Paris implications continued

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Isn't the more apt comparison that of a battered wife reaching breaking point and killing her husband? There are two victims. On the one hand there is an insidious pattern of cruel treatment, and on the other hand there is a sudden act of extreme violence. The history of cruel treatment does not justify the murder, but it is a leading cause. In the case of battered wife syndrome the history of cruel treatment is often legally recognised as a mitigating factor. So the question here is whether the mal-treatment of Muslims in many European countries is a mitigating factor or not. There's not much debate that the mal-treatment is a causal link to why European born Muslims can be radicalised into violent actions.

TAT,

No, I don't think that analogy works.  A battered woman shooting her abuser directs violence against the person who is abusing her.  Here terrorists attacked random people who happened to be out for the night or at a concert who likely had nothing to do with perceived abuses of Muslims in France.  Had the terrorists attacked the specific MPs who supported legislation directed agains Muslims your analogy might work.  But even then the level of violence offered would be off the scale compared to the laws made. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Trump wouldn't deny that his plan for Muslim registration is similar to the Nazis' registration plans for Jews. Good job, Republicans.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

come on man, the west has been at odds with islam since it's inception.  The two can't seem to coexist peacefully.  What you are seeing is centuries of hate, war, and confusion on both sides.  This didn't start post WWII.  Hell, the US has been going at it with islamic extremist since the fucking barbary coast (luckily we worked that one out).  

I think this is a very stark example of flawed 'us vs. them' thinking. The US had a conflict with the Barbary States over state-sanctioned piracy. Beyond the fact that the Barbary States were inhabited and ruled by Muslims, there is no real religious dimension. They wanted tribute in exchange for not attacking American (or other nations') shipping in the Mediterranean. Again, pirates were the issue. Situating this as some sort of clash of cultures or a fight against Islamic extremists is a wildly ahistorical imposition, done in service to a preferred narrative about modern day events.

If we want a rough starting point for current conflicts, WWI and the breakup of the Ottoman Empire is a better place, when France and Britain were given control over Palestine, Syria, Iraq, creating new states and borders, and setting off numerous conflicts, both against Western powers and within regional populations. These conflicts aren't contained in an 'Islam vs the West' narrative either.

[DanteGabriel]

I think this is a very stark example of flawed 'us vs. them' thinking. The US had a conflict with the Barbary States over state-sanctioned piracy. Beyond the fact that the Barbary States were inhabited and ruled by Muslims, there is no real religious dimension. They wanted tribute in exchange for not attacking American (or other nations') shipping in the Mediterranean. Again, pirates were the issue. Situating this as some sort of clash of cultures or a fight against Islamic extremists is a wildly ahistorical imposition, done in service to a preferred narrative about modern day events.

If we want a rough starting point for current conflicts, WWI and the breakup of the Ottoman Empire is a better starting point, when Western powers were given control over Palestine, Syria, Iraq, creating new states and borders, and setting off numerous conflicts, both against Western powers and within regional populations. These conflicts aren't contained in an 'Islam vs the West' narrative either.

Let's also try and remember that the Treaty of Tripoli, which ended that war, explicitly stated that the conflict was not a religious one and that the United States was explicitly NOT founded as a Christian nation. Which is something that tends to be forgotten by right-wingers trying to make the explicit case for the US as a Christian nation.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

[Eyron]

Onion and Dante, your replies are the best thing since the Lies of Locke Lamora. Thanks for bringing the facts.

[The Fallen]

Why are American posters, of all people, complaining about Muslim extremists, when Muslim-Americans are not radicalized and adapt well in the U.S.?

The problem with Muslims in Europe is that they're treated like shit.

 And as always, it's our tough-guy posters who live in fear of everything. 

[Paladin of Ice]

I think all the good Christians of a (not actually) Christian nation are kinda forgetting something in turning away Syrian refugees. Somebody has a few things to say about it.

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

The ridiculousness coming out of the mouths of certain people and hysterical overreaction to these poor people is disgusting.

[Relic]

 

 And as always, it's our tough-guy posters who live in fear of everything. 

It's the American way. 

[Shryke]

Now I'm a racist?  Egads man!  That's a stretch.  

This is the problem.  I can't take a position you disagree with without you either calling me a bigot, intolerant, or a racist.  I'm not a fan of white supremacist either, and if I could have found the faucet they all came from, I would have turned that off as well.  

You can take plenty of positions I disagree with without being called any of those things.

What you can't do is take the position that the problem is muslims being allowed to immigrate because they will become terrorists, which is ascribing a characteristic to a specific group based on their race even though it's farcically easy to demonstrate that radicalization knows no racial bounds. The US most probably has more of a problem with white extremists then muslim ones.

Pretending like muslims are the problem when it comes to radicalization is textbook racism.

 

And Shryke, you've pretty much said that it's France's (and probably America's fault as well) for having violence perpetrated on them.  Rather than hold those that committed the act accountable, you search for reasons to blame the system, the state, or any figure you perceive as 'the other side' for the crimes committed against them.  It's backwards logic, and your absolute refusal to discuss it in a way that allows for disagreement does your argument even more of a disservice.  

No, I've said nothing of the sort. You've continued to attempt to ascribe this position to me because your overly simplistic worldview can't handle the idea that there are factors that can lead to radicalization but that this does not mean that anyone deserves to have terrorism inflicted on them. You have to plug your ears and whine about strawman arguments you have conjured from your imagination because apparently you just can't handle the idea that marginalizing groups within society can lead to problems with those groups.

There's plenty of factors that can lead to someone becoming a violent extremist and many of them can be mitigated. It ain't like people haven't been studying this shit to figure out where terrorists come from. 

[Shryke]

So the House has overwhelmingly rejected Obama's refugee policy, despite his veto threat.

With generous Democrat support, they easily exceeded the two thirds needed to override any attempted veto from the autocrat.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that he's an autocrat from or what that has to do with the President's long-established veto power.

But more then your usual incoherent silliness, this ones especially funny since literally 6 pages before you were saying this:

On a related note, reports from twitter state that after confirmation of the explosive cause of the Russian airliner tragedy, Putin has been quoted as saying: "To forgive the terrorists is up to God, to send them to Him is up to me."

Gotta love the man.

and slobbering the metaphorical knob of a literal actual autocrat.

This is some of your best work.

[peterbound]

 

You can take plenty of positions I disagree with without being called any of those things.

What you can't do is take the position that the problem is muslims being allowed to immigrate because they will become terrorists, which is ascribing a characteristic to a specific group based on their race even though it's farcically easy to demonstrate that radicalization knows no racial bounds. The US most probably has more of a problem with white extremists then muslim ones.

Pretending like muslims are the problem when it comes to radicalization is textbook racism.

 

No, I've said nothing of the sort. You've continued to attempt to ascribe this position to me because your overly simplistic worldview can't handle the idea that there are factors that can lead to radicalization but that this does not mean that anyone deserves to have terrorism inflicted on them. You have to plug your ears and whine about strawman arguments you have conjured from your imagination because apparently you just can't handle the idea that marginalizing groups within society can lead to problems with those groups.

There's plenty of factors that can lead to someone becoming a violent extremist and many of them can be mitigated. It ain't like people haven't been studying this shit to figure out where terrorists come from. 

Being Muslim is not a race.  You are attempting to attach a religious belief to the arab people.  That is not the case, nor should it be, and I think it may be part of the reason you have a hard time understanding the broader issue here.  Islam/Muslim is a religion, and one that leans towards radicalism, even without out the factors you suggest.  

Example:

OBL: Extremely wealthy scion of a massive fortune.  Attended elite secular school, and had every opportunity available to succeed outside of his extremist path.  

Ayman al-Zawahiri: Another upper middle class family upbringing.  Cairo educated surgeon that knew little of the pressure cooker you describe that promotes radicalism. 

Abdulla Yusuf Azzam: Highly educated radical university teacher that knew little in the way of conflict and trouble.  Still helped found AQ

 

See, what you missing is that individuals are able to use the inherently violent nature of the islamic faith (or their interpretation of it) to their advantage. They manipulate the put upon people of their faith to commit atrocities.  That is where the problem lies, not with the evil west.  

 

As to worldview

Peter bound: Grown ass man who has lived and work on nearly every continent in the world (excluding Antarctica and Australia), actually been to, work with, assisted individuals in the region we are discussing = simple worldview

Shyke: Sheltered liberal with an internet connection = world scholar

Not sure that works out.  

And didn't you just say (and it's a statement I agree with) that white supremacists are a big problem in the US?  How is that class of individual 'marginalized'.  Based on your theory there should be little to no terrorist groups amongst the ruling class of american society.  

 

Or is it that there are different aspects of religions/ideologies/sub cultures that can be manipulated to cause trouble?  These aspects can be found readily in Islam, and are used to the advantage of some of it's practitioners, no matter where they come from, or the events they've been exposed to.  Some people are just dicks, no matter what their background is.  I realize that it's hard to wrap your head around the idea that people can be responsible for their own actions, and that there isn't some great evil that makes them do bad things, but you should try that idea sometimes.  Individual accountability is a hard thing to grasp, but you'll be better off for it.  

And yes, people have been studying this, yet you refuse to accept that some of the findings zero in on the overall faith they adhere to, and search for some other reason that will let you put the blame elsewhere.  

 

Take what you want from all that, but something you do need to understand is that me attacking Islam is not me attacking the Syrians, the arabs, Kosovo, Africans, or the people of Mali.  It is me attacking a faith.  The same way I rail against aspects of christianly, mormonism, or any other idea that is based on an imaginary friend in the sky.  /YOU/ make it an issue of race.  Not me.  And it's something you need to work on, or you won't be able to really have a discussion that means anything  

 

[peterbound]

 

Let's also try and remember that the Treaty of Tripoli, which ended that war, explicitly stated that the conflict was not a religious one and that the United States was explicitly NOT founded as a Christian nation. Which is something that tends to be forgotten by right-wingers trying to make the explicit case for the US as a Christian nation.

My favorite treaty, and one I use in arguments time and again. 

Not sure we are disagreeing on anything here (you or onion), attempting to point out the problem (even the problem with islamic piracy... or extremists) is long standing.  

[peterbound]

Good video:

 

[The Fallen]

 

Being Muslim is not a race.  You are attempting to attach a religious belief to the arab people.  That is not the case, nor should it be, and I think it may be part of the reason you have a hard time understanding the broader issue here.  Islam/Muslim is a religion, and one that leans towards radicalism, even without out the factors you suggest.  

Example:

OBL: Extremely wealthy scion of a massive fortune.  Attended elite secular school, and had every opportunity available to succeed outside of his extremist path.  

Ayman al-Zawahiri: Another upper middle class family upbringing.  Cairo educated surgeon that knew little of the pressure cooker you describe that promotes radicalism. 

Abdulla Yusuf Azzam: Highly educated radical university teacher that knew little in the way of conflict and trouble.  Still helped found AQ

 

See, what you missing is that individuals are able to use the inherently violent nature of the islamic faith (or their interpretation of it) to their advantage. They manipulate the put upon people of their faith to commit atrocities.  That is where the problem lies, not with the evil west.  

 

As to worldview

Peter bound: Grown ass man who has lived and work on nearly every continent in the world (excluding Antarctica and Australia), actually been to, work with, assisted individuals in the region we are discussing = simple worldview

Shyke: Sheltered liberal with an internet connection = world scholar

Not sure that works out.  

And didn't you just say (and it's a statement I agree with) that white supremacists are a big problem in the US?  How is that class of individual 'marginalized'.  Based on your theory there should be little to no terrorist groups amongst the ruling class of american society.  

 

Or is it that there are different aspects of religions/ideologies/sub cultures that can be manipulated to cause trouble?  These aspects can be found readily in Islam, and are used to the advantage of some of it's practitioners, no matter where they come from, or the events they've been exposed to.  Some people are just dicks, no matter what their background is.  I realize that it's hard to wrap your head around the idea that people can be responsible for their own actions, and that there isn't some great evil that makes them do bad things, but you should try that idea sometimes.  Individual accountability is a hard thing to grasp, but you'll be better off for it.  

And yes, people have been studying this, yet you refuse to accept that some of the findings zero in on the overall faith they adhere to, and search for some other reason that will let you put the blame elsewhere.  

 

Take what you want from all that, but something you do need to understand is that me attacking Islam is not me attacking the Syrians, the arabs, Kosovo, Africans, or the people of Mali.  It is me attacking a faith.  The same way I rail against aspects of christianly, mormonism, or any other idea that is based on an imaginary friend in the sky.  /YOU/ make it an issue of race.  Not me.  And it's something you need to work on, or you won't be able to really have a discussion that means anything  

 

In this entire post you're acknowledging that Islam can and is used by extremists to justify the atrocities they commit. So why hold an entire religion responsible?

My favorite treaty, and one I use in arguments time and again. 

Not sure we are disagreeing on anything here (you or onion), attempting to point out the problem (even the problem with islamic piracy... or extremists) is long standing.  

I think you're missing the point. The treaty explicitly states that Islam had nothing to do with the issues that the parties had. Is Islamic piracy different from Christian or Atheist piracy?

[peterbound]

In this entire post you're acknowledging that Islam can and is used by extremists to justify the atrocities they commit. So why hold an entire religion responsible?

 

Because islam can be used to justify atrocities?  You answered your own question there.  

If we combat the ideas that islam teaches, or at the very least attempt to change the way that Islam teaches how to interact with the world at large (make the majority of the faith adapt the changing world) we can make some progress.  Otherwise, this will keep happing, as Islam will not budge in it's worldview.  

 

I mean, we can both agree that Islam isn't the most progressive of faiths, right?  We can see common ground on at least that point? Even those who aren't drawn to blowing people up still follow a fight that teaches, and enforces, bans against non traditional lifestyles, strict gender roles. and little to no separation of church and state.  These ideas don't mesh with the rest of the changing (for the better) world. 

[The Fallen]

Because islam can be used to justify atrocities?  You answered your own question there.  
If we combat the ideas that islam teaches, or at the very least attempt to change the way that Islam teaches how to interact with the world at large (make the majority of the faith adapt the changing world) we can make some progress.  Otherwise, this will keep happing, as Islam will not budge in it's worldview.  

 

I mean, we can both agree that Islam isn't the most progressive of faiths, right?  We can see common ground on at least that point? Even those who aren't drawn to blowing people up still follow a fight that teaches, and enforces, bans against non traditional lifestyles, strict gender roles. and little to no separation of church and state.  These ideas don't mesh with the rest of the changing (for the better) world. 

Yet, here in the U.S. we have millions of Muslims who can live in a secular country and follow secular laws. (It's one of those secular laws, freedom of religon, that allows them to practice their faith.) They marry people of other faiths.

There are over one millions Jews and hundreds of thousands of Muslims living here in NYC and there aren't any issues.

So,again, why condemn all Muslims for the actions of a small minority? Maybe the issue is how Muslims are treated in Europe.

As far as Islam being progressive, no it's not. But neither is Judaism or Christianity. The whole point of these religions is to control. Do you think that the Catholic church's opposition to condoms and birth control are progressive? Their views of homosexuality? Shit, they don't even believe in divorce.

[Ser Reptitious]

I mean, we can both agree that Islam isn't the most progressive of faiths, right?  We can see common ground on at least that point? Even those who aren't drawn to blowing people up still follow a fight that teaches, and enforces, bans against non traditional lifestyles, strict gender roles. and little to no separation of church and state.  These ideas don't mesh with the rest of the changing (for the better) world. 

I'd say the massive amount of oil money that the House of Saud showers upon the fundamentalist Wahabists is largely responsible for that. If the Westborough Baptist Church was in charge of enforcing morality in the U.S. and was given billions of dollars to spread their version of Christianity throughout the world (and especially if there was no central authority such as the pope to contradict it), Christianity would be facing the same problem. After all, it's not like there aren't enough Bible quotes (especially from the Old Testament) that could be used to "justify" the subjugation of women, the enslavement of people, and the killing of gays. 

If the Sufis had the money that the Wahabis are getting, Islam would be more likely be seen as similar to Buddism (peaceful mysticism, etc).

[Altherion]

There are over one millions Jews and hundreds of thousands of Muslims living here in NYC and there aren't any issues.

This is not true. There are plenty of issues, it's just that the authorities do a decent job of keeping them under control and you don't hear about most of them. Here is a list of plots and attacks compiled by the NYPD. The overwhelming majority are by Muslims and several of them are against Jewish synagogues.

[The Fallen]

This is not true. There are plenty of issues, it's just that the authorities do a decent job of keeping them under control and you don't hear about most of them. Here is a list of plots and attacks compiled by the NYPD. The overwhelming majority are by Muslims and several of them are against Jewish synagogues.

I was referring to the two groups, Jews and Muslims.

Have there been attempts by radicalized Muslims? Yes. Will there be more? Yes. Is the Muslim-American population a serious problem in the U.S.? I would say no.

And the question is why? And why are their European cousins more dissatisfied? Is it simply that they're followers of Islam and thus naturally predisposed to want to kill westerners?

[Shryke]

 

Being Muslim is not a race.  You are attempting to attach a religious belief to the arab people.  That is not the case, nor should it be, and I think it may be part of the reason you have a hard time understanding the broader issue here.  Islam/Muslim is a religion, and one that leans towards radicalism, even without out the factors you suggest.  

Example:

OBL: Extremely wealthy scion of a massive fortune.  Attended elite secular school, and had every opportunity available to succeed outside of his extremist path.  

Ayman al-Zawahiri: Another upper middle class family upbringing.  Cairo educated surgeon that knew little of the pressure cooker you describe that promotes radicalism. 

Abdulla Yusuf Azzam: Highly educated radical university teacher that knew little in the way of conflict and trouble.  Still helped found AQ

See, what you missing is that individuals are able to use the inherently violent nature of the islamic faith (or their interpretation of it) to their advantage. They manipulate the put upon people of their faith to commit atrocities.  That is where the problem lies, not with the evil west.  

"I'm not racist, I'm a religious-based bigot dammit!"

Good stuff.

 

As to worldview

Peter bound: Grown ass man who has lived and work on nearly every continent in the world (excluding Antarctica and Australia), actually been to, work with, assisted individuals in the region we are discussing = simple worldview

Shyke: Sheltered liberal with an internet connection = world scholar

Not sure that works out.  

And didn't you just say (and it's a statement I agree with) that white supremacists are a big problem in the US?  How is that class of individual 'marginalized'.  Based on your theory there should be little to no terrorist groups amongst the ruling class of american society.  

Peterbound: Man so insecure he must continually assert his own cock and ego size to another poster on an internet forum about whom he knows nothing rather then, say, actually argue the points under discussion.

Seriously dude, this is getting pathetic. Your chest-thumping is almost not funny anymore. Is your ego this fragile? This is not the behaviour of a "grown ass man", it's the behaviour of an insecure man who needs to pump up his own self-image.

 

Or is it that there are different aspects of religions/ideologies/sub cultures that can be manipulated to cause trouble?  These aspects can be found readily in Islam, and are used to the advantage of some of it's practitioners, no matter where they come from, or the events they've been exposed to.  Some people are just dicks, no matter what their background is.  I realize that it's hard to wrap your head around the idea that people can be responsible for their own actions, and that there isn't some great evil that makes them do bad things, but you should try that idea sometimes.  Individual accountability is a hard thing to grasp, but you'll be better off for it.  

And yes, people have been studying this, yet you refuse to accept that some of the findings zero in on the overall faith they adhere to, and search for some other reason that will let you put the blame elsewhere.  

The fact that you want to make this into only a dichotomy about "individual accountability" vs " no individual accountability at all" just illustrates how shallow and full of strawmen your entire premise here is. It never seems to enter your little raging head that multiple factors could be at work. No, it must be those damn sheltered liberals who don't understand the real manly man world!

Perhaps you should stop expressing such simple worldviews if you don't want people to point them out?

 

Take what you want from all that, but something you do need to understand is that me attacking Islam is not me attacking the Syrians, the arabs, Kosovo, Africans, or the people of Mali.  It is me attacking a faith.  The same way I rail against aspects of christianly, mormonism, or any other idea that is based on an imaginary friend in the sky.  /YOU/ make it an issue of race.  Not me.  And it's something you need to work on, or you won't be able to really have a discussion that means anything  

 

 

Actually you are making this about race too since there's nary a peep from you, even here, about south-east asian muslims who of course make up the actual majority of muslims in the world. Cause let's face it, given the your posts in this thread we all know what kind of muslims you are talking about here.

But moving on from that, the funny thing is you seem to think because you are a bigot about religion rather then race, that's ok. As if a religion as diverse as Islam (or say Christianity or Buddhism or the like) can be simply wrapped up into one little stereotype without you looking like a complete tool.