1 2 3 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Islam is Terror

 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  5882
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
31 March 2016 06:45
 

Allow me to proceed slowly, because apparently it’s very difficult to find the combination of words that allow people to talk about this calmly while still picking up the points. And of course the title of this thread is a false over-generalization. It’s meant to prove a point.

This thread was motivated when I was watching Bill Maher the other week. He had Corey Booker on his show, and actually this topic came up once with him and once with his entire panel. Bill was trying to yet again make a point that he an Sam share. His point was that there are very dangerous and illiberal beliefs currently embedded in ME cultures. One often distorted sub-issue to this argument is whether these beliefs are caused or even furthered by religion. Because Islam is such a big part of what ME people do and how they justify their behaviors, it’s a natural connection to make. But we here probably know that this isn’t a direct correlation; that things like poverty, lack of resources and very limited community opportunities are more factors to be considered when figuring out why ISIS, other terror cells and terrorism more generally are. However, the fact that it’s not a direct correlation has been taken to an extreme. It’s given hyper-liberals the foundation to public outcry the phrase islamaphobia. I cringe every time I hear it misused this way because it’s probably a serious problem otherwise, under other social circumstances. Further, some moderate Islamists say that even a mention of this correlation isn’t fair to the people trying to shed the cultural cognition that ALL Islamists are terrorists. But at closer look, this really isn’t a cogent argument against stats that prove that most all Muslim middle eastern people who are even far from ever thinking about being a jihadist still believe and support things like Shariah law. Sharia law is the legal authority that reduces to writing things like women who cheat will be stoned, the “woman vote” doesn’t count as much, and speech should be regulated down to the T. Freedom of expression almost doesn’t exist. These laws blow and are very easily argued as unreasonable, unjust, unfair and unequal, which as far as I see it are still the best principals to set an authority (i.e. fairness and equity ect). The entire ME authoritative system - religious, legal or otherwise - is flawed from being under-cultured, male dominant, and having heavily religiously influenced cognitive dissonance. The next most extreme reaction to this argument would be that this belief creates an US v them perception. But that’s as egregious of a correlation as the one in the title of this thread. Why the lack of sensible middle on this particular issue?

[ Edited: 31 March 2016 06:52 by Jb8989]
 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  20094
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
31 March 2016 06:56
 

The sensible middle involves helping Muslims adopt a more civil interpretation of Islam.  This has been done in Christianity and Judaism, and can be done with Islam, too.  They will not abandon it, so there should be another option.

 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  2679
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
31 March 2016 07:45
 

This topic, unfortunately, draws the attention of only extreme views.  The voices echoing all the worst possible scenarios are met with voices insisting those scenarios apply to a small fraction of the group in question.  People are so convinced of their stance, either way, it becomes all they’re willing to hear.  The way they feel becomes more important than what makes them feel the way they feel.  The subject itself becomes secondary.  There’s plenty of evidence to support this notion.  Whenever anyone says anything positive about Palestine they’re accused of being anti-Semitic.  Whenever anyone wants to discuss military history they’re accused of being a warmonger.  Whenever anyone says anything about Islam they’re accused of being Islamaphobic.  This goes round and round, circling farther away from the finer points in desperate need of discussion.  I think it’s important to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, out of the gate, before any meaningful conversation can take place.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  16247
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
31 March 2016 08:21
 

It’s all America’s and Israel’s fault, if you don’t understand and embrace that you are an islamaphobia.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  16247
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
31 March 2016 08:22
 
EN - 31 March 2016 06:56 AM

The sensible middle involves helping Muslims adopt a more civil interpretation of Islam.  This has been done in Christianity and Judaism, and can be done with Islam, too.  They will not abandon it, so there should be another option.

The sensible middle and 1000’s of years suffering, horror and war.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  20094
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
31 March 2016 08:45
 
GAD - 31 March 2016 08:22 AM
EN - 31 March 2016 06:56 AM

The sensible middle involves helping Muslims adopt a more civil interpretation of Islam.  This has been done in Christianity and Judaism, and can be done with Islam, too.  They will not abandon it, so there should be another option.

The sensible middle and 1000’s of years suffering, horror and war.

We get what we want, I suppose.

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2379
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
31 March 2016 09:06
 

wrong thread

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6262
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
31 March 2016 09:07
 
EN - 31 March 2016 06:56 AM

The sensible middle involves helping Muslims adopt a more civil interpretation of Islam.  This has been done in Christianity and Judaism, and can be done with Islam, too.  They will not abandon it, so there should be another option.

Confucius would be livid. As it stands, Islam is a totalitarian ideology. We start off on the wrong foot to call it a religion. If the world were to stop calling it a religion, and start calling it totalitarian, it would incent moderate Muslims to openly walk away from the political aspects of Islam and create a religion-only reformation.

 
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  8879
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
31 March 2016 14:55
 
LadyJane - 31 March 2016 07:45 AM

I think it’s important to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, out of the gate, before any meaningful conversation can take place.

Except for EN.  He’s a drunk lawyer.  jb, too, for starting a conversation with a flame thrower and asking everyone else to be reasonable.

 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  2679
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
31 March 2016 15:51
 
Skipshot - 31 March 2016 02:55 PM
LadyJane - 31 March 2016 07:45 AM

I think it’s important to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, out of the gate, before any meaningful conversation can take place.

Except for EN.  He’s a drunk lawyer.  jb, too, for starting a conversation with a flame thrower and asking everyone else to be reasonable.

The more attention we pay to the negative attributes of Islam the less we spend on other questionable ideologies.  This allows EN the Southern Comfort of reconciling his own religious beliefs by comparison.  The Doc, as usual, is ushering a cavalcade of word fancy to divert attention away from what he thinks qualifies as a normal human penis.

 

 
 
Dennis Campbell
 
Avatar
 
 
Dennis Campbell
Total Posts:  19789
Joined  20-07-2007
 
 
 
31 March 2016 15:55
 

This comparison is not completely accurate, but I think it makes some sense. The Germans prior to World War II embraced as a nation fascism.  That is, some percentage of Germans did so, and most of the rest of Germany want along with it. Some future brings for quite frenetic about the idea that the Aryan race was superior, but most just passively subscribed to that ideology. After they lost World War II, it is amazing how few Germans subscribed to fascism. 

I suggest that Muslims can be considered a similar manner. Foremost, a subscription to Islam is both a necessary protective coloration and a convenient justification for their own desires. Some few Muslims will in fact subscribed to Islam as a lifelong commitment.  Most of their leadership subscribe to Islam as a convenience. They do so as a means to justify their acquisition of power, control, and wealth.  We are not being attacked by Islam, we are being attacked by a very small percentage of Muslims who use Islam as a justification. The same thing happened with Germany.  We are not being attacked by Islam, we are being attacked by those people who use it as a justification.  The small number of people who are used as suicide bombers or simply cannon fodder. Both Germany and Japan did the same thing with a small number of people. 

So, yes, we are at war with Islam as represented by those people who seek to acquire power and control. Trust is happened with respect to Germany in World War II.  Islam it does not kill people, people kill people.  Kill a lot of people who are using Islam to attack us, and the ideology of Islam becomes much less powerful.  Intellectual arguments are simply not sufficient. Nor were they sufficient in World War II.  The fuel for such a conflict includes economic disparities, personal insecurities, and cultural threats. But these could only be addressed over generations. The immediate threat of being attacked can only be replied to with physical force.  The fuel that fires that conflict can only be addressed over generations. 

If someone threatens to assault me on the street, they will not be dissuaded by my intellectual arguments. They may will be dissuaded if I am able to kill them. I have met a good number of psychopaths in prison, and the only thing they responded to was physical force.  To be clear, I am not implying that Muslims are psychopaths.  Most Muslims, like us, are just people who go along with the prevailing political philosophy. 

Sent from Dennis’ iPhone 5

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  20094
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
31 March 2016 16:01
 
LadyJane - 31 March 2016 03:51 PM
Skipshot - 31 March 2016 02:55 PM
LadyJane - 31 March 2016 07:45 AM

I think it’s important to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, out of the gate, before any meaningful conversation can take place.

Except for EN.  He’s a drunk lawyer.  jb, too, for starting a conversation with a flame thrower and asking everyone else to be reasonable.

The more attention we pay to the negative attributes of Islam the less we spend on other questionable ideologies.  This allows EN the Southern Comfort of reconciling his own religious beliefs by comparison.  The Doc, as usual, is ushering a cavalcade of word fancy to divert attention away from what he thinks qualifies as a normal human penis.

 

Wait, I was the voice of reason.  I advocated for a middle ground.  I’m being falsely accused.  I’m going to blow something up.

 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  2679
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
31 March 2016 16:15
 
EN - 31 March 2016 04:01 PM

Wait, I was the voice of reason.  I advocated for a middle ground.  I’m being falsely accused.  I’m going to blow something up.

Stellar demonstration of the Chunk Limit.  Nicely done!

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  5882
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
31 March 2016 16:35
 
LadyJane - 31 March 2016 07:45 AM

This topic, unfortunately, draws the attention of only extreme views.  The voices echoing all the worst possible scenarios are met with voices insisting those scenarios apply to a small fraction of the group in question.  People are so convinced of their stance, either way, it becomes all they’re willing to hear.  The way they feel becomes more important than what makes them feel the way they feel.  The subject itself becomes secondary.  There’s plenty of evidence to support this notion.  Whenever anyone says anything positive about Palestine they’re accused of being anti-Semitic.  Whenever anyone wants to discuss military history they’re accused of being a warmonger.  Whenever anyone says anything about Islam they’re accused of being Islamaphobic.  This goes round and round, circling farther away from the finer points in desperate need of discussion.  I think it’s important to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, out of the gate, before any meaningful conversation can take place.

It just seems like you’re saying that we’ll be able to talk about it only after their ignorance ages with their younger religion. Generation turnover aside, there’s gotta be a better way to bring this conversation away from the toxicity of political correctness.

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  5882
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
31 March 2016 16:37
 
EN - 31 March 2016 06:56 AM

The sensible middle involves helping Muslims adopt a more civil interpretation of Islam.  This has been done in Christianity and Judaism, and can be done with Islam, too.  They will not abandon it, so there should be another option.

I think that they would abandon literalistic views for substantially the same reasons that other sects and religions abandoned their more fundamentalist interpretations. what were those reasons again?

[ Edited: 31 March 2016 16:48 by Jb8989]
 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  5882
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
31 March 2016 16:42
 
icehorse - 31 March 2016 09:07 AM
EN - 31 March 2016 06:56 AM

The sensible middle involves helping Muslims adopt a more civil interpretation of Islam.  This has been done in Christianity and Judaism, and can be done with Islam, too.  They will not abandon it, so there should be another option.

Confucius would be livid. As it stands, Islam is a totalitarian ideology. We start off on the wrong foot to call it a religion. If the world were to stop calling it a religion, and start calling it totalitarian, it would incent moderate Muslims to openly walk away from the political aspects of Islam and create a religion-only reformation.[/quote

Most big terror cells want sovereign power or statehood more than they believe their religious justifications for the atrocities they carry out in order to try and fail to organize at that level. And try and fail. And fail and try. And fail again. I think that their strong commitment to fundamental views comes less with the trying part and more with the failing part. Their struggle and death is a lot of their motivational source, wouldn’t you say?

 
 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›