been deliberately murdered by those Islamc fundamentalists over the last 20 years ...

... and that is completely off any scale at all for any oppression done by Christians (or any other religion) ...

... to deny that Islamic religious belief is currently a massive problem is frankly dishonest, and it's dishonest in a way that makes the apologists themselves a dangerous part of the problem.
While true and something we should work on, the fact is that Tobacco companies murder more people on a yearly basis.
Our unwillingness to try to combat hunger murders more people on a monthly basis.

So while terrorism is definitely something we should put resources on to combat, maybe they should reflect that actual threat and no the disproportionate amount of effort, cost and media time given at the moment.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2019, 03:19 AM   #293
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,575
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
While true and something we should work on, the fact is that Tobacco companies murder more people on a yearly basis.
Our unwillingness to try to combat hunger murders more people on a monthly basis.

So while terrorism is definitely something we should put resources on to combat, maybe they should reflect that actual threat and no the disproportionate amount of effort, cost and media time given at the moment.

But that's not a honest comparison is it.

People can decide for themselves if they want to take the risk of smoking cigarettes (something which may eventually kill them after 30, 40, 50 years). But they cannot decide not to be on a tube train in London when a UK Muslim extremist sets off a bomb blowing the arms legs & heads off scores of people (ditto for all the hundreds of other attacks across France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, and if it comes to that, also for the thousands of such mass murder attacks on unsuspecting people all across the Muslim world attending Mosques, at street markets, or standing at bus stations and at schools etc etc.).

There is absolutely no comparison at all … and really any such attempted comparison is an outrage and an insult to the many thousands who have died or been crippled for life with their arms and legs blown off by Islamic religious fundamentalists since 9-11-2001.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2019, 07:16 AM   #294
Egg
Graduate Poster
 
Egg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,511
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
But that's not a honest comparison is it.

People can decide for themselves if they want to take the risk of smoking cigarettes (something which may eventually kill them after 30, 40, 50 years). But they cannot decide not to be on a tube train in London when a UK Muslim extremist sets off a bomb blowing the arms legs & heads off scores of people (ditto for all the hundreds of other attacks across France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, and if it comes to that, also for the thousands of such mass murder attacks on unsuspecting people all across the Muslim world attending Mosques, at street markets, or standing at bus stations and at schools etc etc.).

There is absolutely no comparison at all … and really any such attempted comparison is an outrage and an insult to the many thousands who have died or been crippled for life with their arms and legs blown off by Islamic religious fundamentalists since 9-11-2001.
I agree with your point about the comparison - it would be one thing to be comparing numbers of deaths as a way to assess what poses a greater threat, but describing smoking/hunger as murder seems to be an attempt at creating an emotional reaction rather than a rational one. More so is your graphic description of terror attacks. Horrific though they are, this emotional appeal and outrage doesn't help your argument, nor give the impression of a rational approach to the subject and potentially benefits the attackers by helping to put the terror into their terrorism.


Originally Posted by IanS View Post
... to deny that Islamic religious belief is currently a massive problem is frankly dishonest, and it's dishonest in a way that makes the apologists themselves a dangerous part of the problem.
Disagreeing with the assertion that Islamic belief should be conflated with radicalized terrorists is dishonest and part of the problem?

You don't think that painting large numbers of the population with the broad brush of being potential terrorist threats might just be divisive, make people feel marginalized and help contribute to radicalization?
__________________

"That's the thing with eggs: It's all about chicks and getting laid." - Wuschel
"A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg" - Samuel Butler
“When arguing with a stone an egg is always wrong” - African proverb
“A true friend is someone who thinks that you are a good egg even though he knows that you are slightly cracked” - Bernard Meltzer
Egg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2019, 01:56 PM   #295
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,063
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
While true and something we should work on, the fact is that Tobacco companies murder more people on a yearly basis.
Our unwillingness to try to combat hunger murders more people on a monthly basis.

So while terrorism is definitely something we should put resources on to combat, maybe they should reflect that actual threat and no the disproportionate amount of effort, cost and media time given at the moment.
What is this nonsense! The subject matter of this thread is about the threat caused by the Islamic religion. If you want to talk about Tobacco companies culpability in killing people, then start a thread about it. It is irrelevant to the subject matter of this thread.

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
But that's not a honest comparison is it.

People can decide for themselves if they want to take the risk of smoking cigarettes (something which may eventually kill them after 30, 40, 50 years). But they cannot decide not to be on a tube train in London when a UK Muslim extremist sets off a bomb blowing the arms legs & heads off scores of people (ditto for all the hundreds of other attacks across France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, and if it comes to that, also for the thousands of such mass murder attacks on unsuspecting people all across the Muslim world attending Mosques, at street markets, or standing at bus stations and at schools etc etc.).

There is absolutely no comparison at all … and really any such attempted comparison is an outrage and an insult to the many thousands who have died or been crippled for life with their arms and legs blown off by Islamic religious fundamentalists since 9-11-2001.

You're damn right it is no comparison a reasonable person would make. Just grandstanding BS!
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2019, 11:20 PM   #296
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
What is this nonsense! The subject matter of this thread is about the threat caused by the Islamic religion. If you want to talk about Tobacco companies culpability in killing people, then start a thread about it. It is irrelevant to the subject matter of this thread.




You're damn right it is no comparison a reasonable person would make. Just grandstanding BS!
It is pointing out that the so-called 'threat' caused by Islamic religion is utterly insignificant compared to other forms of horrible death in our society which we accept without any question.
The only reason it is hyped as much as it is, is because a certain right-wing segment of our society is using constant press bombardment to create a nice enemy and atmosphere of 'they are out to destroy us all' to gain political power.

I do not deny Islamic terrorists exist, nor do I deny there are religious fanatics within the Islamic community that would like to see the west gone.
I fully agree that the first should be countered, though not by causing MORE civilian casualties in other countries and the second group might be vocal but is in no way successful. Ignoring them unless they break the law is a far better way forward, especially coupled with education and ensuring that Muslims in the west are not second class citizens, as despair breeds fanaticism.

As for the religion itself being more repressive than other religions I do not see it. All major societal changes in both Europe and the US I find negative and restricting personal expression are driven by so-called Christians.
Be it the repressions in eastern Europe driven by Catholic leaders, the ones in Russia in the name of Orthodoxy or the ones in the US by evangelicals.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2019, 05:57 AM   #297
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,575
Originally Posted by Egg View Post
I agree with your point about the comparison - it would be one thing to be comparing numbers of deaths as a way to assess what poses a greater threat, but describing smoking/hunger as murder seems to be an attempt at creating an emotional reaction rather than a rational one. More so is your graphic description of terror attacks. Horrific though they are, this emotional appeal and outrage doesn't help your argument, nor give the impression of a rational approach to the subject and potentially benefits the attackers by helping to put the terror into their terrorism.

OK, my apologies because this is quite a long answer/reply (with “emotive” language) -

In the case of terrorist attacks, especially on ordinary members of the unsuspecting public (which have now happened all around the world), I think it is absolutely essential for all of us to be honest enough with ourselves to realise and to admit the appalling horror that each of those victims was suddenly plunged into. If you fail to face up to that reality in a really clear and direct way, then you are not being honest with yourself about what is truly happening to real people … the victims are not just numbers & statistics in news headlines, they have real lives with real hopes & dreams just like the rest of us (they could have been any of us … it could have been any us in their position).

If that does not strike you as an absolutely crucial point, then I suggest that you read the various accounts of exactly what happened to people in the carriages of the tube trains (and on the double decker bus) in the London 7/7 transport attacks of 2005. It makes horrific reading when you are faced with the reality of trying to put yourself in the position of what really did happen to those hundreds of individuals who were suddenly faced with the living (& dying) Hell of that situation. Here are a few links to save you the trouble of looking any of it up -

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...on-7-july-2005

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/defa...uly-report.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...vivors-stories

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/...avinia-turrell


Those links give a fairly sanitised account from those various survivors; they were in a high degree of shock when the bombs actually exploded and they could not accurately recall or understand what had just happened to them, eg they talk of seeing the devastation around them, but others who were not so seriously injured said that nobody could see very much at all … there were no lights, everywhere was pitch black, and people tried to switch on their mobile phones to use the light of the screens, but witnesses said you could not see more than a few inches with each phone, you could not see even a hand holding a phone … the bombed carriages were also full of smoke, dust and airborne soot. Just as an example of how appalling the situation was, and an image that should stick with you –

- in the one of the above accounts Professor John Tulloch who was on the Circle Line train says “Next to me there was a huge crater in the floor of the train, and there was a man stuck in it.” However, another passenger, Tim Coulson (who was not injured because he was on an adjacent passing train in the tunnel) tried to help the severely injured in the adjacent bombed carriage ... I'll just describe what he said as a paraphrase from memory -


“ there was a man sort of sat on the floor of the carriage waving his arms and calling for help. He was sort-of sitting in a hole in the floor of the carriage with his hips, bottom and thighs down in the hole but with his upper body and the lower part of his legs and feet poking up into the carriage. He was struggling to pull himself up out of the hole in the carriage floor. After trying briefly to help him up out of the hole, I decided I could get out of the carriage where the windows had been blown out, and attempt to look underneath the train to see if I could push him back up into the carriage. But when I got out and looked under the carriage I could see why he was unable to pull himself out of the hole – his upper body had been severed from his lower half and his lower half was detached and laying on the tracks under the train. There was nothing I could do to help him. He died shortly afterwards”.

Another injured victim described how in the darkness and chaos, he realised he had a serious injury to his head and to one eye … in fact what had happened was that part the heal bone of the bombers foot had blown off and embedded itself through this victims eye/skull.

Note also that it took almost an hour before the rescuing emergency services were able to get to the carriages with the dead, dying, and horribly injured. And that was mainly because the bombers had detonated the bombs when the trains were deep in the underground tunnels (Russell Square station for example has the tracks and trains about 150 feet below ground).

Why am I telling you any of that? I am telling you because that is what really happens to people in these attacks … in the London Tube bombing, in the Madrid train bombing, in truck attacks on German street market, in the attacks in France on the Bataclan Theatre and the staff of Charlie Hebdo, and of course on the tens of thousands of victims attending Mosques, schools, street markets etc. all across Islamic countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. That's what really happens to people. That is the real, actual, truth of what happens to real people as a result of Islamic religious fanatical belief in holy gods, holy books, and promises of paradise etc.

And by the way, I am actually also almost as sad and concerned for the bombers themselves who have so pointlessly, stupidly and unnecessarily ruined their own lives as well as those of their remaining families and relatives.


Originally Posted by Egg View Post
Disagreeing with the assertion that Islamic belief should be conflated with radicalized terrorists is dishonest and part of the problem?

I don't know if I actually said that specific part of it was “dishonest”, but what is certainly part of the problem is for any of us to defend religious beliefs (in this case beliefs from Islam) when the terrorists themselves repeatedly insist and explain that it is indeed those religious beliefs which are the fundemental basis motivating & justifying them in their murderous attacks (and, yes, I am using the emotive word “murderous”), because that does correctly emphasise what we are talking about as deliberately killing perfectly innocent unsuspecting non-combatant members of the public who were/are just standing at a bus stop or just sitting at a cafe or sitting in a cinema etc. ….

… I could have been less emotive and just said that they “attack” people (rather than bothering to emphasise that they are in fact very deliberately “murdering” them, and often in the most horrific ways imaginable) … but just saying that these are terrorist attacks, is a way of detaching your own thinking from what has truly happened (unless you talk/think about this subject with the real details uppermost in your mind for what is truly happening to all the hundreds of thousands of victims, then you are not being as honest as you need to be with yourself).


Originally Posted by Egg View Post
You don't think that painting large numbers of the population with the broad brush of being potential terrorist threats might just be divisive, make people feel marginalized and help contribute to radicalization?

Who has said it is large numbers of a population that are actually involved in murdering people? It's certainly large numbers of Muslin religious fundamentalists who are doing the killing, eg tens of thousands of them around the world (perhaps even over a 100,000 across all the various groups like IS, Al-Q, Boku Haram, plus all the countless Muslims in Europe who plot or carry out attacks). But I have not suggested, and I don't think anyone else here has suggested, that it's a majority of the 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide.

In the UK, from a total population of about 60 million people (inc. children), we have about 3.5 million Muslims, of which probably only about 0.5 million or less would be in the age range where they were at all likely to be involved in any terrorist activities (ie the the rest are either young children or old-age pensioners). Out of that number, UK anti-terrorist security services have around 4000 UK Muslims under various levels of surveillance … now that is a small proportion of total UK Muslims, but it is a very large number of individuals who are known, or strongly believed (upon actual evidence), to be potentially a very serious threat indeed (and that number of 4000 would probably be significantly higher except for the fact that even though UK Intelligence services and counter terrorism services had to be greatly expanded after the 9-11 attacks in 2001, and expanded again after the London Tube attacks in 2005, those security services have made it clear that many more people would be on those surveillance lists were it not for the fact that the UK just does not have enough money or enough staff and resources to pay for any more surveillance than we currently have).

After both 9-11 and the 7/7 2005 London attacks, the UK Sunday broadsheet newspapers (that's the responsible serious press in the UK, along of course with the BBC) produced a series of opinion polls where UK Muslims were asked various questions about whether or not they supported Islamic suicide attacks such as that on the London Tube system. The results from those polls were frankly shocking – apart from the fact that the vast majority of UK Muslims declined to answer any such poll questions, amongst those who did answer, the percentage of younger Muslims (eg in the age range 16 to 35) who actually said that such attacks were justified, was iirc around 15% - 20% … now, a lot of the UK public then responded to results like that by saying that it proved there was/is in fact only a small minority of UK Muslims who express support for any sort of terrorism, and maybe that's the sort of argument you or others are pursuing here? … but actually, figures like that are quite appalling and should be hugely worrying for anyone honestly trying to determine how concerned we should be about Islamic fundamentalist views either in the UK or as far as is known also in France and other parts of Europe … and thats before we even get to the percentage opinions of Muslims in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq and other parts of the Islamic world.

So in answer to the question “is it a large number of Muslims who are a serious danger?”, I am afraid the answer is unarguably, yes it is!
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2019, 08:39 AM   #298
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,769
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
My point is that the justification the west makes to interfere in the conflicts in the middle east could just as easily be applied to countries with equally horrible dictators and conflicts. Yet we don't.
Agreed, but you still haven't said which option you favour. Do we intervene or not?

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
I understand why we do and don't, but that has nothing to do with actual care for the civilians and everything with our economic interests. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy in claiming our interventions in these countries are some noble and humanitarian effort.
Well, firstly, it doesn't have to be only one or the other. It is perfectly possible to have several reasons for doing something. That doesn't mean it's hypocritical: it's just that the world is complicated.
Secondly, the intervention in Libya was absolutely about protecting civilians from being bombed by their own government, and the intervention by the west in Syria has the same motive as well. If you disagree, please demonstrate the economic value to the west of either of these interventions.


Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
My opinion is that IF you decide to interfere and claim it is to help the people of the country, then actually have the decency to do so effectively, which means far more investment, both material and manpower, making sure the resources of the country you help actually end up in the control of the people living there and investing in repairing the infrastructure and education in said country.
Again, agreed. The post-invasion planning of the Bush administration was appalling. Well, it was more than that: it was non-existent.
Afghanistan is more complicated than that. Had the US gone in when the Russians pulled out, well, who knows? Right now, though, there are billions being spent on that country. One part of the problem is how little of that makes its was past the sticky fingers of corrupt officials and the huge wage bills of all the NGOs down to the actual people.
I'm not sure I understand your point about the resources of the countries. Both Iraq and Afghanistan remain in control of their resources. What do you claim has been stolen, appropriated or sold off?

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
But that means such an intervention is no longer profitable and thus we don't.
I'm afraid I don't agree with this at all. In the short term, there is money to be made for rebuilding contracts. In the long term, peace and stability encourage trade, which is profitable for everyone.



Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post

https://unama.unmissions.org/protect...ilians-reports
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casual...f_the_Iraq_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casual...rian_Civil_War
And links contained therein and from the various years since 2003. Like I said, only take those deaths attributed to international forces and take the lower numbers.
I have spent a little time looking at these, and I freely admit that statistics are not my strong point, but I cannot get anywhere near your claim of 99,000 civilian casualties caused by the west. What I did find was corroboration of my claim that most of the casualties were caused by their fellow countrymen.
I am happy to be corrected on this, and I'll have another look myself when I get more time.


Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
How would you call a 'war on terror' other than retaliation? And in what way were the civilians killed since 2003 by international forces terrorists?
Who has said these civilians were terrorists? I certainly didn't.
You said they were killed by western forces in retaliation for 9/11. This is still not true.

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post

And in the Gulf war Assad was a staunch ally of the international coalition.
No, he wasn't. He gave limited support, but, as far as I know, was never removed from the 'state-sponsored terrorism' list.
However, this is irrelevant. You were talking about the Cold War, remember?

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Saddam was the US' bestest pal when he was gassing Iranians.
Well, not their best pal, but they did support him. No, I don't agree with this, but this is realpolitik: my enemy's enemy is my friend. I am not, and have never, defended this. by the way.

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
The Taliban were brave anti-communists that should be supplied with massive amounts of weaponry.
No, they weren't. The Taliban only emerged in 1994, after the Russians had left. Now it's entirely likely that some of its members fought the Russians, but the Taliban as an organisation was not part of the mujahideen, and it never received weapons from the US.

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
The Saudi king can still do no wrong, hell Trump is just about to bypass congress to supply him with MORE weapons to give to terrorists.
The Saudi Crown Prince has been under massive criticism for numerous things. That Trump is an immoral idiot does not change that fact. They are both wrong here. Agreed.
Your last point strays somewhat from the truth, though.
Please list the terrorist organisations that are being supplied with Saudi-bought weapons. I am not aware of any.

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
So I'd say your grasp of history is a bit coloured to exclude inconvenient facts as well.
Well, as we've seen, not really.



Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
I am not the one claiming that it is Muslims or Islam that is a problem, I am claiming it is the specific governments which are controlled by hereditary absolute monarchs under the influence of a very small amount of highly fanatical clerics that are a problem. Remove those, their 'religious police' and install an actual representative government and I suspect that export terrorism will drop very significantly as the majority of Saudis are NOT fanatics. They just happen to be ruled by them.
And still you continue to extrapolate what happens in Saudi Arabia to the entire Gulf. Do, please, educate yourself: as I said before, it is precisely this kind of attitude that is causing so much resentment in the Middle East.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2019, 10:28 AM   #299
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,575
Here's a link with a number of survivor accounts of the London Tube bombing that are fairly short & easy to read -

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-2231571.html

Amongst these, you will find a lady named Thelma Stober (who has since spoken and written quite a lot about the events of that day) ; in the above link she described it like this -

“I found myself lying on the train tracks . . . I could see metal stuck on my left thigh . . . There was blood coming from my left and right foot, profusely, and there was a hand on my head like this . . . and I lifted the hand and it fell – and I thought that people had died and I could see people on the train screaming. From the part where the door had been removed, I could see a few people lying on the floor [in the carriage] . . . “


I won't post any more survivor accounts after this (there are many more than enough already, and I'm sure people here should have absorbed their message by now), but here is the quote of what a lady named Gillian Hicks described -

Gillian Hicks
Events manager at the Design Council; lost both legs in the Russell Square attack; made an MBE in 2008


"I remember feeling that: 'Well, we don't know what dead is, so is this dead?', and I could hear screams around me and thought that people were panicked over my death or me dying because I was having a heart attack . . . But it was only when, I think, I opened my eyes and realised that the blackness was indeed everywhere – it wasn't just for me – and hearing everybody scream, that we are all in this together, so it wasn't my death: it was a shared experience and, strangely, found that comforting for the moments that followed . . .

I was holding myself up; holding on to a broken window and deliberately so to try to keep myself awake, because I was able to see the extent of my injuries from the light that was coming through and knew that I was losing a lot of blood, so I was trying to keep myself awake by holding myself up . . .

I was able to see that I had very much almost lost both legs. They were literally hanging by a sinew of skin . . . the ankles and feet were separate to the calf and length of the legs and my first thoughts were how it looked very odd and very strange – and trying to assess that, because you're seeing yourself in a way that isn't right, so I was trying to assess what exactly had happened, and what can I do about it . . .

It was a very serene and calm and quiet time within the carriage, except for the very few that perhaps were passing away or severely injured around us, but we were able to hold conversations and I remember at one stage having to say: 'I can't talk any more', because I needed to conserve as much energy as possible, because I was worried about fading and slipping into a state of unconsciousness, which then I understood as being – you know, I would die . . .
I still had a scarf on and I remember ripping the scarf and tying my left leg first above the thigh and then I went to move to my right leg and I put my hand into my thigh and my hand went right in, and I was – I remember feeling extremely worried at that point, in a strange way, because I had already assessed that, from the knee down, the legs were gone – I wasn't prepared for my hand going into my right thigh.

So I tied the rest of the scarf up above that point and then . . . pushed my legs over the handrail, or over the bench seat that still had a handrail there and twisted my body round so I was elevated up . . . "



Gillian Hicks is one of the best known survivors from that 7/7 Tube Bombing because she has since written and spoken about it extensively in public. Here she is giving her thoughts in a TED talk 11 years later on 2106 -


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJoQj00RZHg

Last edited by IanS; 26th May 2019 at 11:00 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2019, 11:12 AM   #300
Egg
Graduate Poster
 
Egg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,511
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
... (snipping for brevity) ...

Why am I telling you any of that? I am telling you because that is what really happens to people in these attacks … in the London Tube bombing, in the Madrid train bombing, in truck attacks on German street market, in the attacks in France on the Bataclan Theatre and the staff of Charlie Hebdo, and of course on the tens of thousands of victims attending Mosques, schools, street markets etc. all across Islamic countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. That's what really happens to people. That is the real, actual, truth of what happens to real people as a result of Islamic religious fanatical belief in holy gods, holy books, and promises of paradise etc.
Well, yeah - terrorism is a tool used by those with little power to cause the greatest possible impact and sometimes to bring a taste of a war zone to comfortable civilians. I'm not suggesting ignoring the horrors of such attacks, but encouraging the terror, stoking anger and Islamophobia isn't an argument. It's a tactic of those attempting to sow division and garner support for extreme solutions. Is that what you're trying to do?

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
… and thats before we even get to the percentage opinions of Muslims in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq and other parts of the Islamic world.

So in answer to the question “is it a large number of Muslims who are a serious danger?”, I am afraid the answer is unarguably, yes it is!
And yet you're only describing the hell of being in a terror attack in the West and not the hell of living in a Middle Eastern city getting bombed by foreign governments. I would imagine that being encouraged to identify and empathize with the people going through those attacks would be a far more effective motivator for radicalization than quoting verses from the Quran.
__________________

"That's the thing with eggs: It's all about chicks and getting laid." - Wuschel
"A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg" - Samuel Butler
“When arguing with a stone an egg is always wrong” - African proverb
“A true friend is someone who thinks that you are a good egg even though he knows that you are slightly cracked” - Bernard Meltzer
Egg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2019, 11:43 AM   #301
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,169
Has anyone figured out how to cope with Islam yet?
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2019, 01:25 PM   #302
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,063
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
It is pointing out that the so-called 'threat' caused by Islamic religion is utterly insignificant compared to other forms of horrible death in our society which we accept without any question.
The only reason it is hyped as much as it is, is because a certain right-wing segment of our society is using constant press bombardment to create a nice enemy and atmosphere of 'they are out to destroy us all' to gain political power.

You just can't see, (or won't acknowledge), how absurd your argument is can you?

If I was to start a thread about the deaths caused by not vaccinating, would you think it a reasonable rebuttal, to draw attention to the deaths caused by obesity as a larger threat, so we should not worry about the former? I think not.

I am trying to think of ways, (and asking for contributions from others), of how to diffuse the problem we are facing. Confrontation with Muslims is one of the things we should try very hard to avoid.

Quote:
I do not deny Islamic terrorists exist, nor do I deny there are religious fanatics within the Islamic community that would like to see the west gone.
I fully agree that the first should be countered, though not by causing MORE civilian casualties in other countries and the second group might be vocal but is in no way successful. Ignoring them unless they break the law is a far better way forward, especially coupled with education and ensuring that Muslims in the west are not second class citizens, as despair breeds fanaticism.

As for the religion itself being more repressive than other religions I do not see it. All major societal changes in both Europe and the US I find negative and restricting personal expression are driven by so-called Christians.
Be it the repressions in eastern Europe driven by Catholic leaders, the ones in Russia in the name of Orthodoxy or the ones in the US by evangelicals.

You're directing this tripe at me? And now you are acknowledging the existence of Islamic terrorism, after the opening remark at the beginning of your post.

The repression caused by Christianity is well known and cannot be denied. The fight against this has very largely been won however. The fight against the repression caused by Islam is in its very early stages. One has only to look at the unenviable situation, gays find themselves in in many Middle Eastern Countries. One has only to look at the second class status women have in Saudi.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2019, 01:29 PM   #303
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,063
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Has anyone figured out how to cope with Islam yet?

Well I have made some suggestion of how this may be done in a subtle manner, but there seems to be a reluctance from others to make a contribution. Surprisingly some seem to think Islam is not something that requires coping with.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2019, 09:34 PM   #304
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,017
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Well I have made some suggestion of how this may be done in a subtle manner, but there seems to be a reluctance from others to make a contribution. Surprisingly some seem to think Islam is not something that requires coping with.
Religious terrorism is something that requires coping with. Religious patriarchy is something that requires coping with. Religious marginalisation of populations is something that requires coping with. None of them are unique to Islam, and none of them are common to all of Islam. Islam itself is almost completely beside the point.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2019, 09:54 PM   #305
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 20,851
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Has anyone figured out how to cope with Islam yet?
For our atheists here it is much the same as coping with Christianity though since Muslims are a minority without political power its all pretty low impact stuff. You would do well not to patronisingly believe the woman in the headscarf needs rescuing from oppression and just deal with them as a fellow traveler in this fleeting human existence.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2019, 09:59 PM   #306
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
You just can't see, (or won't acknowledge), how absurd your argument is can you?

If I was to start a thread about the deaths caused by not vaccinating, would you think it a reasonable rebuttal, to draw attention to the deaths caused by obesity as a larger threat, so we should not worry about the former? I think not.

I am trying to think of ways, (and asking for contributions from others), of how to diffuse the problem we are facing. Confrontation with Muslims is one of the things we should try very hard to avoid.




You're directing this tripe at me? And now you are acknowledging the existence of Islamic terrorism, after the opening remark at the beginning of your post.

The repression caused by Christianity is well known and cannot be denied. The fight against this has very largely been won however. The fight against the repression caused by Islam is in its very early stages. One has only to look at the unenviable situation, gays find themselves in in many Middle Eastern Countries. One has only to look at the second class status women have in Saudi.
You are the one conflating Islam in general with Islamic terrorism, not me.
Acknowledging that the terrorism is not rooted in Islam but rather socio economic circumstances that happen to mostly affect Islamic nations at the moment is in my opinion far more important than tarring all Muslims with the terrorist brush.

And you may claim the repression by christianity is mostly over, but I see it rapidly returning in both the US and Europe under the guise of 'fighting Islamic influences'
The main xenophobic party in the Netherlands has a leader who has openly claimed that maybe if women were to go back to kitchen and bore more children we'd 'counter the muslim infiltration'
In Poland, in the guise of 'protecting against foreign influences' the populist party has made 'Insulting the Catholic Church' an offense again.
Trump and his cronies while 'protecting against terrorism' would seek to undo personal freedoms and happily focus on undoing legislation that is an offense to christians.

So yes, even if you think it tripe, which I consider horribly shortsighted, in my opinion the specter of Islamic terrorism is blown up out of all proportion in order to facilitate a right wing agenda which does nothing against terrorism and everything to restore repressions that took generations to remove based up christian 'values'

As for the situations in muslim countries being bad. Yes, they are. And that is for the citizens of those countries to deal with. Not us. As our attempts to do so just have made things worse.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2019, 10:21 PM   #307
Egg
Graduate Poster
 
Egg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,511
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Religious terrorism is something that requires coping with. Religious patriarchy is something that requires coping with. Religious marginalisation of populations is something that requires coping with. None of them are unique to Islam, and none of them are common to all of Islam. Islam itself is almost completely beside the point.
Well put
__________________

"That's the thing with eggs: It's all about chicks and getting laid." - Wuschel
"A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg" - Samuel Butler
“When arguing with a stone an egg is always wrong” - African proverb
“A true friend is someone who thinks that you are a good egg even though he knows that you are slightly cracked” - Bernard Meltzer
Egg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2019, 07:05 AM   #308
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,575
Originally Posted by Egg View Post
Well, yeah - terrorism is a tool used by those with little power to cause the greatest possible impact and sometimes to bring a taste of a war zone to comfortable civilians. I'm not suggesting ignoring the horrors of such attacks, but encouraging the terror, stoking anger and Islamophobia isn't an argument. It's a tactic of those attempting to sow division and garner support for extreme solutions. Is that what you're trying to do?

In the case of attacks such as the London Tube bombing (and all the other attacks across Europe), we are not talking about the government of a weak foreign nation desperately trying to use whatever few methods or weapons it can find to fight back after being invaded by the overwhelming might of US or UK military forces. That is absolutely the total opposite of what is happening …

… what has happened in all the attacks across Europe, is that groups or ordinary Muslim citizens have decided they can take the law into their own hands, totally disregard the laws of the countries where they live (UK, France, Germany etc.), completely disregard any care at all for the human lives of their victims, and carry out a deliberate private mass slaughter of ordinary unsuspecting members of the public.

That has no comparison at all with what happened when the US, UK, and dozens of other democratic nations agreed together to make a military invasion firstly into Afghanistan specifically to remove the Taliban and Al-Q, and then decided upon rather less firm grounds to remove Saddam Hussein and his army from power in Iraq (where there was the most enormous effort ever seen to avoid Iraqi civilian casualties). Failure to point that out and properly acknowledge that, is again frankly dishonest.


Originally Posted by Egg View Post
And yet you're only describing the hell of being in a terror attack in the West and not the hell of living in a Middle Eastern city getting bombed by foreign governments. I would imagine that being encouraged to identify and empathize with the people going through those attacks would be a far more effective motivator for radicalization than quoting verses from the Quran.

Dishonest very cheap shot, and not worthy of you ... I specifically did say that it has been ordinary Muslim members of the public in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere across the Muslim world who have suffered hundreds more if not thousands more of those types of deliberate mass murder attacks on groups of ordinary Muslim citizens attending Mosques, shopping in street markets, standing in queues waiting for a bus etc. ....

... and the only reason for picking the London Tube bombing as an example of what we all need to keep clearly in our minds about the reality of what actually happens to people just like you & I, is because (a) I live in London and that Piccadilly Line train is actually one that I would normally have been taking into Russell Square precisely when the bomb exploded, so I know something about that route and about the conditions there, and (b) this was a particular terrorist attack where we have a lot of detail about exactly what happened & who did what, including scores of witness statements from the actual victims inc. their statements to official government enquires into exactly what happened on that fateful day.

Apart from which - it is not groups of ordinary private UK citizens who are plotting together for religious reasons (or even racist anti-Muslim reasons) to actually carry out any such terrorist atrocities against either Muslims in the UK or indeed Muslims anywhere else in the world. And there is all the world of difference between any democratic nation such as the UK or the US agreeing in their parliament to send military forces into other countries such as Afghanistan or Iraq in a war against the military forces of the governments in those countries, and especially so after the Taliban government and Al-Qaeda plotting from Afghanistan to make the 9-11 attacks. There is no comparison at all between that vs. groups of private individuals deciding to wage a terrorist war against any other group of people for any reasons.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2019, 08:53 AM   #309
Egg
Graduate Poster
 
Egg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,511
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
In the case of attacks such as the London Tube bombing (and all the other attacks across Europe), we are not talking about the government of a weak foreign nation desperately trying to use whatever few methods or weapons it can find to fight back after being invaded by the overwhelming might of US or UK military forces. That is absolutely the total opposite of what is happening …

… what has happened in all the attacks across Europe, is that groups or ordinary Muslim citizens have decided they can take the law into their own hands, totally disregard the laws of the countries where they live (UK, France, Germany etc.), completely disregard any care at all for the human lives of their victims, and carry out a deliberate private mass slaughter of ordinary unsuspecting members of the public.

That has no comparison at all with what happened when the US, UK, and dozens of other democratic nations agreed together to make a military invasion firstly into Afghanistan specifically to remove the Taliban and Al-Q, and then decided upon rather less firm grounds to remove Saddam Hussein and his army from power in Iraq (where there was the most enormous effort ever seen to avoid Iraqi civilian casualties). Failure to point that out and properly acknowledge that, is again frankly dishonest.
I didn't actually mention governments of weak nations, although as I understand it, that was how suicide bombing started (Assad's father, if I recall correctly). I'm aware that three of the tube bombers were British born. But retaliation for the actions of UK and US military would appear to be exactly what is happening, at least in the minds of the terrorists.

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Dishonest very cheap shot, and not worthy of you ... I specifically did say that it has been ordinary Muslim members of the public in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere across the Muslim world who have suffered hundreds more if not thousands more of those types of deliberate mass murder attacks on groups of ordinary Muslim citizens attending Mosques, shopping in street markets, standing in queues waiting for a bus etc. ....
You made two long posts describing how horrific the tube bombings were and you mentioned in passing that there were also large numbers of victims of terror attacks in those other nations. I was talking about civilians killed in Western military attacks and pointing out that would also have been hell on earth for those people. You think that's a dishonest cheap shot?

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
... and the only reason for picking the London Tube bombing as an example of what we all need to keep clearly in our minds about the reality of what actually happens to people just like you & I, is because (a) I live in London and that Piccadilly Line train is actually one that I would normally have been taking into Russell Square precisely when the bomb exploded, so I know something about that route and about the conditions there, and (b) this was a particular terrorist attack where we have a lot of detail about exactly what happened & who did what, including scores of witness statements from the actual victims inc. their statements to official government enquires into exactly what happened on that fateful day.

Apart from which - it is not groups of ordinary private UK citizens who are plotting together for religious reasons (or even racist anti-Muslim reasons) to actually carry out any such terrorist atrocities against either Muslims in the UK or indeed Muslims anywhere else in the world. And there is all the world of difference between any democratic nation such as the UK or the US agreeing in their parliament to send military forces into other countries such as Afghanistan or Iraq in a war against the military forces of the governments in those countries, and especially so after the Taliban government and Al-Qaeda plotting from Afghanistan to make the 9-11 attacks. There is no comparison at all between that vs. groups of private individuals deciding to wage a terrorist war against any other group of people for any reasons.
I'm also very familiar with the London Tube - used it many times, including during terror threats from the IRA and Islamic terrorists and have family in and around London. I'm aware of the threat and the fear and in no way downplay that.

I'm comparing the attacks in so far as they both cause death and suffering that can empathized with, not in terms of the legitimacy. The link between them I would see as being far more clear than being for some kind of "religious reasons (or even racist anti-Muslim reasons)". The role is Islam here is that for many Muslims, Islamic identity comes before national identity, especially if they feel marginalized by that nation. As such they identify with and empathize with those suffering in military attacks that they see as unjustified.

This isn't to justify the terror attacks, but to understand the motivation - and note that many Muslims in the UK denounced those attacks even if they might have some sympathy with the cause.

You suggested we know that Islam is the motivation based on writings from the terrorists. Here's an actual quote from the tube bombers:

Quote:
Your democratically-elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation.
__________________

"That's the thing with eggs: It's all about chicks and getting laid." - Wuschel
"A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg" - Samuel Butler
“When arguing with a stone an egg is always wrong” - African proverb
“A true friend is someone who thinks that you are a good egg even though he knows that you are slightly cracked” - Bernard Meltzer
Egg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2019, 02:29 PM   #310
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,063
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Well I have made some suggestion of how this may be done in a subtle manner, but there seems to be a reluctance from others to make a contribution. Surprisingly some seem to think Islam is not something that requires coping with.
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Religious terrorism is something that requires coping with. Religious patriarchy is something that requires coping with. Religious marginalisation of populations is something that requires coping with. None of them are unique to Islam, and none of them are common to all of Islam. Islam itself is almost completely beside the point.

Well if all these require coping with then how about suggesting ways to do this rather than down playing Islam.

The incidence of terrorism tied to Islam speaks for itself. I have referred to a presentation by Sam Harris, where he quotes the words of terrorists, taken from the magazine Dabiq. We have the words of the late Christopher Hitchens, referring to Islam as the most toxic religion, we must deal with today.

In response to this all I get is white noise, and examples of other people killing reasons outside of Islam. Islam should be somehow viewed as an insignificant issue therefore, and ignored.

I am talking about ways to defuse the Islam problem in a way that doesn't single it out and lead to claims of discrimination. This entails the defusing of other religions as well.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2019, 02:58 PM   #311
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,063
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
You are the one conflating Islam in general with Islamic terrorism, not me.
Acknowledging that the terrorism is not rooted in Islam but rather socio economic circumstances that happen to mostly affect Islamic nations at the moment is in my opinion far more important than tarring all Muslims with the terrorist brush.
There you go again, just ignoring what I said and banging on with the same tune. I am not and have not tarred all Muslims with the terrorist as you suggest. I have made the point that a large part of the terrorism is inspired by Islam. I haven't even suggested that it is the exclusive reason.

Quote:
And you may claim the repression by christianity is mostly over, but I see it rapidly returning in both the US and Europe under the guise of 'fighting Islamic influences'
The main xenophobic party in the Netherlands has a leader who has openly claimed that maybe if women were to go back to kitchen and bore more children we'd 'counter the muslim infiltration'
In Poland, in the guise of 'protecting against foreign influences' the populist party has made 'Insulting the Catholic Church' an offense again.
Trump and his cronies while 'protecting against terrorism' would seek to undo personal freedoms and happily focus on undoing legislation that is an offense to christians.
The only relevance I see in the above is the Christianity 'fighting Islamic influences' thing, which is something you conjured up I expect. Secular folk will be just as scared of being blown up as the religious, and I imagine just as prone to phobia against Muslims.

If the Christians in the Netherlands and Poland start strapping on bombs, then I guess we will have to see then as a similar threat to Islamic terrorists, but until then not so. Mind you what I am proposing, which you choose to ignore, is the defusing of all religion.

Quote:
So yes, even if you think it tripe, which I consider horribly shortsighted, in my opinion the specter of Islamic terrorism is blown up out of all proportion in order to facilitate a right wing agenda which does nothing against terrorism and everything to restore repressions that took generations to remove based up christian 'values'

As for the situations in muslim countries being bad. Yes, they are. And that is for the citizens of those countries to deal with. Not us. As our attempts to do so just have made things worse.
No, I have not suggested we intervene, although I feel for the citizens, (mainly the women), in those countries. How do you feel about their plight?
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2019, 06:42 PM   #312
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,017
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Well if all these require coping with then how about suggesting ways to do this rather than down playing Islam.
We've all been suggesting ways to do this. You've been suggesting some yourself. The problem is, if the causes of terrorism are multifactorial, which they certainly are, and you decide that Islam is at fault, you're not looking for other causes - poverty, colonialism, war.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
The incidence of terrorism tied to Islam speaks for itself. I have referred to a presentation by Sam Harris, where he quotes the words of terrorists, taken from the magazine Dabiq. We have the words of the late Christopher Hitchens, referring to Islam as the most toxic religion, we must deal with today.
We also have the words of Christian terrorist Anders Brevik. We also have the words of white supremacist terrorist Brenton Tarrant. You, like Harris and Hitchens, cherry-pick your sources in order to demonise and dehumanise Islamic terrorists, rather than trying to understand why they do what they do. Harris and Hitchens have always done this. They're not exactly impartial reporters.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
In response to this all I get is white noise, and examples of other people killing reasons outside of Islam. Islam should be somehow viewed as an insignificant issue therefore, and ignored.
It's not insignificant. On the contrary, it is a significant issue. But it's one of many. You're the one ignoring issues by focusing all of your attention on this one.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
I am talking about ways to defuse the Islam problem in a way that doesn't single it out and lead to claims of discrimination. This entails the defusing of other religions as well.
How about you go about addressing issues of poverty, colonialism and war instead? That way no-one can possibly accuse you of Islamophobia.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2019, 07:38 PM   #313
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,088
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
I am talking about ways to defuse the Islam problem in a way that doesn't single it out and lead to claims of discrimination.
Thor 2, if the Islam problem is not defused, what will happen IYO? In say 10 years, 50 years, 100 years? Perhaps understanding the consequences of non-action might provide hints about how to defuse the problem.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2019, 09:45 PM   #314
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
There you go again, just ignoring what I said and banging on with the same tune. I am not and have not tarred all Muslims with the terrorist as you suggest. I have made the point that a large part of the terrorism is inspired by Islam. I haven't even suggested that it is the exclusive reason.
And you ignore what I say, because I claim terrorism is not inspired by Islam, I claim that Islam is the excuse used by terrorist to deal with grievances they feel their people undergo. Had they been Hindi, we'd now be dealing with Hindi terrorists.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
The only relevance I see in the above is the Christianity 'fighting Islamic influences' thing, which is something you conjured up I expect. Secular folk will be just as scared of being blown up as the religious, and I imagine just as prone to phobia against Muslims.


If the Christians in the Netherlands and Poland start strapping on bombs, then I guess we will have to see then as a similar threat to Islamic terrorists, but until then not so. Mind you what I am proposing, which you choose to ignore, is the defusing of all religion.
Every party that uses uses Islamic terrorism as a spectre to get to power always bleats about 'returning to Judeo-Christian' values, and then once in power uses that power to start chipping away at the freedoms gained in the past 50-100 years.
That's what is far scarier to me. The right-wing populist/christian parties do not NEED to strap on bombs. They use political power to actually affect society in ways muslim extremists can only dream of. To use the polish example, no bombs were used, but freedom of speech vs religion was removed by law. As was judicial independence and free press.
No Muslims were involved in the laws removing abortion rights in several US states.
And THAT is what scares me. Not a few desperate people with bombs who have it harder and harder to actually do something and even then, tragic though it is, only harm a very small amount of people, but the use of those individuals to achieve political power by a far more scary group.
And the hypocrisy of those groups, at least in Europe, is that one of their rallying cries is 'The scary Muslims will enact Sharia laws! vote for us!!', only to, once in power, slowly enact laws that are pretty much the same. Such as lowering women's rights, reversing things like gay marriage and re-instating Christianity as the basis for moral laws.
So you tell me, what should I be more worried about. How to cope with a religion that will most likely never affect me in any way as the minority that follows it will slowly be secularized due to time, or the use of histrionics about that religion to get political powers in order to actually change the laws of my country?
I do not choose to ignore that defusing religion is needed, I see that accusations like yours are used BY a religion to actually strengthen its hold on the populations of Europa and are thus achieving the actual opposite of what you want.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
No, I have not suggested we intervene, although I feel for the citizens, (mainly the women), in those countries. How do you feel about their plight?
The same way I feel about the plight of slave workers in African industries, the victims of repressive regimes worldwide, the victims of the many vicious civil wars throughout the rest of the world, the victims of human trafficking etc.
In abstract I pity them, but not enough to actually DO something about it. The only thing I do is to support political parties that try to use some of my tax money to better the world trough aid and education. Not by spreading hate against a whole group of people because someone abuses their religion.
You?
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2019, 02:09 AM   #315
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,769
Originally Posted by Egg View Post
You suggested we know that Islam is the motivation based on writings from the terrorists. Here's an actual quote from the tube bombers:
Quote:
Your democratically-elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation.
You omitted the first sentence of that quote. Whether this was deliberate or not, I cannot say, but either way, the full text completely undermines the point you were trying to make.
Here's the full quote:
Quote:
"I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe . . . . Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true God and following the footsteps of the final prophet messenger. Your democratically-elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier”.
It would appear that belief in Islam is very much a motivator for terrorism.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2019, 04:32 AM   #316
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,088
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
It would appear that belief in Islam is very much a motivator for terrorism.
The declaration of belief in Islam doesn't seem to be the motivator for terrorism though.

If a Muslim said "Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true God", you wouldn't think "OMG, he must be a terrorist!"

The motivation seems to be found in: "... until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight."

From this I infer that he will stop the fight once the bombing, gassing and torture of his people stops, even if his religion continues to be Islam.

Last edited by GDon; 28th May 2019 at 04:38 AM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2019, 05:29 AM   #317
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,575
Originally Posted by Egg View Post
I didn't actually mention governments of weak nations, although as I understand it, that was how suicide bombing started (Assad's father, if I recall correctly). I'm aware that three of the tube bombers were British born. But retaliation for the actions of UK and US military would appear to be exactly what is happening, at least in the minds of the terrorists.



You made two long posts describing how horrific the tube bombings were and you mentioned in passing that there were also large numbers of victims of terror attacks in those other nations. I was talking about civilians killed in Western military attacks and pointing out that would also have been hell on earth for those people. You think that's a dishonest cheap shot?



I'm also very familiar with the London Tube - used it many times, including during terror threats from the IRA and Islamic terrorists and have family in and around London. I'm aware of the threat and the fear and in no way downplay that.

I'm comparing the attacks in so far as they both cause death and suffering that can empathized with, not in terms of the legitimacy. The link between them I would see as being far more clear than being for some kind of "religious reasons (or even racist anti-Muslim reasons)". The role is Islam here is that for many Muslims, Islamic identity comes before national identity, especially if they feel marginalized by that nation. As such they identify with and empathize with those suffering in military attacks that they see as unjustified.

This isn't to justify the terror attacks, but to understand the motivation - and note that many Muslims in the UK denounced those attacks even if they might have some sympathy with the cause.

You suggested we know that Islam is the motivation based on writings from the terrorists. Here's an actual quote from the tube bombers:

Quote:
Your democratically-elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation.



OK, well … I think if we produce posts with a lot of different points, as I did several times above, then that can make it difficult for anyone replying, because it means they have to address numerous different comments & claims etc. So just to simplify things here, I want to focus just on the two highlighted passages above -

- firstly as an admission of what could be a weak point in my own belief about Islamist terrorism, I do think the basis of their actions is primarily religious (and not something else). So that is perhaps a key point of dispute between any of us here. I think the evidence for the involvement of Islamic religious belief is undeniable and I have explained the reasoning for that earlier in this thread, however, I think we can simplify it here in the case of the above, by asking -

- do you think the London Tube bombers were justified in what they did?

Do you think the fact that they believed (and iirc they left statements to say so) that UK military forces in Iraq (and/or also in Afghanistan) were “killing, bombing and raping our women and children” (that's a quote from memory, either from the 7-7 Tube Bombers or one of that later UK terrorist trials), do you think that belief is justification for ordinary UK citizens (such as the London Tube bombers) to form themselves into a private execution squad in a country three thousand miles from Iraq or Afghanistan, and to go into a crowded public place such as a London tube train and indiscriminately slaughter as many people as possible?

Seriously what could ever possibly be any genuine justification for that?

It's surely not a genuine justification to say they simply "believed" that UK military forces were killing Muslims in Iraq. Because whatever any of us think about what any military forces do in any war zone anywhere in the world, and whatever we may individually think is right or wrong about such military action, it is certainly not our place as private individuals on the other side of the world to take murderous retaliatory law into our own hands.

So … what is the genuine justification that either the London Tube bombers or any of the other terrorist attackers across the EU could honestly give for their plots to slaughter people in Europe?

One of the points I made before on that issue was that the Tube bombers (and/or others in the many UK terrorist cases and subsequent legal trials) often said things such as “as you bomb us, so we will bomb you” … but who did they mean by “us”? … the London tube bombers were not being bombed by anyone! … the many other UK Muslims arrested in terrorism cases/trials were not being bombed by anyone either. What they meant by “us” was the people who they also called their “brothers” in Iraq, Afghanistan, and more recently in Syria … but they were not brothers or sisters or family at all … what they mean of course is “brothers & sisters” in Islamic religious belief …

…. the point is that they are undeniably acting on the basis of claiming a religious duty to fight (a physical Jihad, which is actually a religious war) in support of any other people of the same religious Islamic belief if they think that those other “brothers in religious belief” are being attacked or persecuted in some way.

And one last point on that – why is it that, long after any western military victory in Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria (or anywhere else), their Islamic “brothers” in those countries are still being killed by western military forces? What are these so-called “brothers” actually doing to get themselves killed by western military forces in those countries? I think the honest answer is that the “brothers” in question are overwhelmingly armed Islamist fighters who are members of groups like IS and Al-Q … in which respect, remember that in the case of the London Tube bombers their attack came in 2005 which was two years after the invasion of Iraq, and at a time (i.e. 7-7 2005) when Iraq had been plunged into a terrorist backlash with the reformation of Al-Q (who had been driven out of Afghanistan) now in Iraq calling itself Al-Q-in-Iraq or “Al-Q in the Islamic Maghreb” … and amongst the words left behind by Sidique Khan (one of the London Tube bombers) was open praise of Bin-Laden and Al-Q for what they did in attacking the USA and in seizing power for Islam in Afghanistan.

Overall - I do think that Islamic religious belief is the fundamental basis of the problem in all of this. You may disagree and think all sorts of other factors are the real issue. But if I am right (and I'm hardly alone in saying this ... afaik the huge mass of terrorism experts agree that Islamic religious belief is at the very least a big part of the problem), then the only way the world can ever solve this problem and ever stop the worldwide uprising of Islamic Jihad fighting all sorts of terrorist wars against all sorts of people, is by admitting that religious belief is a huge part of the problem and educating people (especially beginning with children in all schools) away from fundamentalist literal beliefs in religious gods, paradise, and beliefs about "only one true Law of Allah" etc.

Last edited by IanS; 28th May 2019 at 05:44 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2019, 11:44 AM   #318
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,575
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
We've all been suggesting ways to do this. You've been suggesting some yourself. The problem is, if the causes of terrorism are multifactorial, which they certainly are, and you decide that Islam is at fault, you're not looking for other causes - poverty, colonialism, war.

We also have the words of Christian terrorist Anders Brevik. We also have the words of white supremacist terrorist Brenton Tarrant. You, like Harris and Hitchens, cherry-pick your sources in order to demonise and dehumanise Islamic terrorists, rather than trying to understand why they do what they do. Harris and Hitchens have always done this. They're not exactly impartial reporters.

It's not insignificant. On the contrary, it is a significant issue. But it's one of many. You're the one ignoring issues by focusing all of your attention on this one.

How about you go about addressing issues of poverty, colonialism and war instead? That way no-one can possibly accuse you of Islamophobia.

Just re. the last highlighted part (though all of your post is really part of this too) - amongst "poverty, colonialism and war", the latter two are usually the same thing aren't they? And is it not the case that most old colonial powers, such as the UK in particular had become during the 18th and 19th centuries (yes, it was all a very long time ago far back in history, when the world was a very different place), have long since relinquished their control over those colonies and handed power back to the people who live there.

Do you think that the UK (say) has been trying to make a colony out of Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria? No? Indeed, any such suggestion would be ridiculous. Following 9-11, the west was not trying to seize power in those places to make them into into far flung colonies.

That leaves your suggestion of poverty. Well, I'm sure that poverty is a huge factor in the lives of most people in Afghanistan, in the border region of Pakistan, in many parts of Iraq (though afaik, less so in most of Syria) ... but Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were not pursing the 9-11 attacks because the people of Afghanistan were poor, they did not do that thinking it would make Afghans more prosperous. On the contrary they were in power there trying to take the lives of everyone back to biblical times in a religious dictatorship, and with all the poverty that inevitably comes with that, e.g. lack of any real education, consequent lack of progress in science, & technology, political and economic isolation etc. Their aim was entirely to recreate a 1000 year-old religious Islamic dictatorship for everyone there.

If you listen to the mission statements of the aims and the guiding principles etc. from groups like IS in Syria now (or, until very recently), in Iraq, and also still in Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan, they say absolutely nothing about poverty and a need to improve the living standards of people in those countries. They express no interest at all in trying to create better hospitals, more schools and better education for everyone, better transport links, a more stable economy etc. Their aims and guiding principles are all entirely about Islamic fundamentalist beliefs from the holy books and imposing that by force on everyone in those countries.

If you listen to what Bin Laden said in his many speeches, and listen to what suicide bombers in the UK and Europe have said, their complaint is not just that they have a religious duty from the Koran to fight a Jihad against any western powers that fight wars in Islamic lands, but that people in the west, e.g. citizens in the UK, are committing religious crimes against Allah by such practices as young women being under-dressed (not covered up), going dancing at night clubs, listening to western music, voting for democratic governments instead of obeying Allah in the one true law of Islam … and of course making blasphemous cartoons of Mohamed, which is of course decided (by the Muslim attackers in France and elsewhere) to be an act punishable by death (where it is they, as private citizens living in France or the UK who of course decide who must be killed for their irreligious jokes or remarks).

Is poverty a factor? Yes, absolutely it is. But mainly because it's the key factor as a lack of educational opportunities, and that is something all those Islamic fundamentalists want to deny to any Muslims in their wars for a religious “Caliphate” (I am not counting as “eduction” forced teaching from the Koran in a Madrassa ... that's not education, that's lethally dangerous religious indoctrination).
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2019, 02:01 PM   #319
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,063
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
And you ignore what I say, because I claim terrorism is not inspired by Islam, I claim that Islam is the excuse used by terrorist to deal with grievances they feel their people undergo. Had they been Hindi, we'd now be dealing with Hindi terrorists.
This is getting more one eyed and sillier all the time. I have acknowledged there may be other causes than Islam for terrorism by Muslim extremists, I never denied this either, but here you go suggesting that Islam does not inspire terrorism at all! In spite of all the material I and others, have provided in support of the proposition. Apart from your inner knowledge, can you point to anything to support this notion?



Quote:
Every party that uses uses Islamic terrorism as a spectre to get to power always bleats about 'returning to Judeo-Christian' values, and then once in power uses that power to start chipping away at the freedoms gained in the past 50-100 years.
That's what is far scarier to me. The right-wing populist/christian parties do not NEED to strap on bombs. They use political power to actually affect society in ways muslim extremists can only dream of. To use the polish example, no bombs were used, but freedom of speech vs religion was removed by law. As was judicial independence and free press.
No Muslims were involved in the laws removing abortion rights in several US states.
And THAT is what scares me. Not a few desperate people with bombs who have it harder and harder to actually do something and even then, tragic though it is, only harm a very small amount of people, but the use of those individuals to achieve political power by a far more scary group.
And the hypocrisy of those groups, at least in Europe, is that one of their rallying cries is 'The scary Muslims will enact Sharia laws! vote for us!!', only to, once in power, slowly enact laws that are pretty much the same. Such as lowering women's rights, reversing things like gay marriage and re-instating Christianity as the basis for moral laws.
So you tell me, what should I be more worried about. How to cope with a religion that will most likely never affect me in any way as the minority that follows it will slowly be secularized due to time, or the use of histrionics about that religion to get political powers in order to actually change the laws of my country?
I do not choose to ignore that defusing religion is needed, I see that accusations like yours are used BY a religion to actually strengthen its hold on the populations of Europa and are thus achieving the actual opposite of what you want.



The same way I feel about the plight of slave workers in African industries, the victims of repressive regimes worldwide, the victims of the many vicious civil wars throughout the rest of the world, the victims of human trafficking etc.
In abstract I pity them, but not enough to actually DO something about it. The only thing I do is to support political parties that try to use some of my tax money to better the world trough aid and education. Not by spreading hate against a whole group of people because someone abuses their religion.
You?
Same old stuff about all the other bad things that are happening so we can forget about Islam.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2019, 02:22 PM   #320
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,063
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
We've all been suggesting ways to do this. You've been suggesting some yourself. The problem is, if the causes of terrorism are multifactorial, which they certainly are, and you decide that Islam is at fault, you're not looking for other causes - poverty, colonialism, war.
Please tell me so I know. Why is recognising Islam as a problem somehow dismissing the relevance of other problems? We must recognise all problems but this thread specifically is about the Islam one.

Quote:
We also have the words of Christian terrorist Anders Brevik. We also have the words of white supremacist terrorist Brenton Tarrant. You, like Harris and Hitchens, cherry-pick your sources in order to demonise and dehumanise Islamic terrorists, rather than trying to understand why they do what they do. Harris and Hitchens have always done this. They're not exactly impartial reporters.
You have lost me here. Demonising and dehumanising Islamic terrorists now am I? Can't see where I did that.

Quote:
It's not insignificant. On the contrary, it is a significant issue. But it's one of many. You're the one ignoring issues by focusing all of your attention on this one.

How about you go about addressing issues of poverty, colonialism and war instead? That way no-one can possibly accuse you of Islamophobia.
More of the same as at the beginning of the post.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:44 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.