Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 13 minutes ago, Arakan said: I am not an expert of Christian sects but AFAIK there are some Protestant sects in which the coming of the Judgement day is a central theme. From a pragmatic point of view, the difference between those Christian nutjobs and their Islamic counterparts is that there are not tens of thousands Christian fundamentalists waiting to blow themselves up or executing thousands upon thousands of people for perceived apostasy/heresy/infidelity. Thank god "we" (aka Europeans) left that shit mostly behind with the Enlightenment and French Revolution. Yeah, I was going to write something similar. There is a vein of that in Christianity certainly (The Rapture, The 2nd Coming) but they seem to be a bit more passive in tone. "Just wait till Jesus comes back and sees all this degeneracy. You people are all going to burn". Which is nasty enough, granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaircat Meow Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 59 minutes ago, Werthead said: Labour did initiate anti-terrorist legislation in 2001/02, but they did not authorise mass-surveillance through the snooper's charter. That is May's pet project. Yes, Britain has some logistical advantages over the continent. We're an island so can regulate both people and goods coming into the country a lot more vigourously. That's probably why a lot of the more fundamentalist nutjobs in the UK have instead travelled to the Middle-East, where they can take their chances on the battlefield and good luck to them. However, saying that "the UK has not integrated its Muslim population very much at all" is misleading. There has been an enormous Muslim population in the UK since the 1950s (when we started recruiting them to do jobs British workers stuck their noses up at) and, surprise, there has been vastly fewer attempted terrorist activity in the UK from that quarter than there has been from Irish nationalist extremists. Where there have been attempted attacks from that area, they have been almost entirely defeated with the sole exception of lunatic single-actor attacks and three conspiratorial attacks (two in London, one at Glasgow Airport), one of which succeeded and two of which failed because the people involved were morons. If there was a hotbed of Islamic extremism motivating large numbers of people to carry out mass attacks on a regular basis in the UK, we would have a lot more serious issue than we do right now. The problem with this is that Britain suffered vastly more deaths as a result of the IRA campaign from the 1960s onwards and that situation was eventually defused and defeated without resorting to mass surveillance. Of course, superior technology is available today to make this possible, but modern terrorist doctrine is also to avoid organising anything over the internet/IM/text messaging and arrange things wherever possible in face-to-face meets, so many of the same lessons apply. I might respond in a bit more depth later, but the UK did not have an enormous Muslim population in the 1950s at all. Wikipedia puts the Muslim population at 50,000 in 1961. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_Kingdom#Demographics There is clearly a question over what 'integration' actually means. But many second and third generation immigrants show every sign of maintaining a highly distinctive culture, institutions and set of values. Third, judging integration by the number of successful terrorist attacks, or the number of attempted terrorist attacks, or the number of deaths, is deeply flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Hitchens makes the best augments for the worst causes. Manhole, if you want some perspective, watch videos of him pre-during Iraq invasion. He will be completly wrong, but sound very persuasive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 6 hours ago, James Arryn said: Hitchens makes the best augments for the worst causes. Manhole, if you want some perspective, watch videos of him pre-during Iraq invasion. He will be completly wrong, but sound very persuasive. Oh yeah, the guy is an amazing debater and speaker. I agree with you that he was wrong about Iraq as a whole, but his argument is painstakingly logical and compelling. As much as I despise our involvement in that war, I have trouble finding fault with his argument in favor of it. I might disagree with him on a basic level, but I don't think he was completely wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaircat Meow Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Oh yeah, the guy is an amazing debater and speaker. I agree with you that he was wrong about Iraq as a whole, but his argument is painstakingly logical and compelling. As much as I despise our involvement in that war, I have trouble finding fault with his argument in favor of it. I might disagree with him on a base level, but I don't think he was completely wrong. I am sorry but Hitchens sucked at rational argument. He only excelled at rhetoric and his skill there was facilitated by a combination of his accent and his state of perpetual semi-inebriation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 2 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said: I am sorry but Hitchens sucked at rational argument. He only excelled at rhetoric and his skill there was facilitated by a combination of his accent and his state of perpetual semi-inebriation. To each his own, I suppose. No need to apologize, but as he was quoted as saying "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 11 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Yeah, I was going to write something similar. There is a vein of that in Christianity certainly (The Rapture, The 2nd Coming) but they seem to be a bit more passive in tone. "Just wait till Jesus comes back and sees all this degeneracy. You people are all going to burn". Which is nasty enough, granted. They're not always 100% passive though... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chip-berlet/pastor-hagees-armageddon_b_103161.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/washington/14israel.html Then there's the "rumor" that Bush told Chirac that the the US-led invasion of Iraq was God's will... My point is, some Christians do share ISIS's terrifying vision of a coming apocalypse... And want to make it happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Oh yeah, the guy is an amazing debater and speaker. I agree with you that he was wrong about Iraq as a whole, but his argument is painstakingly logical and compelling. As much as I despise our involvement in that war, I have trouble finding fault with his argument in favor of it. I might disagree with him on a base level, but I don't think he was completely wrong. No, he was wrong. He's a compelling verbal antagonist, and he takes a kindo Jesuitical approach, but he's very selective about the points he includes/excludes in his construction. Like he'll cite mandate as per treaty but omit or run roughshod over the fact that the same treaty specifies who gets to determine if the treaty was violated and what to do about it...neither of which was the United States. And when semi-cornered as he occasionally was, he'll retreat into Churchillian phrases about someone one having to do what is needed to be done, a complete 180 from the mandate-based argument he'd been carefully constructing before. And he will also just bull rush at times, but it comes off nicer because of his Oxbridge sangfroid. He was a brilliant on his feet thinker/debater, but the impression he gives of Socratic means is false; his conclusions since the late 70's were all pretty much going the same way and he was fitting in the rhetoric to suit, not the other way around. But I understand you're feeling persuaded; he's planted seeds of doubt in my minds for moments even when I've known him to be totally wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Just now, Rippounet said: They're not always 100% passive though... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chip-berlet/pastor-hagees-armageddon_b_103161.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/washington/14israel.html Then there's the "rumor" that Bush told Chirac that the the US-led invasion of Iraq was God's will... My point is, some Christians do share ISIS's terrifying vision of a coming apocalypse... And want to make it happen. Oh yeah, absolutely. I'm not meaning to excuse or forgive Christianity. It does that for itself, no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 1 minute ago, James Arryn said: No, he was wrong. He's a compelling verbal antagonist, and he takes a kindo Jesuitical approach, but he's very selective about the points he includes/excludes in his construction. Like he'll cite mandate as per treaty but omit or run roughshod over the fact that the same treaty specifies who gets to determine if the treaty was violated and what to do about it...neither of which was the United States. And when semi-cornered as he occasionally was, he'll retreat into Churchillian phrases about someone one having to do what is needed to be done, a complete 180 from the mandate-based argument he'd been carefully constructing before. And he will also just bull rush at times, but it comes off nicer because of his Oxbridge sangfroid. He was a brilliant on his feet thinker/debater, but the impression he gives of Socratic means is false; his conclusions since the late 70's were all pretty much going the same way and he was fitting in the rhetoric to suit, not the other way around. But I understand you're feeling persuaded; he's planted seeds of doubt in my minds for moments even when I've known him to be totally wrong. Yeah, he's a silver tongued devil, no doubt, but I do find some of his arguments regarding the Iraq War compelling, even though I may ultimately disagree with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 30 minutes ago, Arakan said: To which podcast do you refer? When it's the second, well this is what IS themselves are stating as their raison d'etre. It doesn't talk about Islam in total. And yes, it sounds apocalyptic and the deeds of IS are apocalyptic as is this whole wish to meet for the battle at Dabiq...that sounds like something crazy out of a badly written fantasy novel. I am not an expert of Christian sects but AFAIK there are some Protestant sects in which the coming of the Judgement day is a central theme. From a pragmatic point of view, the difference between those Christian nutjobs and their Islamic counterparts is that there are not tens of thousands Christian fundamentalists waiting to blow themselves up or executing thousands upon thousands of people for perceived apostasy/heresy/infidelity. Thank god "we" (aka Europeans) left that shit mostly behind with the Enlightenment and French Revolution. So the issue is confined within the view that followers of IS and not generally with Islam itself? 14 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Yeah, I was going to write something similar. There is a vein of that in Christianity certainly (The Rapture, The 2nd Coming) but they seem to be a bit more passive in tone. "Just wait till Jesus comes back and sees all this degeneracy. You people are all going to burn". Which is nasty enough, granted. A lot of the Christian Zionists believe a restoration of a Biblical Israel with a 3rd Temple that is where the Dome of the Rock is now is neccessary for Christ's return. (Beaten to the punch) There were reports that Bush view the 2nd Iraq War as blessed by God. I do understand what IS and several Jihadist can do and have done. This is speaking more of the U.S but plenty real and horrible be done and those did believe they had God on their side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arakan Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 3 minutes ago, Rippounet said: They're not always 100% passive though... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chip-berlet/pastor-hagees-armageddon_b_103161.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/washington/14israel.html Then there's the "rumor" that Bush told Chirac that the the US-led invasion of Iraq was God's will... My point is, some Christians do share ISIS's terrifying vision of a coming apocalypse... And want to make it happen. Yes there are Christian nutjobs. But fortunately there are not ten thousands of Christian nutjobs who want to behead everyone who they consider as apostates or heretics... But your argument is invalid anyway, and be it only from a practical point of view. I do not fear to be crushed down by a truck driven by a Christian nutjob but unfortunately that might happen by a truck driven by an Islamic nutjob... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaircat Meow Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Yeah, he's a silver tongued devil, no doubt, but I do find some of his arguments regarding the Iraq War compelling, even though I may ultimately disagree with him. Which ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arakan Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 1 minute ago, TheKitttenGuard said: So the issue is confined within the view that followers of IS and not generally with Islam itself? Do you ask me about my personal opinion? If so then my answer is: no, I am not afraid of Muslims in general. Live and let live. My best friend from childhood is a religious Muslim and I respect his faith as long as he respects my agnosticism/atheism (depends on my mood). But I am afraid (in an abstract manner) by jihadists (IS are quantity wise only a small minority) and, more general, salafists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 20 minutes ago, Arakan said: Do you ask me about my personal opinion? If so then my answer is: no, I am not afraid of Muslims in general. Live and let live. My best friend from childhood is a religious Muslim and I respect his faith as long as he respects my agnosticism/atheism (depends on my mood). But I am afraid (in an abstract manner) by jihadists (IS are quantity wise only a small minority) and, more general, salafists. It is not personal and no intent to imply a personal level of animus. This went back to want is stated to be an apocalyptic nature with Islam. It appears unclear is this what is a selective reading to arrive or is some inseparable part of Islam. The reply was in that this a discussion related to what is inspiring IS. So is it an issue that is a narrow focus with IS and the few Jihadist or a deep issue at Islam's core that many want to proclaim is a total incompatibility with the modern world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 40 minutes ago, Arakan said: Yes there are Christian nutjobs. But fortunately there are not ten thousands of Christian nutjobs who want to behead everyone who they consider as apostates or heretics... No, these tens of thousands (and actually, I think it's closer to hundreds of thousands, if not more) of Christian nutjobs want to bomb the Middle-East into oblivion instead. Which in the long-run may prove to be worse for our (yours and mine) security. And f***, but I'm putting his here: 53 minutes ago, Arakan said: We have in very clear words a message of the major jihadi group (currently) directed at us, the West, the kaffirs and you don't accept what they write as their raison d'etre...why? What is your reasoning? I mean a reasoning besides your "feeling"? I am sorry but I take their words over your feelings especially because this article sugarcoats absolutely nothing! And so are the actions of IS as well... and yeah your quotations from the article...as you are aware of your dishonesty I have a little smile on my face right now and won't get angry but for the innocent readers of this thread, some other passages from the article, reasons 1 to 3 why "they" hate "us" My point was that this guy goes to great length to say that Western interventionism is not essential to his crusade, but does mention it nevertheless. The reason I quoted some parts of the article was to show that he didn't dismiss those reasons entirely -far from it. My reasoning is quite simply that whatever ISIS's goals are it still needs new recruits. The best way to get those recruits is to tap into the anger thar breeds Western intervention. In a way, the crusade may be ISIS's raison d'être, but anger is still its means of subsistance. Anyway, I'm uncomfortable discussing this here and there is a comparable discussion on the other thread (as you know). Have you read last eyar's The Atlantic's excellent article from last year (not that it supports my point in any way)? http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said: Which ones? The ones that are defensible. That Saddam was a bloodthirsty, oppressive fascist who terrorized his own people for decades. That he continued a near genocide against the Kurds. That he had broken numerous treaties with the West. Ending his regime remains a noble cause. That the intention, at its' heart, was a noble one. (the attempt to help the Iraqis establish a democratic republic) Helping to establish an autonomous Kurdish state which remains a flourishing democracy. He glosses over the War for Oil narratives and the Blackwater bullshit and the failure swamp of terror that we left behind of course. I don't agree with his overall assessment, but to say he was completely wrong is incorrect in my estimation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 1 hour ago, TheKitttenGuard said: This went back to want is stated to be an apocalyptic nature with Islam. It appears unclear is this what is a selective reading to arrive or is some inseparable part of Islam. The reply was in that this a discussion related to what is inspiring IS. So is it an issue that is a narrow focus with IS and the few Jihadist or a deep issue at Islam's core that many want to proclaim is a total incompatibility with the modern world. I'm not well versed enough in the dogma to answer that question with any sort of confidence or expertise. As I understand it there are sections of the Koran which emphasize the importance of punishing apostates with extreme prejudice and outline the rewards for true believers who do so. Apparently some Mullahs and Imams place more importance on these particular scriptures and others don't. Different sects of the religion hold these passages in varied degrees of emphasis, but none of them denounce it. Again, this is an oversimplified, half-informed view. I'm sure others here who are more familiar with the religion could provide a more educated and nuanced description or explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: I'm not well versed enough in the dogma to answer that question with any sort of confidence or expertise. As I understand it there are sections of the Koran which emphasize the importance of punishing apostates with extreme prejudice and outline the rewards for true believers who do so. Apparently some Mullahs and Imams place more importance on these particular scriptures and others don't. Different sects of the religion hold these passages in varied degrees of emphasis, but none of them denounce it. Again, this is an oversimplified, half-informed view. I'm sure others here who are more familiar with the religion could provide a more educated and nuanced description or explanation. I am not either. I am fairly sure neither is Sam Harris. My wariness comes it people who more inclined towards the secular end making what can be general pronouncement of a whole faith for I think all have plenty on the ape-shit crazy side. Not going to deny that at this juncture many of those crazy elements of Islam are being perceived as the true part of Islam within. I am just not of full confidence that "The West" is in the clear of its craziness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 16 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said: My wariness comes it people who more inclined towards the secular end making what can be general pronouncement of a whole faith for I think all have plenty on the ape-shit crazy side. Not going to deny that at this juncture many of those crazy elements of Islam are being perceived as the true part of Islam within. I am just not of full confidence that "The West" is in the clear of its craziness. I get that. I guess for me that doubt is assuaged by a point Hitchens makes in the You Tube I posted earlier. He points out that Islam has never truly experienced a reformation, at least not in the same way Christianity has. The very Mission Statement of the religion is "This is the final, unalterable word of God". You don't get to edit it. You don't get to cherry-pick it. You either accept it as a whole, or you are an apostate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.