# Brussells



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Add them to the list.... 

Crap.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Hideous. Three men posing as Syrians at a Bavarian refugee shelter are implicated, according to reports from Berlin.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...ium-airport-and-Metro-live.html?frame=3598772


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Horrifying and tragic. No doubt our governments will be being called upon to intensify the bombing, that has yet to achieve anything, in Iraq or Syria by the popular news media. They will do so, having expressed their shock and horror, and having kept people like Murdoch happy, but nothing will change. Daesh will continue to oppress the Syrians and Iraqis, and we will continue to condemn their barbarity, the Saudis will continue to oppress their own people and the Yemenis, and we will continue to support and justify their barbarity.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ Well obviously the first step must be to catch those immediately responsible for the outrages. Unfortunately the French and Belgian police have found this fairly challenging so far.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Horrifying and tragic. No doubt our governments will be being called upon to intensify the bombing, that has yet to achieve anything, in Iraq or Syria by the popular news media. They will do so, having expressed their shock and horror, and having kept people like Murdoch happy, but nothing will change. Daesh will continue to oppress the Syrians and Iraqis, and we will continue to condemn their barbarity, the Saudis will continue to oppress their own people and the Yemenis, and we will continue to support and justify their barbarity.


Are the Belgian's bombing anyone? Just curious.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Are the Belgian's bombing anyone? Just curious.


Not currently as far as I know. They were bombing Daesh in Iraq and Syria last year.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Interesting article here https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/22/why-was-belgium-targeted-by-bombers


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Not currently as far as I know. They were bombing Daesh in Iraq and Syria last year.


Ah yes of course! Now it makes sense.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Interesting article here https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/22/why-was-belgium-targeted-by-bombers


Interesting how native Belgians, at least those of European decent, don't seem to view it that way. It's only when a culture of nihilism is introduced that this happens. Something tells me the Guardian would write the same article regardless of where this happened.

Show me two points on a chart and I'll draw a straight line between them.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Ah yes of course! Now it makes sense.


Not really. Spain wasn't doing anything at the time of the Madrid bombings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings
My point is that the ongoing bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria has, so far, done nothing, nothing at all, to solve the problem, all it is is a very expensive gesture.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Interesting how native Belgians, at least those of European decent, don't seem to view it that way. *It's only when a culture of nihilism is introduced that this happens.* Something tells me the Guardian would write the same article regardless of where this happened.
> 
> Show me two points on a chart and I'll draw a straight line between them.


Indeed. Where _*did*_ the culture of nihilism come from? Where did the culture of nihilism come from that led to the Oklahoma bombing?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Indeed. Where _*did*_ the culture of nihilism come from? Where did the culture of nihilism come from that led to the Oklahoma bombing?


Ah yes! OKC! A favorite refrain of those wanting to draw some moral equivalency. I'll point out to you that OKC and those willing to do things like that, at least here in the US, are the exception. They are completely out of the norm. Setting aside those with true mental problems, OKC was over 20 years ago.

Before that, we have to go back to the 1960's and those movements were stamped out rather quickly and were not embraced by the culture in general.

Suicide bombings and terrorism seem to be a normal part of the political discourse in many middle eastern countries. The nihilism starts with a religion born of, and weaned on, violence.

When white supremacists start to bomb federal buildings on a regular basis then perhaps your argument will carry some currency.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Ah yes! OKC! A favorite refrain of those wanting to draw some moral equivalency. I'll point out to you that OKC and those willing to do things like that, at least here in the US, are the exception. They are completely out of the norm. Setting aside those with true mental problems, OKC was over 20 years ago.
> 
> Before that, we have to go back to the 1960's and those movements were stamped out rather quickly and were not embraced by the culture in general.
> 
> ...


White supremacists have seemed to manage to kill people in the US with monotonous regularity for years; they even had a distinctive costume which was a bit of a giveaway. In any case white supremacists have been active in Europe as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks 
The Islamic world doesn't have a monopoly on this, neither is it any more the action of "Muslims" than the IRA bombings were the work of the "Irish" or of "Catholics". 
Our governments are, in any case, seemingly content when *some* Islamic countries carry out attacks on civilians, or behead prisoners in large numbers.

Just in case I am, by a ridiculous stretch of an imagination, thought to be justifying or condoning terrorist violence, I am here categorically stating that I am not. There is no justification for what happened this morning in Brussels.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> White supremacists have seemed to manage to kill people in the US with monotonous regularity for years; they even had a distinctive costume which was a bit of a giveaway. In any case white supremacists have been active in Europe as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks The Islamic world doesn't have a monopoly on this, neither is it any more the action of "Muslims" than the IRA bombings were the work of the "Irish" or of "Catholics".
> Our governments are, in any case, seemingly content when *some* Islamic countries carry out attacks on civilians, or behead prisoners in large numbers.
> Just in case I am, by a ridiculous stretch of an imagination, thought to be justifying or condoning terrorist violence, I am here categorically stating that I am not. There is no justification for what happened this morning in Brussels.


none of that has anything to do with this. As usual, you resort to red herrings to avoid the topic at hand. I don't see the Klan parading up and down the street and in rare cases that they do, and I honestly cannot remember the last time they did anything like that, they were vilified.

People like that wear masks for a reason. They are at the margins of our society. They are not held up as heroes and seen as martyrs. Put it this way; when given a choice the Palestinians elected Hamas to head their government. I don't see the KKK openly running for office anywhere in this country. There's not a single city charter in the US, or in Europe for that matter, that calls for the open destruction of a minority group. Contrast that with the middle east.

Belgium did nothing but give refuge to people escaping tyranny. Europe for that matter has acted in the same manner. Their reward for doing so is the incorporation of a medieval culture bent on killing indiscriminately because they don't like aspects of the culture to which they have fled.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> none of that has anything to do with this. As usual, you resort to red herrings to avoid the topic at hand.


When? I didn't bring up white supremacists, you did.



SG_67 said:


> I don't see the Klan parading up and down the street and in rare cases that they do, and I honestly cannot remember the last time they did anything like that, they were vilified.
> 
> People like that wear masks for a reason. They are at the margins of our society. They are not held up as heroes and seen as martyrs.


But they weren't. In the 1920's they were mainstream and very popular.



SG_67 said:


> Put it this way; when given a choice the Palestinians elected Hamas to head their government. I don't see the KKK openly running for office anywhere in this country. There's not a single city charter in the US, or in Europe for that matter, that calls for the open destruction of a minority group. Contrast that with the middle east.


Why? What does that have to do with the people responsible for this outrage?



SG_67 said:


> Belgium did nothing but give refuge to people escaping tyranny. Europe for that matter has acted in the same manner. Their reward for doing so is the incorporation of a medieval culture bent on killing indiscriminately because they don't like aspects of the culture to which they have fled.


It's as simple as that is it? Really? If that is the case why are we bombing Iraq and Syria?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> When? I didn't bring up white supremacists, you did.


you mention OKC. That's a dog whistle for white supremacy.



> But they weren't. In the 1920's they were mainstream and very popular.


Perhaps we can use example within the last 50 years?



> Why? What does that have to do with the people responsible for this outrage?


This is a lost cause with you so I'll let your comment stand as is.



> It's as simple as that is it? Really? If that is the case why are we bombing Iraq and Syria?


You make it sound as though we are carpet bombing and leveling cities. Let's stop bombing. I agree. At the same time, let's close off our collective borders and force these people to confront their own nonsense and their backwards culture.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> Belgium did nothing but give refuge to people escaping tyranny. Europe for that matter has acted in the same manner. Their reward for doing so is the incorporation of a medieval culture bent on killing indiscriminately because they don't like aspects of the culture to which they have fled.





SG_67 said:


> ... let's close off our collective borders and force these people to confront their own nonsense and their backwards culture.


Hear, hear, exactly so.

Meanwhile Britain's prime minister says we are 'safer within Europe'; I cannot follow the logic of his argument.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> you mention OKC. That's a dog whistle for white supremacy.


It may be to you, to me it is just a terrorist attack.



SG_67 said:


> Perhaps we can use example within the last 50 years?


 I did; 2010. Islamist extremists don't have a monopoly on terrorism; there was a Prison Officer in N.Ireland murdered by a Republican bomb last week. Nothing to do with Islam. I'd be interested to find out whether that terrorist attack was reported in the US, and if so, in what way.



SG_67 said:


> You make it sound as though we are carpet bombing and leveling cities. Let's stop bombing. I agree.


Do I? I described it as ineffectual bombing, that's all.



SG_67 said:


> At the same time, let's close off our collective borders and force these people to confront their own nonsense and their backwards culture.


Which people are these? The innocent inhabitants of Iraq and Syria whose countries we de-stabilised, and therefore allowed these monsters to flourish? If we'd left the Middle East alone in the first place, Syria and Iraq would be under the firm control of their tribal leaders, leaders to whom Al Quaeda were as much an enemy as they are/were to us.

As I wrote above, the hypocrisy of our governments, who condemn the "medieval punishments" of Daesh, whilst justifying and supporting the equally medieval punishments of Saudi Arabia is disgusting. They condemn the use of terror by Daesh whilst supporting and aiding Saudi Arabia in its use of terror in Yemen.

As I've said before, I condemn all terrorism, but it is a grossly unfair generalisation to condemn Islam itself and to blame the victims of these evil bastards.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> Hear, hear, exactly so.
> 
> Meanwhile Britain's prime minister says we are 'safer within Europe'; I cannot follow the logic of his argument.


Are you suggesting that we weren't subject to terrorism before we joined the EU?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> It may be to you, to me it is just a terrorist attack.
> 
> I did; 2010. Islamist extremists don't have a monopoly on terrorism; there was a Prison Officer in N.Ireland murdered by a Republican bomb last week. Nothing to do with Islam. I'd be interested to find out whether that terrorist attack was reported in the US, and if so, in what way.
> 
> ...


In terms of global scale I'm not sure you can compare Radical Islam to an IRA bombing. Furthermore, Radical Islam is a metaphysical calling. It transcends political belief and is international.

The last I checked, the IRA wasn't targeting all western targets. I'm not justifying it or condoning it in any way. Terrorism is terrorism. But theft is theft as well, be it a kid who steals a candy bar and Bernie Madoff. Murder is murder be it a mob hit between two mobsters or a serial killer. It's the context that is disturbing and frightening.

The IRA is more of a political movement. They are not out to kill protestants and to spread Catholicism across the globe.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Are you suggesting that we weren't subject to terrorism before we joined the EU?


Perhaps not but countries should remain free to determine for themselves who they allow into their countries and not feel obligated to do so based on some multi-national agreement.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Are you suggesting that we weren't subject to terrorism before we joined the EU?


We weren't subject to Islamic terrorism, perpetrated by savage killers from beyond Europe who, thanks to the EU Schengen agreement, are now free to travel at will across an entire continent without border controls. Freedom of movement is of course one of the EU's priorities, regardless of whether those free to move are intent on meting out death and destruction to the rest of us.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> ...
> Which people are these? The innocent inhabitants of Iraq and Syria whose countries we de-stabilised, and therefore allowed these monsters to flourish? *If we'd left the Middle East alone in the first place, Syria and Iraq would be under the firm control of their tribal leaders,* leaders to whom Al Quaeda were as much an enemy as they are/were to us.


Who were these benign-sounding 'tribal leaders'? Before we (the UK and France) became involved in the Middle East, Iraq and Syria were under the control of the Ottomans, and had been for centuries. Perhaps you mean Saddam Hussein - you think we should have left him alone?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Langham said:


> Who were these benign-sounding 'tribal leaders'? Before we (the UK and France) became involved in the Middle East, Iraq and Syria were under the control of the Ottomans, and had been for centuries. Perhaps you mean Saddam Hussein - you think we should have left him alone?


I've said this before, the culture in the middle east is one that feels perfectly at peace under the thumb of dictators.

I wonder if people ever stop to ask themselves why it is that western Europeans and North America have been able to organize themselves according to democratic lines yet the middle east and the rest of the world for that matter have not been able to do so.


----------



## Dcr5468 (Jul 11, 2015)

Langham said:


> Who were these benign-sounding 'tribal leaders'? Before we (the UK and France) became involved in the Middle East, Iraq and Syria were under the control of the Ottomans, and had been for centuries. Perhaps you mean Saddam Hussein - you think we should have left him alone?


It's a sad fact that oppressive dictatorships have been the only means of keeping the real crazies in check. I believe we have proven that in the last 10 years with a series of failed states.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Dcr5468 said:


> It's a sad fact that oppressive dictatorships have been the only means of keeping the real crazies in check. I believe we have proven that in the last 10 years with a series of failed states.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


And again, ask yourself, why? What does it come down to?

It's the culture. It is an absolutist culture that is still medieval and at its core has little changed in 500 years. Women are second class citizens for all intents and purposes. Hatred for Jews is taught alongside reading and writing. There is no independent intellectual basis for the progression of society. Every aspect of like is proscribed by religion.

Those countries that are secular are so because of military dictatorships. Think about the radical steps the Ataturk took when he came to power. He banned the Fez and changed the alphabet. He had to drag Turkey kicking and screaming into the 20th century.

As sad as it is, it is the beacon by which other middle eastern countries are thought to have aspire to.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> Who were these benign-sounding 'tribal leaders'? Before we (the UK and France) became involved in the Middle East, Iraq and Syria were under the control of the Ottomans, and had been for centuries. *Perhaps you mean Saddam Hussein - you think we should have left him alone?*


Yes. We became involved in Iraq for dishonest reasons, essentially because Blair and Bush, and their advisors, wanted us to. Sanctions against Saddam Hussein were in place and were keeping him quiet. We had no reason to invade.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> We weren't subject to Islamic terrorism, perpetrated by savage killers from beyond Europe who, thanks to the EU Schengen agreement, are now free to travel at will across an entire continent without border controls. Freedom of movement is of course one of the EU's priorities, regardless of whether those free to move are intent on meting out death and destruction to the rest of us.


No, we were subject to Irish Nationalist terrorism, supported and funded by the US. Was that better in some way?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> In terms of global scale I'm not sure you can compare Radical Islam to an IRA bombing. Furthermore, Radical Islam is a metaphysical calling. It transcends political belief and is international.
> 
> The last I checked, the IRA wasn't targeting all western targets. I'm not justifying it or condoning it in any way. Terrorism is terrorism. But theft is theft as well, be it a kid who steals a candy bar and Bernie Madoff. Murder is murder be it a mob hit between two mobsters or a serial killer. It's the context that is disturbing and frightening.
> 
> The IRA is more of a political movement. They are not out to kill protestants and to spread Catholicism across the globe.


Does that make their victims any less of a tragedy? As you say, terrorism is terrorism, whether it is carried out by Irish Republicans, or Northern Irish "Loyalists" (vide Shankill Butchers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers), or supporters of Daesh. Islam doesn't have a monopoly on terror and terrorism, so blaming terrorism on a medieval mindset doesn't really work.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Dcr5468 said:


> It's a sad fact that oppressive dictatorships have been the only means of keeping the real crazies in check. I believe we have proven that in the last 10 years with a series of failed states.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Indeed, yet it was us, the West, that either directly overthrew the dictators, or supported those who wished to overthrow them, with no effective or practicable plan to deal with the aftermath of their overthrow or the instability. Then we blame the people of the failed states for the problems that followed.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> And again, ask yourself, why? What does it come down to?
> 
> It's the culture. It is an absolutist culture that is still medieval and at its core has little changed in 500 years. Women are second class citizens for all intents and purposes. Hatred for Jews is taught alongside reading and writing. There is no independent intellectual basis for the progression of society. Every aspect of like is proscribed by religion.


Is it really? In every state that is regarded as Islamic? Or are you grossly simplifying and stereotyping?



SG_67 said:


> Those countries that are secular are so because of military dictatorships. Think about the radical steps the Ataturk took when he came to power. He banned the Fez and changed the alphabet. *He had to drag Turkey kicking and screaming into the 20th century. *
> 
> As sad as it is, it is the beacon by which other middle eastern countries are thought to have aspire to.


Not really, there had been a series of reforming Sultans in the later 19th century, with the fez becoming a symbol of modernisation. The Young Turks came next, and Ataturk merely finished the job.

It is, I suppose, so much easier to blame Islam for the problems of the Middle East, rather than look at the complexity of the situation. Unfortunately taking the simple option of blaming Islam won't solve the problem, but never mind, we can blame "their" culture and "them", do what we've always done, and wait for the next attack.

As far as keeping out these dreadful Muslims, that might be possible if a country had no Muslims living in it, irrespective of the morality of doing so, but as all European countries, for example, have native born citizens who are Muslims, then preventing the entry of Muslims is a non-starter. Any other bright ideas?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Salah Abdeslam (hobby - firing automatic weapons at pop concerts) claims his human rights have been violated.

Shabir Ahmed (hobby- torturing and raping children) claims his human rights have been violated.

Michael Adebolajo (hobby- decapitating a soldier in the UK) claims his human rights have been violated.

.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Yes. We became involved in Iraq for dishonest reasons, essentially because Blair and Bush, and their advisors, wanted us to. Sanctions against Saddam Hussein were in place and were keeping him quiet. We had no reason to invade.


Yes, we were drawn into the second Gulf War for rather specious reasons which, in a rather curious way, seemed to have rather a lot to do with Tony Blair's strange ego. But you have a curious and, if I may say so, rather warped notion of Saddam 'being kept quiet'.



Chouan said:


> No, we were subject to Irish Nationalist terrorism, supported and funded by the US. Was that better in some way?


To someone being blown up in either Kensington or the Brussels metro, probably not. But you are trying to evade the obvious point I was making and which anyone with eyes and a brain could have understood, that Europe's open borders - a point Lord Howard made yesterday, in a speech written before the Brussels bombings - leave us unnecessarily exposed to similar attacks here:



> "The second is a consequence of the Schengen agreement which, according to the former Head of Interpol 'is like hanging a sign welcoming terrorists to Europe'."


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...n-to-terrorists-warns-former-Tory-leader.html


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Salah Abdeslam (hobby - firing automatic weapons at pop concerts) claims his human rights have been violated.
> 
> Shabir Ahmed (hobby- torturing and raping children) claims his human rights have been violated.
> 
> ...


Indeed. On the other hand, was it them, as individuals who are making these claims, or is it smart lawyers who see a potentially profitable job?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Is it really? In every state that is regarded as Islamic? Or are you grossly simplifying and stereotyping?
> 
> Not really, there had been a series of reforming Sultans in the later 19th century, with the fez becoming a symbol of modernisation. The Young Turks came next, and Ataturk merely finished the job.
> 
> ...


Perhaps you'd like to share with us your insight into the complexity of the matter. How is it so complex vs. anywhere else?

Please provide an example of a middle eastern country that is truly secular and democratic at the same time. Oh wait! Israel. Do they count?


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

vpkozel said:


> Add them to the list....
> 
> Crap.


There is only one 'l' in Brussels.

Bruxelles has two.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Perhaps you'd like to share with us your insight into the complexity of the matter.


Why? You appear to be convinced that the problem is caused by Islam.



SG_67 said:


> How is it so complex vs. anywhere else?


I would argue that the situation is no more complex than any other post imperial situation, like the serious problems in Africa. The problems that Europe had post WW1 with the break up of the Hapsburg Empire and the break down in the balance of power led directly to WW2, and that was without a religious angle. The religious angle was, of course, an important factor in some European states. There was civil war in Yugoslavia with the Catholics and the Orthodox trying to exterminate each other. 
In the Middle East an old established Empire was dissolved with entirely artificial states being created from its ruins, with no allowance made for ethnic or cultural or religious divisions or differences. The Ottoman Empire had been able to maintain an Empire which, although Islamic, was tolerant of other Abrahamic religions, including Sufism and both Shia and Sunni Islam, and even turned a blind eye towards the Yazidi. However, with its demise, new states were created in the region that disregarded both ethnic and religious lines and which, with no culture of democratic concepts such as had developed in the West, had no chance of developing such institutions in such a short period of time. Western Europe had had centuries in which democratic principles could develop naturally. The Middle East, with artificial states and an undeveloped tribal structure had no capacity for that kind of development. In any case French colonial rule in the cases of Syria and Lebanon, prevented any kind of democratic development, with the French administration being content to use dominant tribal groups as proxy leaders, as long as they followed French colonial policies. Hence the Christians in Lebanon became the prominent ruling group, the Alawites in Syria (the group of which Assad is the leader) became dominant over the disparate mixture in that "state". Britain established the Hashemites as their proxy rulers in both Iraq and Jordan, whilst controlling Palestine themselves without proxy rulers. Palestine was, of course, disturbed by the Jewish immigration which caused further discord, resulting in the intifada of the 1930s, in which the displaced Palestinians reacted against the incoming zionists. The post WW2 influx of Jewish people upset the stability of the region further. An Israeli terrorist campaign was in part responsible for Britain abandoning the mandate and led to Israel's independence, and, in turn led to a sequence of wars in the region, with atrocities and massacres on both sides. That Israel has only survived through massive, and obvious, American political and economic support is, effectively the elephant in the room as far as US-Middle East relations are concerned.



SG_67 said:


> Please provide an example of a middle eastern country that is truly secular and democratic at the same time.


Why? However, the Republic of Turkey is both secular and democratic, although the present government, supported by both Europe and the US, looks to be heading towards dictatorship.



SG_67 said:


> Oh wait! Israel. Do they count?


Hardly. Seeing as Israel defines itself as a Jewish state how can it be secular?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Why? You appear to be convinced that the problem is caused by Islam.
> 
> I would argue that the situation is no more complex than any other post imperial situation, like the serious problems in Africa. The problems that Europe had post WW1 with the break up of the Hapsburg Empire and the break down in the balance of power led directly to WW2, and that was without a religious angle. The religious angle was, of course, an important factor in some European states. There was civil war in Yugoslavia with the Catholics and the Orthodox trying to exterminate each other.
> In the Middle East an old established Empire was dissolved with entirely artificial states being created from its ruins, with no allowance made for ethnic or cultural or religious divisions or differences. The Ottoman Empire had been able to maintain an Empire which, although Islamic, was tolerant of other Abrahamic religions, including Sufism and both Shia and Sunni Islam, and even turned a blind eye towards the Yazidi. However, with its demise, new states were created in the region that disregarded both ethnic and religious lines and which, with no culture of democratic concepts such as had developed in the West, had no chance of developing such institutions in such a short period of time. Western Europe had had centuries in which democratic principles could develop naturally. The Middle East, with artificial states and an undeveloped tribal structure had no capacity for that kind of development. In any case French colonial rule in the cases of Syria and Lebanon, prevented any kind of democratic development, with the French administration being content to use dominant tribal groups as proxy leaders, as long as they followed French colonial policies. Hence the Christians in Lebanon became the prominent ruling group, the Alawites in Syria (the group of which Assad is the leader) became dominant over the disparate mixture in that "state". Britain established the Hashemites as their proxy rulers in both Iraq and Jordan, whilst controlling Palestine themselves without proxy rulers. Palestine was, of course, disturbed by the Jewish immigration which caused further discord, resulting in the intifada of the 1930s, in which the displaced Palestinians reacted against the incoming zionists. The post WW2 influx of Jewish people upset the stability of the region further. An Israeli terrorist campaign was in part responsible for Britain abandoning the mandate and led to Israel's independence, and, in turn led to a sequence of wars in the region, with atrocities and massacres on both sides. That Israel has only survived through massive, and obvious, American political and economic support is, effectively the elephant in the room as far as US-Middle East relations are concerned.
> ...


Complexities exist in every country. Four hundred years ago central Europe tore itself apart but I don't see them harping on that all these years later. Seventy years ago we fought a bloody war with Japan yet we're not at one another's throats today.

This nonsense about "complexity" is nothing more than an excuse used by dictators to justify why they have failed to bring their countries into the 21st Century.

As for Israel, it's a Jewish state but it's interesting how a Shiite muslim is more free to practice his/her religion there than in Saudi Arabia. There is freedom of worship and no one is getting jailed for passing out bibles or Qurans.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> As for Israel, it's a Jewish state but it's interesting how a Shiite muslim is more free to practice his/her religion there than in Saudi Arabia. There is freedom of worship and no one is getting jailed for passing out bibles or Qurans.


Quite. It isn't a secular state, as you seemed to be suggesting.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Kingstonian said:


> There is only one 'l' in Brussels.
> 
> Bruxelles has two.


Yep. High school French has been getting me on that for a while now.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Quite. It isn't a secular state, as you seemed to be suggesting.


No? Christians are arrested for having a bible or going to worship? Muslims are arrested for worship?

It's a secular state in that sense. It may be a Jewish state but being otherwise is not illegal.

https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2009/127349.htm


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

_Some may find this article on the nature of Islam informative:
_
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/islam-facts-or-dreams/


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tiger said:


> _Some may find this article on the nature of Islam informative:
> _
> https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/islam-facts-or-dreams/


Thank you Tiger. As ever you add value to debates such as these.

I was expounding the sentiment of that article to my liberal colleagues this morning. They were horrified. I assured them that the only barrier that stood between their view and mine was the death toll that they could tolerate before revising their position.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Does that make their victims any less of a tragedy? As you say, terrorism is terrorism, whether it is carried out by Irish Republicans, or Northern Irish "Loyalists" (vide Shankill Butchers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers), or supporters of Daesh. Islam doesn't have a monopoly on terror and terrorism, so blaming terrorism on a medieval mindset doesn't really work.


Except that I don't have anything to fear from an Irish Republican.

You speak of the "complexity" of the middle east and how it has gotten to the state that it is in, yet when it comes to terrorism such complexities vanish. A terrorist is a terrorist, be it a radical Islamist or a member of the IRA and you seem content to close the book on that.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> ... terrorism is terrorism, whether it is carried out by Irish Republicans, or Northern Irish "Loyalists" or supporters of Daesh. Islam doesn't have a monopoly on terror and terrorism, so blaming terrorism on a medieval mindset doesn't really work.


There is a distinction of sorts to be made, in that the Irish terrorists had some sort of recognisable goal, whether that was the expulsion of the British from Ireland or conversely the suppression of nationalists in Ulster, while IS appear to have no coherent strategic goal beyond the infliction of death and horror on non-muslims.


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Langham said:


> while IS appear to have no coherent strategic goal beyond the infliction of death and horror on non-muslims.


The establishment of a global caliphate and universal imposition of sharia law?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

rtd1 said:


> The establishment of a global caliphate and universal imposition of sharia law?


And isn't that why Islamic terrorism is set apart from terrorism with more secular goals?

The IRA is not trying to convert people to Catholicism. I'm no apologist for them but the motivations and frankly the methods aren't exactly comparable.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> No? Christians are arrested for having a bible or going to worship? Muslims are arrested for worship?
> 
> It's a secular state in that sense. It may be a Jewish state but being otherwise is not illegal.
> 
> https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2009/127349.htm


Neither is it illegal to go to church or possess a bible in Turkey, or Jordan or Lebanon, or Syria or Iraq (where not under Daesh control) or Iran, or Egypt or Kuwait etc etc.
The definition of a secular state, like the US, is clear, Israel is, by its own definition of itself, not a secular state. You appear to be trying to shift the goalposts.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> There is a distinction of sorts to be made, in that the Irish terrorists had some sort of recognisable goal, whether that was the expulsion of the British from Ireland or conversely the suppression of nationalists in Ulster, while IS appear to have no coherent strategic goal beyond the infliction of death and horror on non-muslims.


So a violent death caused by an IRA bomb is somehow more acceptable than a violent death caused by a Daesh bomb?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> And isn't that why Islamic terrorism is set apart from terrorism with more secular goals?
> 
> The IRA is not trying to convert people to Catholicism. I'm no apologist for them but the motivations and frankly the methods aren't exactly comparable.


So a violent death caused by an IRA bomb is somehow more acceptable than a violent death caused by a Daesh bomb?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Given the apparent determination being expressed here by some members that Islam itself is to blame, being by its very nature a religion of violence and intolerance, have you been aware of the trial of the former leader of the Bosnian Serbs, Christians, who is on trial for the ethnic cleansing and murder of thousands of Muslims in Bosnia, solely on the grounds of their faith?
Should we, on this basis, condemn Christians in the same way as we condemn Muslims?
Should we, based on the words in the Old Testament, condemn Jews as belonging to a faith based on terror and massacre? 
There appears to be a lot of very careful selection of evidence going on to support a view that Islam itself is to blame, and therefore all Muslims are to blame.
This is an easy solution to the problem to come to, but it is a canard.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> So a violent death caused by an IRA bomb is somehow more acceptable than a violent death caused by a Daesh bomb?


Could you point out where I said that? Your deliberate refusal to understand people's responses to your own postings (I was replying to your denial that the Islamist terrorists have a medieval mindset) borders on being tasteless.

Much as I objected to the IRA bombers in the 70s and 80s, and they certainly committed some atrocities in their time, as I pointed out earlier, there is a valid distinction to be made between them and the IS bombers.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Chouan said:


> Given the apparent determination being expressed here by some members that Islam itself is to blame, being by its very nature a religion of violence and intolerance, have you been aware of the trial of the former leader of the Bosnian Serbs, Christians, who is on trial for the ethnic cleansing and murder of thousands of Muslims in Bosnia, solely on the grounds of their faith?
> Should we, on this basis, condemn Christians in the same way as we condemn Muslims?
> Should we, based on the words in the Old Testament, condemn Jews as belonging to a faith based on terror and massacre?
> There appears to be a lot of very careful selection of evidence going on to support a view that Islam itself is to blame, and therefore all Muslims are to blame.
> This is an easy solution to the problem to come to, but it is a canard.


This is all very well, but is pointless whataboutery. The problem confronting us is violent jihadists. They are vipers in the nest. It does not matter whether they are home grown or foreigners.

The key issue is what to do about it.

For a start, western governments need to stop being so accommodating. The language needs to change.

A case could be made for extra judicial action - deniable assassinations and/or reprisals targeting the communities that shelter the perpetrators.

It might be sad if it came to that and governments would be delighted for an excuse to extend snooping powers against the whole population.

However, governments seem unable or unwilling to do anything else such as prevent additional troublesome arrivals - let alone expel troublemakers that are currently here.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Given the apparent determination being expressed here by some members that Islam itself is to blame, being by its very nature a religion of violence and intolerance, have you been aware of the trial of the former leader of the Bosnian Serbs, Christians, who is on trial for the ethnic cleansing and murder of thousands of Muslims in Bosnia, solely on the grounds of their faith?
> Should we, on this basis, condemn Christians in the same way as we condemn Muslims?
> Should we, based on the words in the Old Testament, condemn Jews as belonging to a faith based on terror and massacre?
> There appears to be a lot of very careful selection of evidence going on to support a view that Islam itself is to blame, and therefore all Muslims are to blame.
> This is an easy solution to the problem to come to, but it is a canard.


If you would ever bother to critically analyze your points and take them further, you would note that the West has a way of dealing with people like this.

Is there a mechanism such as this within Islam?

You continue to miss, or perhaps you simply choose to ignore, the bigger point. As horrific as what happened in Bosnia in the 1990's was, from an international security perspective it was located within a region and was relatively self contained. It needed to be stopped, but I don't the average Brit, German or American needed to be worried that a Serb national was going to bomb them.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> This is all very well, but is pointless whataboutery. The problem confronting us is violent jihadists. They are vipers in the nest. It does not matter whether they are home grown or foreigners.


It is hardly whataboutery. The argument was made that the problem was simply Islam. I pointed out that Islam hardly has a monopoly on terrorism, so the cause of terrorism isn't simply Islam.



Kingstonian said:


> The key issue is what to do about it.
> 
> For a start, western governments need to stop being so accommodating. The language needs to change.
> 
> ...


Indeed. On the other hand, compare the death toll in America from terrorism and the death toll in the US from firearm accidents. Which is the most serious issue? 
What is the death toll in Europe from alcohol related incidents? Compare that to the deaths caused by terrorism. Which is the most dangerous and serious? 
As you suggest, governments are increasingly likely to reduce our civil liberties for a problem that is really not as serious as many others. 
The other thing to consider is why these people are doing what they are doing? Why bomb an airport? The essential aim is disruption and panic, and they achieve that through the publicity generated. If we ignored them. if we ignored the carnage, if the news media didn't report it with such relish, if politicians didn't seek to make political capital from it, how long would terrorist bombing continue?
We, and our leaders, consistently play into the terrorists' hands. We always do exactly what they want us to do.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

^ if we ignore it I believe it would be seen as further evidence of Western weakness and the bombers would become even more emboldened. On the other hand, if their own people suffer as much - or maybe even more - they may be more willing to report these suspicious individuals to the authorities.

There are no warning messages as with previous bombing campaigns. The idea is human carnage rather than damage to property.

Most citizens will be more concerned by jihadi killings than road accidents, alcohol related deaths or - in places where firearms are available - deaths from firearms.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Kingstonian said:


> Most citizens will be more concerned by jihadi killings than road accidents, alcohol related deaths or - in places where firearms are available - deaths from firearms.


And don't forgetting slipping and hitting your head in a bath tub.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> ...
> What is the death toll in Europe from alcohol related incidents? Compare that to the deaths caused by terrorism. Which is the most dangerous and serious?


You are ignoring the intent. Few people get behind the wheel of their car intending to cause death, having first had a good skinful of drink, but death was the bombers' clear intent. Governments are probably already doing what they can to curb drink-driving, short of unacceptable curtailment of civil liberties, but as Kingstonian has pointed out, there may be a lot more they could do to deter the Islamist fanatics.



> The other thing to consider is why these people are doing what they are doing? Why bomb an airport? The essential aim is disruption and panic, and they achieve that through the publicity generated. If we ignored them. if we ignored the carnage, if the news media didn't report it with such relish, if politicians didn't seek to make political capital from it, how long would terrorist bombing continue?
> We, and our leaders, consistently play into the terrorists' hands. We always do exactly what they want us to do.


It's risible to suggest some form of censorship on news reporting of such events. People have a right to know, and imagine the paranoia that would ensue as reports of such atrocities trickled out on social media etc; the effect would be to multiply the disruption and panic.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Thank you Tiger. As ever you add value to debates such as these. I was expounding the sentiment of that article to my liberal colleagues this morning. They were horrified. I assured them that the only barrier that stood between their view and mine was the death toll that they could tolerate before revising their position.


Thank you for your very kind and generous remarks, Shaver!

I've struggled with the concept of Islamic terrorism. The spectrum of thought on the topic seems to range from "they're all terrorists or potential terrorists (it's only a matter of time) and thus we must eradicate them" to "Islam is a religion of peace and we must never judge all Muslims by the deeds of a few rogue actors."

The article by Andrew McCarthy that I previously posted probably comes closest to my view, i.e., there are undoubtedly overt teachings in the Qur'an that call for the destruction of all non-Muslims and the establishment of a world-wide Islamic kingdom, by any means necessary (obviously a terse summary). Many Muslims ascribe to this ideology, in the same way Christians adhere to the teachings of Jesus. There are far more Muslims who were born into the faith or converted to it, but reject its inherent violent aspects (or are unaware of them); perhaps I can label them "nominal Muslims" in the same way there are many Christians born into the faith but have never read either the Old or New Testaments or know/understand a thing about Christian theology. Finally, there are the malcontents, stragglers, low lives, losers, and thugs of all backgrounds who become enamored of Islam and seek to use it as the impetus to commit violence against those with whom they have grievances (Christians, white people, the economically secure, et al.).

I have long spoken out against American involvement in the Middle East; our interventionism and foreign policy have absolutely harmed the United States. The Middle East is a snake pit that we've willfully strided into far too often; one should not be shocked that we've been bitten by that brood of vipers.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Langham said:


> Could you point out where I said that? Your deliberate refusal to understand people's responses to your own postings (I was replying to your denial that the Islamist terrorists have a medieval mindset) borders on being tasteless.
> 
> Much as I objected to the IRA bombers in the 70s and 80s, and they certainly committed some atrocities in their time, as I pointed out earlier, there is a valid distinction to be made between them and the IS bombers.


Langham, that is precisely Chouan's MO, He never really seems to understand a response to his nonsense and instead interprets what your response is however he sees fit.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ I can never decide whether he is sincere or just engaging in deliberate antagonism.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> ^ I can never decide whether he is sincere or just engaging in deliberate antagonism.


Mr Langham I do apologise for singling you out in this manner, but trust that you will not mind too much, however, I find Chouan to be utterly coherent. I may not agree entirely with his various positions but still, like them or loathe them, they seem properly expressed to me.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Mr Langham I do apologise for singling you out in this manner, but trust that you will not mind too much, however, I find Chouan to be utterly coherent. I may not agree entirely with his various positions but still, like them or loathe them, they seem properly expressed to me.


No, of course I don't mind. As I say, I am undecided on the matter.


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

https://qz.com/646545/moderates-are-losing-the-fight-to-save-islam-from-racists-and-extremists/


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^May we presume that you submitted the link to this horse flop to stimulate the debate and not because you might, perish the thought, believe it?


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Shaver said:


> ^May we presume that you submitted the link to this horse flop to stimulate the debate and not because you might, perish the thought, believe it?


Did you read it? The author's argument is that the Left, in attempting to continuously deny the religious Islamic element within these acts of terrorism, is in effect making it more difficult for the reformist elements within Islam to pursue reform. I found that to be an interesting angle.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Well of course I read it. What type of man do you take me for? 

You oblige me now to read it again in fear I missed some nuance.....


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

A few crumbs of cake to sidetrack the easily distracted. Admittedly more than I acknowledged previously but still the lie that the faith is compatible with intellect.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Just going to leave this here...


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Shaver said:


> A few crumbs of cake to sidetrack the easily distracted. Admittedly more than I acknowledged previously but still the lie that the faith is compatible with intellect.


I don't think religious faith in general is compatible with intellect, but I do acknowledge that Islam contains some particularly troubling elements as part of its core theology.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

C'mon you little tinker, don't be pulling old Shaver's leg. Intellect is central to my faith. I can bore you with it all day long, should you be so inclined to listen. Even an atheist may appreciate erudite thought.


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Shaver said:


> C'mon you little tinker, don't be pulling old Shaver's leg. Intellect is central to my faith. I can bore you with it all day long, should you be so inclined to listen. Even an atheist may appreciate erudite thought.


I approach it primarily from an epistemological standpoint. Perhaps revelation is on par with reason and empiricism as a mechanism for acquiring knowledge (I would argue that it is not, but let's put that aside for now), but how can one assess its validity unless one has experienced it oneself? If someone writes a book in which they advance a logical argument, or make an empirical claim, I can validate the claim for myself. If someone writes a book in which they claim the contents were divinely revealed, on what basis can anyone else validate it? On what basis, for example, can you state that the Bible was divinely inspired but the Book of Mormon (or any other supposedly divinely inspired book) is a sham?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Never pull Shaver's leg...never. Retribution will be swift and fierce!

The problem with the Symons piece is that it presupposes that the "Islamists" are corrupting the innately pure religion of Islam, and the moderates are trying to reclaim it from those vile distorters, if only the Left (and in a different manner, the Right) would cease to impose impediments to doing so.

The McCarthy article that I posted earlier proffers something different - that the most literal and accurate reading of Islam reveals it to be fundamentally a religion founded, and propagated, upon violence and jihad. It is the so-called moderates that are obligated to tap dance around these jihadist truths in trying to portray Islam as something other than what it actually is.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

rtd1 said:


> I approach it primarily from an epistemological standpoint. Perhaps revelation is on par with reason and empiricism as a mechanism for acquiring knowledge (I would argue that it is not, but let's put that aside for now), but how can one assess its validity unless one has experienced it oneself? If someone writes a book in which they advance a logical argument, or make an empirical claim, I can validate the claim for myself. If someone writes a book in which they claim the contents were divinely revealed, on what basis can anyone else validate it? On what basis, for example, can you state that the Bible was divinely inspired but the Book of Mormon (or any other supposedly divinely inspired book) is a sham?


Book of Mormon- found under a rock in a field by a farmer in the 19th Century. Word of God found in your heart, quiten down and listen.


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Tiger said:


> The problem with the Symons piece is that it presupposes that the "Islamists" are corrupting the innately pure religion of Islam, and the moderates are trying to reclaim it from those vile distorters, if only the Left (and in a different manner, the Right) would cease to impose impediments to doing so.


I don't think Symones is claiming that "the Islamists are corrupting the innately pure religion of Islam". Rather, she is agreeing that a plain reading of Islamic scripture is violent and intolerant. She is advocating for reform of the religion, and claiming that the Leftists continued insistence that "Islam is a religion of peace and the terrorists have nothing to do with Islam" is making it more difficult for the reformers to achieve reform.

Now, as to whether or not Islam can be "reformed", I have no idea. Frankly, I'm not optimistic. But there are 1.6 Billion of them out there so I'm not sure what other plausible options we have.


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Shaver said:


> Book of Mormon- found under a rock in a field by a farmer in the 19th Century. Word of God found in your heart, quiten down and listen.


I'm pretty sure "the Word of God" is not in any way innately found in my heart, if by the Word of God you mean the Christian Bible. In fact, I'm fairly certain that it's a collection of books, written by numerous authors, over an extended period of time, with the final determination as to which of those books would be included in the canon determined by councils of still more men.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

rtd1 said:


> I'm pretty sure "the Word of God" is not in any way innately found in my heart, if by the Word of God you mean the Christian Bible. In fact, I'm fairly certain that it's a collection of books, written by numerous authors, over an extended period of time, with the final determination as to which of those books would be included in the canon determined by councils of still more men.


I do not believe Christ to be the son of God in any manner beyond that which we (you and I) are sons of God.


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Anyway, my point is simply this:

You have multiple texts, each of which claims to have been written by a divinely inspired author, and hence to represent the literal and inerrant word of God. Those claims can't all be correct. On what objective basis do you make the determination as to which text is in fact the word of God?


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Shaver said:


> I do not believe Christ to be the son of God in any manner beyond that which we (you and I) are sons of God.


Which God? Humanity has had quite a few over the course of the millennia.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

rtd1 said:


> Which God? Humanity has had quite a few over the course of the millennia.


Just so. And why does this confuse you?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

rtd1 said:


> https://qz.com/646545/moderates-are-losing-the-fight-to-save-islam-from-racists-and-extremists/


The allusion to Trump and La Pen are red herrings. ISIL and al Qaeda care little if anything for what they are saying.

The reason why reformers are having a hard time is because fundamentalism is the orthodoxy of Islam. It's like the numerous lay groups trying to change the Catholic Church's teaching on birth control, abortion and women in the priesthood. They will try but they will eventually fail because they lack the moral weight of the orthodox application of the catechism.

Similarly, Islam is a religion with violence at its core and as a significant part of its history. There is no tradition of suffering in Islam. Making war on the infidel is proscribed.

To reform Islam is to change its very nature. Trying to do that in a culture that is more conservative than any other on the planet is a tall order. Middle eastern culture has no foundation or mechanism for cultural change or advancement.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

rtd1 said:


> Anyway, my point is simply this:
> 
> You have multiple texts, each of which claims to have been written by a divinely inspired author, and hence to represent the literal and inerrant word of God. Those claims can't all be correct. On what objective basis do you make the determination as to which text is in fact the word of God?


There is one text, the Torah, which Jews, Christians, and even Muslims, believe to be the direct word of God.


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

SG_67 said:


> The allusion to Trump and La Pen are red herrings. ISIL and al Qaeda care little if anything for what they are saying.


I interpreted this more along the lines of the argument that Sam Harris makes for distinguishing between criticism of the ideology of Islam vs bigotry against Muslims as people.



> The reason why reformers are having a hard time is because fundamentalism is the orthodoxy of Islam. It's like the numerous lay groups trying to change the Catholic Church's teaching on birth control, abortion and women in the priesthood. They will try but they will eventually fail because they lack the moral weight of the orthodox application of the catechism.
> 
> Similarly, Islam is a religion with violence at its core and as a significant part of its history. There is no tradition of suffering in Islam. Making war on the infidel is proscribed.
> 
> To reform Islam is to change its very nature. Trying to do that in a culture that is more conservative than any other on the planet is a tall order. Middle eastern culture has no foundation or mechanism for cultural change or advancement.


I don't disagree with any of that. Now, what is the alternative to reform?


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Shaver said:


> There is one text, the Torah, which Jews, Christians, and even Muslims, believe to be the direct word of God.


And which Hindus, Buddhists, and Shintos do not. Are you arguing that the objective criteria for determining the validity of scripture is popularity?

As an aside, the ancient Jews were a polytheistic people who went through a period of henotheism before settling on monotheism. I never understood why an omnipotent god would not have just made his presence and intent crystal clear from the beginning rather than allowing all of this confusion to reign.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

rtd1 said:


> I interpreted this more along the lines of the argument that Sam Harris makes for distinguishing between criticism of the ideology of Islam vs bigotry against Muslims as people.
> 
> I don't disagree with any of that. Now, what is the alternative to reform?


That's for the muslims to figure out. All I care about is not getting blown up when entering an airport.

Until then, stop the unimpeded migration of a medieval culture with no tradition of Liberty, women's rights, minority rights, religious tolerance and tolerance for homosexuals into the civilized world.


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

SG_67 said:


> That's for the muslims to figure out. All I care about is not getting blown up when entering an airport.
> 
> Until then, stop the unimpeded migration of a medieval culture with no tradition of Liberty, women's rights, minority rights, religious tolerance and tolerance for homosexuals into the civilized world.


What about the ones who are already here? A shocking number of second, third, and fourth generation Muslims, from middle class families, often with postgraduate educations are turning to fundamentalism. Walls won't solve that problem.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

rtd1 said:


> And which Hindus, Buddhists, and Shintos do not. Are you arguing that the objective criteria for determining the validity of scripture is popularity?
> 
> As an aside, the ancient Jews were a polytheistic people who went through a period of henotheism before settling on monotheism. I never understood why an omnipotent god would not have just made his presence and intent crystal clear from the beginning rather than allowing all of this confusion to reign.


Your inability to understand is neither here nor there.

The Bible is a tool for thought, should you be so equipped.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> That's for the muslims to figure out. All I care about is not getting blown up when entering an airport.
> 
> Until then, stop the unimpeded migration of a medieval culture with no tradition of Liberty, women's rights, minority rights, religious tolerance and tolerance for homosexuals into the civilized world.


And, of course, give some consideration towards ejecting those already in our midst.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

rtd1 said:


> What about the ones who are already here? A shocking number of second, third, and fourth generation Muslims, from middle class families, often with postgraduate educations are turning to fundamentalism. Walls won't solve that problem.


Walls are part of the solution. Frankly, European governments need to take the threat a bit more seriously and start to infiltrate some of these groups and neighborhoods.

Apparently, one of the Brussels bombers was caught by the Turks trying to get into Syria, deported back to Belgium with a warning from the Turkish government as to what he was trying to do.

What happened in Brussels, unfortunately, owed more to the incompetence of the Belgian authorities as it did to the cleverness of the terrorists.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

rtd1 said:


> What about the ones who are already here? A shocking number of second, third, and fourth generation Muslims, from middle class families, often with postgraduate educations are turning to fundamentalism. Walls won't solve that problem.


Their culture is alien to our civilisation. Why are they here?


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Shaver said:


> Your inability to understand is neither here nor there.
> 
> The Bible is a tool for thought, should you be so equipped.


Can we start with Noah and the flood narrative? Apart from the sheer absurdity that 2 of each species could fit on an ark with the proportions specified in Genesis, why would an omnipotent and omniscient God have to resort to destroying almost the entirety of his own creation so soon after?

If the Bible is a tool for though, it's leading me to think it was ill-conceived.


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Shaver said:


> And, of course, give some consideration towards ejecting those already in our midst.


Here in the US, that would be a clear violation of the First Amendment.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

rtd1 said:


> Can we start with Noah and the flood narrative? Apart from the sheer absurdity that 2 of each species could fit on an ark with the proportions specified in Genesis, why would an omnipotent and omniscient God have to resort to destroying almost the entirety of his own creation so soon after?I
> 
> If the Bible is a tool for though, it's leading me to think it was ill-conceived.


Hmm. Abstract thought is a signifier of intelligence. Don't let yourself down so publicly.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

rtd1 said:


> Here in the US, that would be a clear violation of the First Amendment.


I shall allow you a moment to reflect on this assertion. If you still feel it to be credible later then please feel free to make the point anew.


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Shaver said:


> Hmm. Abstract thought is a signifier of intelligence. Don't let yourself down so publicly.


If you want to argue that much of the Bible is allegory constructed by men who were relatively learned for their age, I really don't have much of an objection. It's the whole "literal and inerrant word of God" thing that rubs me the wrong way.


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Shaver said:


> I shall allow you a moment to reflect on this assertion. If you still feel it to be credible later then please feel free to make the point anew.


On what is there to reflect? Deporting US citizens based on their religion would clearly violate both the 1A and the 14A.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

rtd1 said:


> If you want to argue that much of the Bible is allegory constructed by men who were relatively learned for their age, I really don't have much of an objection. It's the whole "literal and inerrant word of God" thing that rubs me the wrong way.


Ah. Then perhaps we have common ground? If you were to write a message that may last forever then would you couch it with allegory?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

rtd1 said:


> I don't think Symones is claiming that "the Islamists are corrupting the innately pure religion of Islam". Rather, she is agreeing that a plain reading of Islamic scripture is violent and intolerant.


She certainly did! Symons does indeed write about the religious element of the Islamist radicals, but she believes it to be a corruption of Islam, not the core component. To wit: 

*"Muslim modernizers, reformers, and secularists, intellectuals, theologians, writers, artists, academics, political figures, and ordinary believers, have long been engaged in an intense ideological war with the Islamic fundamentalists-the same fanatics who helped create the breeding ground for today's terrorists committing atrocities against civilian populations in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the US...They are currently losing the winner-takes-all battle to stop the "confiscation" of Islam, dating back to the 19th century when contemporary Islamism first emerged as a neo-reactionary force in response to modernization. And they need the West's support, fast, if it is to make any inroads in winning the fight against terrorism."*


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Shaver said:


> Ah. Then perhaps we have common ground? If you were to write a message that may last forever then would you couch it with allegory?


Perhaps, but there's clearly much in the OT that is not allegory. Onan and Er, for example.


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Tiger said:


> She certainly did! Symons does indeed write about the religious element of the Islamist radicals, but she believes it to be a corruption of Islam, not the core component. To wit:


Ok. I'm not really interested in arguing this point with you, as I've found what little of the Quran that I've read to be appalling, quite frankly.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

rtd1 said:


> Perhaps, but there's clearly much in the OT that is not allegory. Onan and Er, for example.


You are shitting me? Am I indulging your silliness?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

rtd1 said:


> Ok. I'm not really interested in arguing this point with you, as I've found what little of the Quran that I've read to be appalling, quite frankly.


Well, that's a relief...especially because the point was inarguable!:great:


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

rtd1 said:


> Here in the US, that would be a clear violation of the First Amendment.


I'm not so sure that it's clear at all. The overwhelming amount of "First Amendment" cases in actuality have nothing to do with the First Amendment, but rather judicial distortions of it under the guise of "selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights under the (illicitly ratified) Fourteenth Amendment."

Let me ruminate on this for a while...


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Shaver said:


> You are shitting me? Am I indulging your silliness?


Well, I am wearing a cotton/poly blend sweatshirt at the moment, which according to Leviticus would be an abomination.


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Tiger said:


> I'm not so sure that it's clear at all. The overwhelming amount of "First Amendment" cases in actuality have nothing to do with the First Amendment, but rather judicial distortions of it under the guise of "selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights under the (illicitly ratified) Fourteenth Amendment."
> 
> Let me ruminate on this for a while...


Does deportation based on religion amount to "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? I would argue yes.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Shaver said:


> There is one text, the Torah, which Jews, Christians, and even Muslims, believe to be the direct word of God.


No they do not!


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Anyway, the true nature of Islam question is something of a sideshow.

Look at it this way, you have a significant number of nihilistic killers in our midst or waiting to infiltrate our countries. The interpretation of their creed is about as relevant as the number of angels that can fit on a pin head.

How do western countries respond? Is this outside the scope of the usual guardians of law and order? Do we have to fight dirty?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

rtd1 said:


> Well, I am wearing a cotton/poly blend sweatshirt at the moment, which according to Leviticus would be an abomination.


When your local rabbi stabs you for doing so, and assuming you live to tell the tale, then write an article about how every religion is in its own way intolerant.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

rtd1 said:


> Does deportation based on religion amount to "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? I would argue yes.


By that logic, no one could be executed for being found guilty of a federal capital crime, as the death penalty would necessarily "prohibit the free exercise" of religion...and a whole lot of other things!


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Tiger said:


> By that logic, no one could be executed for being found guilty of a federal capital crime, as the death penalty would necessarily "prohibit the free exercise" of religion...and a whole lot of other things!


That's a horrible analogy. In that case, the commission of the crime of murder would be the cause of the imposition of the penalty, not mere religious beliefs. Subjecting US citizens to deportation based on their religious beliefs would absolutely beyond any doubt be a violation of the protection of freedom of religion as well as equal protection.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

rtd1 said:


> That's a horrible analogy. In that case, the commission of the crime of murder would be the cause of the imposition of the penalty, not mere religious beliefs. Subjecting US citizens to deportation based on their religious beliefs would absolutely beyond any doubt be a violation of the protection of freedom of religion as well as equal protection.


Who is saying anything about deporting American citizens based on their religion?

I'm no lawyer or constitutional scholar, but I'm not troubled in the least bit about dropping a bomb from a drone on an American citizen who has chosen to go overseas and take up arms against his country.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

rtd1 said:


> That's a horrible analogy. In that case, the commission of the crime of murder would be the cause of the imposition of the penalty, not mere religious beliefs. Subjecting US citizens to deportation based on their religious beliefs would absolutely beyond any doubt be a violation of the protection of freedom of religion as well as equal protection.


The Fourteenth Amendment applies to the States, not the federal government.

We will need to define just who would be removed/deported in this hypothetical, but if a subset (or an entire group) is deemed to possess religious beliefs that are dangerous/murderous (let's say by the group's own affirmation), is it still a matter of "prohibiting the free exercise of religion"? In this scenario, the group would be removed not because of religious beliefs per se, but because of criminal conspiracy or other such real or potential crimes.

Other issues: Setting aside the First Amendment for a second, does Congress even have the power (in Article I) to execute a mass deportation? Could a State do so, or would the Fourteenth Amendment prevent it? What about a constitutional amendment granting Congress (or States) the power to deport under certain circumstances?

Lots of interesting questions...as I said, nothing is very clear.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

SG_67 said:


> Who is saying anything about deporting American citizens based on their religion?


Earlier in the thread someone wrote about removal of Muslims from the United States, augmenting a policy of sealed borders against Muslim immigration...


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

If you're talking about deporting specific individuals who are advocating for the use of violence against civilians, then that's a completely different story. I have no objection to that (barring the obvious question as to where exactly one deports a US citizen). However, that is considerably different than deporting all Muslims or even a substantial subset of "devout" ones on the grounds that Islam itself advocates violence (and I do not deny that one can make reasonable arguments about the violence inherent in Islam).


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

rtd1 said:


> If you're talking about deporting specific individuals who are advocating for the use of violence against civilians, then that's a completely different story. I have no objection to that. However, that is considerably different than deporting all Muslims or even a substantial subset of "devout" ones on the grounds that Islam itself advocates violence (and I do not deny that one can make reasonable arguments about the violence inherent in Islam).


As I said, we would need to define exactly who would be deported, and why. I didn't raise the initial issue, I merely jumped in mid-stream...


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Deporting people can be fraught with problems even when they are known wrong uns. They will protest about their yuman rites being infringed and invoke assorted international agreements.

Once they are in, getting rid of them - in a democracy - is a hell of a job. Idi Amin kicked out the Indians from Uganda in the 1960s but he was a dictator with absolute power.

Blame Ted Kennedy and your 1965 immigration act that removed restrictions on non white, non Christian, non-European immigration for your current problems.

In the UK all the major parties share the blame - with one or two notable voices and the bulk of the population against third world 'multiculturalism'.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

rtd1 said:


> If you're talking about deporting specific individuals who are advocating for the use of violence against civilians, then that's a completely different story. I have no objection to that (barring the obvious question as to where exactly one deports a US citizen). However, that is considerably different than deporting all Muslims or even a substantial subset of "devout" ones on the grounds that Islam itself advocates violence (and I do not deny that one can make reasonable arguments about the violence inherent in Islam).


We are a nation living under the rule of law. We are supposed to deal with illegal behavior through due process. A citizen charged with a crime is either convicted or found not guilty. If convicted the individual serves a sentence, pays the fine, does probation, or whatever the court rules. The call to deport citizens seems un-American to me.

Gurdon


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Gurdon said:


> We are a nation living under the rule of law. We are supposed to deal with illegal behavior through due process. A citizen charged with a crime is either convicted or found not guilty. If convicted the individual serves a sentence, pays the fine, does probation, or whatever the court rules. The call to deport citizens seems un-American to me.
> 
> Gurdon


Gurdon, my friend, due process is the advantage we allow these creatures. A game cannot be played with an opponent who mocks and disregards the rules.


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Maybe we can just round them all up and put them in camps..............



.............that was a joke BTW.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Is rtd a contraction of 'retard'?





That was a joke btw.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

rtd1 said:


> Can we start with Noah and the flood narrative? Apart from the sheer absurdity that 2 of each species could fit on an ark with the proportions specified in Genesis, why would an omnipotent and omniscient God have to resort to destroying almost the entirety of his own creation so soon after?
> 
> If the Bible is a tool for though, it's leading me to think it was ill-conceived.


Perhaps if you didn't give up so quickly on trying to understand and did a bit of soul searching and reflection, you would know.

You claim to be an empiricist. Put your powers of empirical understanding and of human nature and frailty to the test. Not all lessons are meant to be understood as though we are being spoon fed.


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

SG_67 said:


> Perhaps if you didn't give up so quickly on trying to understand and did a bit of soul searching and reflection, you would know.
> 
> You claim to be an empiricist. Put your powers of empirical understanding and of human nature and frailty to the test. Not all lessons are meant to be understood as though we are being spoon fed.


The most likely explanation is that the authors of Genesis simply appropriated one of the dozens of Mesopotamian flood stories that were extant at the time and tweaked it to meet their needs.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Shaver said:


> Gurdon, my friend, due process is the advantage we allow these creatures. A game cannot be played with an opponent who mocks and disregards the rules.


It it took an age and a small fortune just to hand 'Captain Hook' over to American justice
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri

At least America has long sentences for this sort of criminal.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

rtd1 said:


> The most likely explanation is that the authors of Genesis simply appropriated one of the dozens of Mesopotamian flood stories that were extant at the time and tweaked it to meet their needs.


Does it make it not then an act of God?


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

We can spin this all day long but there is no getting around it. Islam has a problem in that is has a group of adherents who commit mass murder most of which are housed in Europe and the Middle East. "Moral equivalencies" aside (which is nothing more than a fiction to blind one's eyes to a given problem at hand), do we really need total up the body count to make the conclusion? Until Islam get its house in order, Europe figures a way to integrate Muslims into their societies, and the Middle East moves out of the Dark Ages, not a lot will change and more people will die.


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

SG_67 said:


> Does it make it not then an act of God?


You honestly believe that 2 of every species of animal fit onto an ark of proportions specified in Genesis? You honestly believe that the entire earth was flooded up to the peaks of the highest mountains killing all life save for what was on the ark? Where did this water go afterwards?

I'm not arguing that one flood myth has priority over another, I'm arguing that this flood never happened in the first place.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

God save us from the literalistic approach to scripture.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

rtd1 said:


> You honestly believe that the entire earth was flooded up to the peaks of the highest mountains killing all life save for what was on the ark? Where did this water go afterwards?


It was a Keynesian flood - no such thing as too much flooding or excessive amounts of water!:devil:


----------



## Desirable Result (Feb 15, 2014)

I see no solution offered to the problem as it's being discussed here in this thread, yet. May I offer a scenario that would hasten to a conclusion a solution... if a nuclear bomb was to go off say in Great Britain or the United States ... then what do think should be done?


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Gurdon, my friend, due process is the advantage we allow these creatures. A game cannot be played with an opponent who mocks and disregards the rules.


Friend Shaver, Criminals mock and disregard the rules. Criminal behavio(u)r, whatever it's rationale, should be prosecuted.

I am concerned about singling out any group, be it political, religious, racial, or ethnic, for extraordinary treatment. This is not a hypothetical concern. During the "red scare" following WW1, we rounded up many foreign-born citizens and deported them. Others were murdered by mobs, and sometimes by the authorities.

This is not to say that most of the 500 or so federal prosecutions of suspected Muslim terrorists have necessarily been fair, https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/terror-prosecution-muslim-americans.

It is perhaps unreasonable to hope for civilized behavio(u)r, in a context of violent strife. Recent European experiences -- with leftists in Italy and Germany, the "troubles" in Northern Ireland, in which Americans were complicit -- suggest otherwise.

I don't believe that Islam is necessarily more likely than other religions or belief systems to provoke terrorist acts. But even if it were, to single out Muslims while ignoring so many other equally likely perps (eg abortion opponents, right wing militias), harms our society and undermines those enlightenment values we claim to be our organizing principles.

Best regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ Are we singling out any one group or are they singling themselves out?

The McCarthy era is in this context (if you will permit the lame witticism) something of a red herring.

Assuredly gitmo and other indignities have fanned the flames but the fire was already alight. Perhaps the view is different across the Atlantic?

As to harming our society and undermining enlightened values- seems like a pretty fair description of Islam to me.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ an interesting thing about the McCarthy era is that there really were communists in the state department.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Gurdon said:


> I don't believe that Islam is necessarily more likely than other religions or belief systems to provoke terrorist acts. But even if it were, to single out Muslims while ignoring so many other equally likely perps (eg abortion opponents, right wing militias), harms our society and undermines those enlightenment values we claim to be our organizing principles.


"Equally likely perps...abortion opponents, right wing militias" - you can't possible be equating the plethora of Muslim terror over the past few decades with opposition to abortion and whatever militia groups you had in mind. Can you cite a source that will show us precisely how these groups are to be "equally likely perps" of terror?

Just curious - any left wing terror groups come to mind? Perhaps, since we're in the realm of violence, you would like to point out which groups - political, ethnic, racial, religious, et al. - are responsible for the vast majority of murder, assault, and rape in the United States? You know, besides all of those murderous "abortion opponents"?

Thanks, Gurdon!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ^ an interesting thing about the McCarthy era is that there really were communists in the state department.


Simon and Kirby's 1950's 'Fighting American' comic book featured the delightfully named Commie villains Poison Ivan and Hotski Trotski. Joe Simon, in later life, referred to McCarthy as a 'nutcase Communist baiter'.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

"Like most reasonable people, I hate all Muslims - except those I have met, who seem fine."

Stewart Lee


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Kingstonian said:


> "Like most reasonable people, I hate all Muslims - except those I have met, who seem fine."
> 
> Stewart Lee


A point well and memorably made, sir!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Kingstonian said:


> "Like most reasonable people, I hate all Muslims - except those I have met, who seem fine."
> 
> Stewart Lee


I suspect, Kingy, that you posted this knowingly aware of the central flaws of the fatuous soundbite?


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

"Like when that Muslim woman won 'Bake off' on the telly. Political correctness gone mad!'

"Loser should have baked a chocolate mosque."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-34479199


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bake off? Having read the article I am reminded why I shun telly.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Shaver said:


> Bake off? Having read the article I am reminded why I shun telly.


I too shun the television, and we don't have a functioning one in the house. It's harder to ignore it's effect on friends, neighbours, and the population in general, and the BBC in particular constantly exploit their monopoly to mould the public consciousness to a common purpose.

Hence the Muslim baker show, which they admitted was rigged, but "due to the unique way" they're funded, they don't care.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Shaver said:


> ^ Are we singling out any one group or are they singling themselves out?
> 
> The McCarthy era is in this context (if you will permit the lame witticism) something of a red herring.
> 
> ...


Shaver, the "red scare" to which I referred took place after the FIRST World War, 30 or so years before the McCarthy era. As I initially wrote: "[d]uring the 'red scare' following WW1, we rounded up many foreign-born citizens and deported them. Others were murdered by mobs, and sometimes by the authorities."

Gurdon


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Tiger said:


> "Equally likely perps...abortion opponents, right wing militias" - you can't possible be equating the plethora of Muslim terror over the past few decades with opposition to abortion and whatever militia groups you had in mind. Can you cite a source that will show us precisely how these groups are to be "equally likely perps" of terror?
> 
> Just curious - any left wing terror groups come to mind? Perhaps, since we're in the realm of violence, you would like to point out which groups - political, ethnic, racial, religious, et al. - are responsible for the vast majority of murder, assault, and rape in the United States? You know, besides all of those murderous "abortion opponents"?
> 
> Thanks, Gurdon!


Tiger,

When I referred to right wing militants I had in mind church and abortion clinic bombings and murders, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the more recent self-styled militia members acting out in Oregon and Nevada. It is difficult to say if the recent arrests of the Bundy bunch and their co-conspirators will attenuate the enthusiasm of such folks for perphood.

The Islamists have killed far more Americans than have the right-wing delusionals.

Left wing terror is currently out of fashion, but the SLA and Weather Underground come to mind. In my post I referred to German (Baader-Meinhof) and Italian (Red Army Brigade, I think)leftists, again from the 70's-80's.

We had in the US plenty of violence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries -- the police attack on the Verona in Seattle, the Ludlow Massacre and the Hay Market bombing/riot come to mind.

Before undertaking this response I looked on line for links. There were 'way too many, and many were distasteful. The Southern Poverty Law Center has lists, but they are viewed by many as extremists.

I hope I have adequately addressed your questions. I see this part of the discussion as tangential to the issues of religious intolerance and oversimplification of the political situations in the US, and in Europe and the Middle East. Not sure how to have that discussion here, or anywhere, for that matter.

Regards (and Happy Easter, Persian New Year, Holi. Passover is late this year.),
Gurdon


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Gurdon said:


> Shaver, the "red scare" to which I referred took place after the FIRST World War, 30 or so years before the McCarthy era. As I initially wrote: "[d]uring the 'red scare' following WW1, we rounded up many foreign-born citizens and deported them. Others were murdered by mobs, and sometimes by the authorities."
> 
> Gurdon


Oops! I read it as WWII. Remind me to relate the circumstances of my dismissal from a position as proofreader. A very unhappy tale.

Returning, if I may, to due process, no less a luminary than Batman himself has this to say on the subject:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Simon and Kirby's 1950's 'Fighting American' comic book featured the delightfully named Commie villains Poison Ivan and Hotski Trotski. Joe Simon, in later life, referred to McCarthy as a 'nutcase Communist baiter'.


And let's not forget the infamous duo of Boris and Natasha who for years sent back important signals intelligence from Frostbite Falls.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Gurdon said:


> I hope I have adequately addressed your questions. I see this part of the discussion as tangential to the issues of religious intolerance and oversimplification of the political situations in the US, and in Europe and the Middle East. Not sure how to have that discussion here, or anywhere, for that matter...


Gurdon, my questions were more rhetorical than anything else. It seemed incredulous that you could possibly equate Islamic terror and abortion opponents, et al. In addition, it seemed as if you believed that Islam has no more of a predisposition to terror than other religions - a notion contradicted by empirical evidence and the text of the Qur'an itself (please see the McCarthy article I posted earlier in this thread).

In any event, may we agree that the issues are a) How do we eradicate this menace, and b) How do we do so within the context of law and morality. (It may very well mean that we must alter our law...but not our principles!)


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Tiger,
Sorry that this is off topic topic, but embedded in your reply is an ad for "J Date".

I can only assume that some algorithm is able to extract the words "McCarthy", "Qur'an" and "terror" to assume that J Date might appeal to the poster. 

Incredible!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Tiger,
> Sorry that this is off topic topic, but embedded in your reply is an ad for "J Date".
> 
> I can only assume that some algorithm is able to extract the words "McCarthy", "Qur'an" and "terror" to assume that J Date might appeal to the poster.
> ...


Don't know what "J Date" is, but when I view your message I see an ad for "Regrow Your Hair Now."

Maybe a full head of hair will enable me to meet terrorist women who practice McCarthyite tactics while reading the Qur'an! Who wouldn't want that? Of course, ending the relationship could be _very _dangerous!


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Bake off? Having read the article I am reminded why I shun telly.





Odradek said:


> I too shun the television, and we don't have a functioning one in the house. It's harder to ignore it's effect on friends, neighbours, and the population in general, and the BBC in particular constantly exploit their monopoly to mould the public consciousness to a common purpose.
> 
> Hence the Muslim baker show, which they admitted was rigged, but "due to the unique way" they're funded, they don't care.


https://www.sherv.net/


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Gurdon said:


> *I don't believe that Islam is necessarily more likely than other religions or belief systems to provoke terrorist acts.* But even if it were, to single out Muslims while ignoring so many other equally likely perps (eg abortion opponents, right wing militias), harms our society and undermines those enlightenment values we claim to be our organizing principles.
> 
> Best regards,
> Gurdon


I could see myself agreeing with you if it were not for overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

There is something truly rotten at the core of Islam. If this rottenness were restricted simply to an ideological debate within the faith and it's practitioners and philosophers, I wouldn't care.

Unfortunately for the civilized world, it has a body count. One need not think or believe anything. One simply needs to observe the practice of the religion and how it interacts with the west and those who view the world differently.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Tiger said:


> Gurdon, my questions were more rhetorical than anything else. It seemed incredulous that you could possibly equate Islamic terror and abortion opponents, et al. In addition, it seemed as if you believed that Islam has no more of a predisposition to terror than other religions - a notion contradicted by empirical evidence and the text of the Qur'an itself (please see the McCarthy article I posted earlier in this thread).
> 
> In any event, may we agree that the issues are a) How do we eradicate this menace, and b) How do we do so within the context of law and morality. (It may very well mean that we must alter our law...but not our principles!)


Tiger,
I believe it possible and useful to equate Islamist terrorists with abortion opponents who bomb facilities and shoot people in terms of religious zealots committing murder in furtherance of their beliefs and in pursuit of political objectives.

There is little dispute over the points McCarthy, and many others, make about Islam's bellicosity. Nor, is there much point in arguing over the relative degrees of nastiness of the other Abrahamic faiths.

When I read the Koran, a bit over 50 years ago, I recall noticing that it was somewhat nastier than the Christian Bible, which I'd read a couple of years earlier. I was also reading Buddhist writings, mostly Zen and Tibetan, thanks, respectively, to Kerouac and Kipling. As a non-believer I was not seeking spiritual guidance. I was trying to understand how religion works. I continue to interrogate belief.

Over the years I have read some of the considerable literature on Islamism, Islamic fundamentalism, Orientalism, and related topics. As a descendent of German speaking Anabaptists; a methodist minister; various kinds of Protestants; and more recently, a follower of Technocracy, Inc. and Religious Science; and a convert to Roman Catholicism, I have done a lot of participant observation. What interests me most is not salvation, but how religion works in society. To that end I read William James's Varieties of Religious Experience, still pertinent after over a century.

We have a menace, but I'm not sure if we agree about what it is, nor how to parse it. For example, I think that the flexibility, and relative modern-ness of Shia Islam versus the literalism of Sunni Islam may explain why we were able to come to an agreement with Iran, notwithstanding our regrettable history of regime change efforts there.

The Wahabbists in Saudi Arabia chop off heads and hands and fund jihadists. Yet we continue, out of what I presume to be deemed by our government to be the national interest, to maintain an alliance with the Saudi regime. The Saudi tanking of the oil market to the detriment of the American segment of that industry is apparently consistent with the national interest.

Irrespective of the differences between the Shia and Sunni I mentioned, at various times Muslim states have behaved relatively decently towards non-Muslims, at least towards Christians and Jews. Depending on the regime, the Ottoman Empire treated non-Muslims reasonably well.

We need to keep in mind that our Christian forebears at various times over the last thousand or so years killed, raped and enslaved Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other, non-Abrahamic peoples. Accounts of Jerusalem under the crusaders vary according to the religion of the chronicler. 1492 was the year Columbus landed in the so-called new world. It was also the year that Ferdinand and Isabella expelled the Muslims and Jews from the Iberian Peninsula in a not very nice way.

It doesn't help things to turn the discussion of terrorism into a culture war between the West and the rest. What I think would help is for us to deal with terror as a policing and intelligence issue and prosecute suspected terrorists with enthusiasm comparable to that we have had for the utterly counterproductive war on drugs.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Gurdon said:


> Tiger,
> I believe it possible and useful to equate Islamist terrorists with abortion opponents who bomb facilities and shoot people in terms of religious zealots committing murder in furtherance of their beliefs and in pursuit of political objectives.
> 
> There is little dispute over the points McCarthy, and many others, make about Islam's bellicosity. Nor, is there much point in arguing over the relative degrees of nastiness of the other Abrahamic faiths.
> ...


Dear Gurdon, this is exactly the point that I have been trying to make since the outrage occurred. If one concludes that, from the text of the Koran, Islam is based on violence, or is a religion of violence, then the Old Testament, if one is a Christian, or the Torah and the Talmud, if one is a Jew, would prove that both faiths are also religions of violence. That some Muslims wish to spread Islam through violence is clearly true, but that does not mean that all Muslims wish to do the same. Islam does not have a monopoly of violence or terrorism. Christians and Jews have used terror, in recent History, against other religions, on the basis of religion.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Interesting that the leaders of the West, having told us for ages that Daesh are the enemy of civilisation and are the most serious threat facing our society today, have been completely silent on the significant defeat of Daesh at Palmyra https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...lmyra-from-the-clutches-of-isis-a6955406.html


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Reporting on Brussels......



Sadly, it isn't funny, because it isn't.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Gurdon said:


> Tiger,
> I believe it possible and useful to equate Islamist terrorists with abortion opponents who bomb facilities and shoot people in terms of religious zealots committing murder in furtherance of their beliefs and in pursuit of political objectives.
> 
> There is little dispute over the points McCarthy, and many others, make about Islam's bellicosity. Nor, is there much point in arguing over the relative degrees of nastiness of the other Abrahamic faiths.
> ...


Comparing a handful of abortion-activist murders to the pandemic of Islamic terror seems fatuous to me, as well as stale (are there that many abortion clinic bombings occurring worldwide?). Sort of like comparing the little boy who pulls his classmate's pigtails with the Crips and the Bloods. I have the impression that you were intent on finding "right wing terror" by any means necessary, and settled on outdated minutiae. There is plenty of violence in the United States; one need not point to abortion opponents and "militias" to find it (I sense that this is a topic you might not be comfortable discussing, or even acknowledging.)

American foreign policy has been far too Machiavellian for me, especially when we couch it in terms of morality and democracy. We have no problem siding with bastards all over the world, as long as they're our bastards, to paraphrase...lots of leaders. I've stated my opposition before to the interventionism and adventurism in both major political parties; a key reason why I supported both Ron and Rand Paul. The people who continue to support mainstream politicians of both parties have little moral authority to criticize their common foreign policy. No doubt you opposed Bush's actions in Iraq and (probably) Afghanistan; did you support Obama maintaining those wars while also adding Syria and Libya to the mix (and maybe Yemen, too?). Do you believe Clinton will be any less aggressive?

Your historical comparisons are noted, but not very relevant or analogous. In any event, the crimes of centuries ago have little bearing on what is happening today - unless, of course, Islamic terror is rooted in retribution that has been simmering for half a millennium. I do not believe this to be the case.

Not sure if anyone is making this a "culture war" - I certainly have not. I do think it's more profitable to determine the locus of the problem as it exists today (while not being ignorant of historical precedents). Nor do I believe in mass deportations of Muslims from the United States; I do believe in preventing further immigration from Islamic countries, for multiple reasons.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Dear Gurdon, this is exactly the point that I have been trying to make since the outrage occurred. If one concludes that, from the text of the Koran, Islam is based on violence, or is a religion of violence, then the Old Testament, if one is a Christian, or the Torah and the Talmud, if one is a Jew, would prove that both faiths are also religions of violence. That some Muslims wish to spread Islam through violence is clearly true, but that does not mean that all Muslims wish to do the same. Islam does not have a monopoly of violence or terrorism. Christians and Jews have used terror, in recent History, against other religions, on the basis of religion.


Talk about a straw man!

There is an enormous difference between violent stories in a holy book and a holy book that instructs adherents to murder and defile in order to propagate that faith. Every history textbook contains stories of violence; to equate that with the Quran's call for jihad is inane - and insane.

Not sure if anyone in this thread has stated that they believe all Muslims seek to propagate their faith by violence. If I'm wrong, please point that out to me...thanks! If I'm correct, why would you insert such a falsehood?

Please point to the prolonged campaigns of terror - not isolated events that are rooted far more in politics and/or economics than religion - committed by devout Christians and Jews against other religions, presumably for the purpose of spreading their respective faiths as commanded by the Old and New Testaments. Gosh, some Calvinists might be a bit uptight, but that's as far as it goes!


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Chouan said:


> Interesting that the leaders of the West, having told us for ages that Daesh are the enemy of civilisation and are the most serious threat facing our society today, have been completely silent on the significant defeat of Daesh at Palmyra https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...lmyra-from-the-clutches-of-isis-a6955406.html


They are tied in knots of their own making.
They're not happy with recent events, but feel unable to condemn something so universally popular.






ISIS is a US / Israeli construct, with a lot of Saudi help, and with major funding from Turkey.
All part of furthering the Yinon Plan, thorough the disintegration of the Syrian state. Do a Google search for the Yinon Plan.
BALKANISING SYRIA IS NOT PLAN B, IT'S PLAN A

It's taken Mr. Putin just a few months to sort it out somewhat and put ISIS on the run. 
Funny how the Russian air force could find and destroy all those convoys of oil trucks bound for Turkey, that the US could never locate.

A lot of this is confirmed in the recently leaked Hillary Clinton e-mails released by Wikileaks.

Not sure if tweets can be embedded here, but check this one for a start.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/710836226446790657
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12172#efmBbqBf9


> _One particular source states that the British and French Intelligence services believe that their Israeli counterparts are convinced that there is a positive side to the civil war in Syria; if the Assad regime topples, Iran would lose its only ally in the Middle East and would be isolated. At the same time, the fall of the House of Assad could well ignite a sectarian war between the Shiites and the majority Sunnis of the region drawing in Iran, which, in the view of Israeli commaders would not be a bad thing for Israel and its Western allies. In the  opinion of this individual, such a scenario would distract and might obstruct Iran from its nuclear activities for a good deal of time. In addition, certain senior Israeli intelligence analysts believe that this turn of events may even prove to be a factor in the eventual fall of the current government of Iran.
> _


All of which is straying a bit far from the topic at hand, Brussels.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Tiger said:


> Comparing a handful of abortion-activist murders to the pandemic of Islamic terror seems fatuous to me, as well as stale (are there that many abortion clinic bombings occurring worldwide?). Sort of like comparing the little boy who pulls his classmate's pigtails with the Crips and the Bloods. I have the impression that you were intent on finding "right wing terror" by any means necessary, and settled on outdated minutiae. There is plenty of violence in the United States; one need not point to abortion opponents and "militias" to find it (I sense that this is a topic you might not be comfortable discussing, or even acknowledging.)
> 
> American foreign policy has been far too Machiavellian for me, especially when we couch it in terms of morality and democracy. We have no problem siding with bastards all over the world, as long as they're our bastards, to paraphrase...lots of leaders. I've stated my opposition before to the interventionism and adventurism in both major political parties; a key reason why I supported both Ron and Rand Paul. The people who continue to support mainstream politicians of both parties have little moral authority to criticize their common foreign policy. No doubt you opposed Bush's actions in Iraq and (probably) Afghanistan; did you support Obama maintaining those wars while also adding Syria and Libya to the mix (and maybe Yemen, too?). Do you believe Clinton will be any less aggressive?
> 
> ...


Tiger,

A quick Wikipedia search for abortion-related murders and bombings yielded this: 
"At least eleven murders occurred in the United States since 1990, as well as 41 bombings and 173 arsons at clinics since 1977." There are references to abortion bombings/murders in other countries, but I am focusing on the US. As I mentioned, the Islamists have killed many times more people than other groups motivated by religion and the desire to bring about political change.

As to fatuousness, your comparison of pigtail pulling to Bloods and Crips does seem fatuous to me. It also suggests dismissiveness to towards the issue. I'm comfortable discussing abortion and militias. I don't want to sidetrack the discussion of Islamism and the West.

I think often about the violent history of the US. The following numbers of lynchings between 1882 and 1964, are from the archives of the Tuskegee Institute: White, 1,297; Black, 3,445; Total, 4,742.

Although bin Ladin supposedly cited the timing of a particular incident as coinciding with a date associated with Arab expulsion from al Andaluz, I think one more recent and directly pertinent source for the current nastiness is to be found in the Wahhabism which took root in the 19th century. That theology, and Saudi money, account for the content and propagation of fundamentalist jihadism. Islamism elsewhere has different sources.

In Turkey, for example the trend began under the reign of Abdulhamid (r. 1876-1909). It continued into the post WW 1 establishment of the Turkish Republic, which, despite promoting modernism and a secular state envisioned the Turkish nation as consisting of a people who were ethnic Turks, and Sunni Muslims. The Armenian genocide and the Islamist nationalism of the current government reflect this characterization.

I mention these contemporary details to highlight how different two current "Islamist" impulses are. I believe it is important to understand recent history with unambiguous connections to present events when trying to deal with the currently popular gross and, IMHO, unsupportable generalizations about the alleged nature of Islam.

While you and I agree about not waging culture wars, others do not. I included the references to earlier history as background information, in the hopes of suggesting that over the thousand-year run-up to the present terrible situation, there was enough nastiness on the part of everyone involved to obviate the need to try to assign blame to any one party, regardless of religion or ethnicity.

I know we have always done nasty illegal things under the guise of national security. But we lied about it. We denied doing them. Previous and current administrations have guidelines and legal fig leaves spelling everything out. I am appalled by the policies of our nation and by the pursuit of those policies under Mr. Obama. That our president has a list of people to be murdered overseas evokes in me profound disgust, shame and revulsion.

I see little to like about Ms Clinton's likely policy choices. In my view she is mostly indistinguishable from other establishment candidates. I support Bernie Sanders with contributions and will vote for him in the California primary, and, one hopes, in the general election.

I did address the practical approach I believe appropriate:

"What I think would help is for us to deal with terror as a policing and intelligence issue and prosecute suspected terrorists with enthusiasm comparable to that we have had for the utterly counterproductive war on drugs."

I disagree with you about immigration from Muslim nations.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ as deplorable as abortion clinic bombings are, 1) such people are not bombing cafes and are not shooting up concert halls, 2) such actions are well outside of current Christian doctrine and are denounced. 

Such actions are well outside the norm and even pro life people, such as myself, abhor and denounce it. The Catholic Church, probably the leafing institutional opponent, condemns it as well. 

The question is not about a tit for tat citing of examples of extremism. It is about viewing it in the context of the culture from which it springs forth. Such actions are celebrated in the Middle East. These people are considered martyrs and terrorism is a de facto instrument of state policy.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ as deplorable as abortion clinic bombings are, 1) such people are not bombing cafes and are not shooting up concert halls,


Does the venue of a terrorist attack make a difference?



SG_67 said:


> 2) such actions are well outside of current Christian doctrine and are denounced.


As are those by Islamists, only we tend to ignore those particular condemnations, and pretend that they don't happen.



SG_67 said:


> Such actions are well outside the norm and even pro life people, such as myself, abhor and denounce it. The Catholic Church, probably the leafing institutional opponent, condemns it as well.


As does mainstream Islam.



SG_67 said:


> The question is not about a tit for tat citing of examples of extremism.


No, it is a refutation that Islam is the sole cause of Islamist terrorism, or that only Islam spawns sectarian violence.



SG_67 said:


> It is about viewing it in the context of the culture from which it springs forth.


Indeed. Terror springs from many cultures.



SG_67 said:


> Such actions are celebrated in the Middle East. These people are considered martyrs and terrorism is a de facto instrument of state policy.


Are they? By the whole of the Middle East? In any case, Israel practices terrorism, only Israel uses the medium of targeted helicopter missile strikes and artillery.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Odradek said:


> ISIS is a US / Israeli construct, with a lot of Saudi help, and with major funding from Turkey.
> All part of furthering the Yinon Plan, thorough the disintegration of the Syrian state. Do a Google search for the Yinon Plan.
> BALKANISING SYRIA IS NOT PLAN B, IT'S PLAN A
> 
> ...


That reminds me, I will be going to Bologna in a few months. Last time I was there, in the 1970s, was before the railway station bombing which killed 85 people.

Nothing to do with the Middle East. This was was a so-called GLADIO event. A false flag operation to discredit the left wing in Italian politics and nudge the population into accepting more scrutiny and acceptance of a conservative regime. The Italian government owned up to this years later, so it is not just some fanciful conspiracy theory.

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Operation_Gladio
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/the-terror-trail-that-wont-grow-cold-dark-forces-bombed-bologna-station-in-1980-killing-85-at-a-1509705.html

It is often difficult to know exactly what is going on in the world and why.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Kingstonian said:


> That reminds me, I will be going to Bologna in a few months. Last time I was there, in the 1970s, was before the railway station bombing which killed 85 people.
> 
> Nothing to do with the Middle East. This was was a so-called GLADIO event. A false flag operation to discredit the left wing in Italian politics and nudge the population into accepting more scrutiny and acceptance of a conservative regime. The Italian government owned up to this years later, so it is not just some fanciful conspiracy theory.
> 
> ...


Without a doubt there is veracity to this assertion. Still, how might one manage this effect? Simply spectate and let events take their course?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> That reminds me, I will be going to Bologna in a few months. Last time I was there, in the 1970s, was before the railway station bombing which killed 85 people.
> 
> Nothing to do with the Middle East. This was was a so-called GLADIO event. A false flag operation to discredit the left wing in Italian politics and nudge the population into accepting more scrutiny and acceptance of a conservative regime. The Italian government owned up to this years later, so it is not just some fanciful conspiracy theory.
> 
> ...


Rather reminds me of George Orwell's "rocket bombs" in 1984. I'm not suggesting that western governments are actually organising this sort of thing, but keeping us in fear is a very effective way of keeping us under control. The "barbarian at the gates" has always enabled governments to keep the people under control.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Does the venue of a terrorist attack make a difference?
> 
> As are those by Islamists, only we tend to ignore those particular condemnations, and pretend that they don't happen.
> 
> ...


It's clear from your many posts on this thread as with many others that you view all of this within the same context and within a spectrum regardless of any other fact.

So be it. I suppose one is free to look around and refuse to acknowledge what one sees or try to equivocate.

Since you enjoy engaging is this sort of quasi-Socratic debate, let me ask you a question.

When was the last time the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury issued a Fatwa against someone?

When was the last time someone in Western Europe or America arrested, tried and executed or jailed for blasphemy?

When was the last time in Western Europe or America that synagogues and mosques were burned to the ground and worshippers murdered while the authorities simply watched?

In those same countries, are there laws that call for the punishment of those who give out holy books of other faiths?

In those same countries, are there laws banning women from the workplace? From driving?

Have there been incidents of little girls dying in a school house fire because the religious police would not let them out because they were not wearing head covers?

For that matter, are there religious police?

In any of the above mentioned countries, have government officials publicly called for the annihilation of another country? Have members of a particular religious sect or faith been called pigs and subhuman?

In such countries, are children taught to hate and view as inferior those different from them?

In such countries, are you arrested for peacefully protesting and seeking redress of your grievances from your government?

I could go on and on but I'm sure it wouldn't make a difference to you. Your arguments stand on, at best, shaky ground and lack any substantial evidence.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Shaver said:


> Without a doubt there is veracity to this assertion. Still, how might one manage this effect? Simply spectate and let events take their course?


I do not have an answer to that. Distracting the population with bread and circuses is a tried and tested formula.

However, it has been helped by an easily identifiable, compliant and manageable media and is also based on the foundation that the masses have just enough to stop them complaining.

Today whistleblowers have more chance of being heard.

In the long run, the increasing greed of 'the one per cent' will undermine the chances of mollifying the masses. They will lose too much.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> When was the last time in Western Europe or America that synagogues and mosques were burned to the ground and worshippers murdered while the authorities simply watched?


For Mosques it was 1995. Not only were the mosques burned, but the male worshipers, over the age of 12, were murdered. I've already mentioned it.
You appear to be determined that only Islamist terrorism matters.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> For Mosques it was 1995. Not only were the mosques burned, but the male worshipers, over the age of 12, were murdered. I've already mentioned it.
> You appear to be determined that only Islamist terrorism matters.


And where was this? Sbrebrenica? I'm talking about Western Europe. Eastern Europe is hardly an example to uphold as to it's treatment of ethnic minorities.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Gurdon said:


> A quick Wikipedia search for abortion-related murders and bombings yielded this:
> "At least eleven murders occurred in the United States since 1990, as well as 41 bombings and 173 arsons at clinics since 1977." There are references to abortion bombings/murders in other countries, but I am focusing on the US. As I mentioned, the Islamists have killed many times more people than other groups motivated by religion and the desire to bring about political change.
> 
> I think often about the violent history of the US. The following numbers of lynchings between 1882 and 1964, are from the archives of the Tuskegee Institute: White, 1,297; Black, 3,445; Total, 4,742.
> ...


Not surprisingly, we agree on some things, and disagree on others! To wit:

_"At least eleven murders occurred in the United States since 1990, as well as 41 bombings and 173 arsons at clinics since 1977."_ Anti-abortion radicals have killed eleven people over the past twenty-five years - an output equal to a single mob hitman - and you admit that this pales in comparison to the prodigious death counts piled up by radical Islamists. Not sure why this has even become part of our discussion. It's Chouan-like in its attempt to draw some sort of equivalency where none exists.

You cite data on lynchings, as if that is the locus of violent crime in the U.S. What about the ten thousand or so murders committed every year in America? The word "lynching" has an obvious racial connotation to it, but does it portray an accurate picture of modern America? That is, that African Americans make up approximately 13% of the population, yet commit about 55% of the murders. Or that blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder. That blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa. We are drifting too far afield here, but maybe this could be examined in another thread...or maybe not, as it will be too incendiary for some, and I do not wish to be pejoratively labeled for pointing out what is apparent to objective people.

For sure, there are different reasons why Islamic terror has occurred. The two most prevalent, I believe, are of the political/economic type, as affirmed by bin Laden and Al-Qaida. The other is the subject of this thread (I think!) - that a very literal, popular, and clear interpretation of Islam calls for jihad against "infidels." Of course not all Muslims ascribe to this; the enormous majority do not. The vast majority would never commit such violent atrocities, either. But as Andrew McCarthy pointed out, there are verses in the Quran that explicitly call for jihad, and it is the opponents of this view that have to scramble to create alternative interpretations that contradict those explicit verses. And yes, people and groups of every stripe under the sun have committed all sorts of terrible crimes for every reason imaginable, but what is unique here is that no other religion seeks the destruction of all others in the manner that violent Islam does. Comparisons to Christianity and Judaism (and any other mainline religion) are too easily dismissed to be taken seriously.

_"What I think would help is for us to deal with terror as a policing and intelligence issue and prosecute suspected terrorists with enthusiasm comparable to that we have had for the utterly counterproductive war on drugs."_ Agreed, but the "war on drugs" has failed for a variety of reasons, and a law enforcement methodology of fighting a "war on terror" will be greatly hindered or rendered ineffective if we do not acknowledge the causes of Islamic terror, and if we continue to allow immigration from Islamic nations when we have no way of knowing exactly who is entering the United States.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> And where was this? Sbrebrenica? I'm talking about Western Europe. Eastern Europe is hardly an example to uphold as to it's treatment of ethnic minorities.


Bosnians would be very annoyed at being called Eastern Europeans. The former Yugoslavia saw itself very much as a Western European country. Nevertheless, you've shifted the goalposts again to ensure, you imagine, that your point remains valid. However much you try to change the parameters, the fact remains that Islam doesn't have a monopoly on terror and terrorism. If Islam doesn't have that monopoly, then it isn't Islam as such that is the cause of terrorism.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Bosnians would be very annoyed at being called Eastern Europeans. The former Yugoslavia saw itself very much as a Western European country. . .


A view not to be lightly criticised as overly burdened with an excessively rigid attachment to geographical orthodoxy.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Langham said:


> A view not to be lightly criticised as overly burdened with an excessively rigid attachment to geographical orthodoxy.


Tito's Yugoslavia was certainly regarded more as former Balkan states, rather than classic Eastern Europe.

It was also much more progressive than the typical Eastern European state.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Kingstonian said:


> Tito's Yugoslavia was certainly regarded more as former Balkan states, rather than classic Eastern Europe.
> 
> It was also much more progressive than the typical Eastern European state.


Granted most of Eastern Europe moved a few hundred miles west in 1945.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Can someone point me to the Christian version? Thx.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> Granted most of Eastern Europe moved a few hundred miles west in 1945.


On the other hand, I have a Polish friend who insists that Poland is most definitely not in Eastern Europe!


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Chouan said:


> On the other hand, I have a Polish friend who insists that Poland is most definitely not in Eastern Europe!


Poles are an example of "Don't let the bar stewards grind you down."

and also

"Keep the faith, baby."


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> On the other hand, I have a Polish friend who insists that Poland is most definitely not in Eastern Europe!


Of course it isn't, Poland is now largely in the area formerly known as middle England.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Langham said:


> Of course it isn't, Poland is now largely in the area formerly known as middle England.


Indeed. Generally rather more polite and hardworking than much of the homegrown feckless yoof, however.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Bosnians would be very annoyed at being called Eastern Europeans. The former Yugoslavia saw itself very much as a Western European country. Nevertheless, you've shifted the goalposts again to ensure, you imagine, that your point remains valid. However much you try to change the parameters, the fact remains that Islam doesn't have a monopoly on terror and terrorism. If Islam doesn't have that monopoly, then it isn't Islam as such that is the cause of terrorism.


I don't care what they considered themselves. They're Eastern European. Still are. Only recently have they emerged from the middle ages.

And I'm not suggesting that Islam has a monopoly on terrorism. What they seem to have, however, in the modern world is an institutional monopoly on the use of terror as an instrument of both domestic and foreign policy. Furthermore, they lack the mechanism to govern themselves. Hence why they are either led by Theocrats or military dictatorships.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> I don't care what they considered themselves. They're Eastern European. Still are. Only recently have they emerged from the middle ages.
> 
> And I'm not suggesting that Islam has a monopoly on terrorism. What they seem to have, however, in the modern world is an institutional monopoly on the use of terror as an instrument of both domestic and foreign policy. Furthermore, they lack the mechanism to govern themselves. Hence why they are either led by Theocrats or military dictatorships.


You are correct that any claim that Bosnians see themselves as Western European is simply mistaken. Among the former Yugoslavia's major groups only the Croatians had a steady or recent relationship with the West, having been politically dominated and culturally influenced by the Austrians for centuries. Prior to Communist rule they were staunch Roman Catholics. The Bosnians were and are chiefly Muslim and very much aligned with the Turks, having been ruled by the Ottoman Empire for centuries. Serbia was also under the power of the Ottomans, but are Orthodox and aligned with Russia. Ethnically these are the same people, but the combination of Ottoman and Austrian rule over centuries resulted in deep divisions. Post WWII Yugoslavia was ruled by Tito and dominated by Serbs, which naturally miffed the other groups, especially the Croatians. Meanwhile the Serbs were bitter toward the Bosnians, since Muslims had been a privileged class for centuries under Turkish rule. Although fiercely Communist, Tito distanced Yugoslavia from the Soviet Union soon after WWII; but neither did Tito align with the West. Instead, Yugoslavia was one of the countries that started the so-called Non-Aligned Movement. 
I am of Croatian heritage and can assure you that Croatians consider themselves Eastern Europeans. Certainly that is also true of Bosnians and Serbs.
Any degree of "backwardness" among these groups is largely a function of their disparate histories - all unfortunate, but Bosnia's alignment with Turkey and limited contact with the West slowed its development, especially in comparison to Croatia, which has free elections, a republican form of government (technically parliamentary democracy), and a membership in the EU.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

I will ignore the last two responses about the former Yugoslavia since the posters are obviously clueless about that country.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> I will ignore the last two responses about the former Yugoslavia since the posters are obviously clueless about that country.


Quite. I have known, worked with and been friends with several Serbs, Bosnians, Croats, a Montenegrin and a Slovenian, all of whom considered themselves to be Western, which indeed they were. Most would have been indistinguishable from Italians, in every respect except language.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Kingstonian said:


> I will ignore the last two responses about the former Yugoslavia since the posters are obviously clueless about that country.


I'm fond of your posts, but if you'll forgive me for pointing this out this post (quoted) is oxymoronic.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Quite. I have known, worked with and been friends with several Serbs, Bosnians, Croats, a Montenegrin and a Slovenian, all of whom considered themselves to be Western, which indeed they were. Most would have been indistinguishable from Italians, in every respect except language.


I don't care what they consider themselves to be. And one need not be an expert on the former Yugoslavia to know that there were ethnic and nationalist tensions within the Balkans before during the days of Hapsburg rule. It's a part of the world where ethnic cleansing is an all too recent part of history. Also, please bear in mind that during WWI, the Germans and Austrians would, for propaganda purposes, refer to the entente powers (Russia excluded of course) as "the West".

The fact is one cannot realistically point to the Balkan wars of the 1990's and draw a comparison to what is going on with ISIL or current terrorist activity within the Muslim world. Serbs were not going overseas and blowing up Western European airports or blowing up mosques in England.

One cannot even say that such acts were based on Christian doctrine, rather ethnic and nationalist strife.

The fact remains so and cannot be refuted; the Islamic world lives in a pre-Renaissance, medieval climate and has wreaked nothing but ruin onto itself.

Their populations are pouring out and seeking out the west without a real understanding of what the west is. Much of this is the fault of the west for espousing multiculturalism and failing to integrate immigrant communities successfully. But the bulk of the problem lies in the culture of the Middle East.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

SG_67 said:


> I don't care what they consider themselves to be. And one need not be an expert on the former Yugoslavia to know that there were ethnic and nationalist tensions within the Balkans before during the days of Hapsburg rule.


It is more a question of what other Europeans considered them to be.

Yugoslavia was a mainstream holiday destination for millions. At a time when UK civil servants were obliged to inform their employer if they were visiting the Soviet bloc and trips to these countries were very much a novelty, no such requirements applied to Yugoslavia. It was a hinterland, neither West nor East, but definitely closer to the West.

The Hapsburgs covered a lot of ground but post 1945 Yugoslavia was viewed as more advanced than even Hungary which was more closely entwined with Austria. It was definitely a different place than, say,Romania let alone Eastern backwaters like Moldova.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Pentheos said:


> https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
> 
> Can someone point me to the Christian version? Thx.


Game...Set...Match!

In order to determine a solution, one must properly diagnose the problem. It seems as if some of our liberal members have an egalitarian, "we're all the same" view of the world that they will never relinquish, regardless of the truth. It thus makes it impossible for them to recognize the myriad problems we face, and just as difficult for them to solve any of those problems.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Pentheos said:


> https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
> 
> Can someone point me to the Christian version? Thx.


From that site.

I'm too sexy for my shiite.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Tiger said:


> In order to determine a solution, one must properly diagnose the problem.


Would you care to outline your solution?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Kingstonian said:


> Would you care to outline your solution?


As for me, one solution is to stop allowing the wholesale immigration of a medieval, misogynist culture into Western Europe and America. As for the rest, that's for the Muslims to figure out.

I'm not one to stand on the outside and offer solutions for a religion I don't understand, nor do I care to understand it. Just don't blow me up as I'm having breakfast at a cafe.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

SG_67 said:


> As for me, one solution is to stop allowing the wholesale immigration of a medieval, misogynist culture into Western Europe and America. As for the rest, that's for the Muslims to figure out.
> 
> I'm not one to stand on the outside and offer solutions for a religion I don't understand, nor do I care to understand it. Just don't blow me up as I'm having breakfast at a cafe.


OK.

But what about Muslims that are already resident?

Probably a more significant issue in some European countries than in the US. Though Muslims could maybe pop over the border from Canada without too much trouble.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Kingstonian said:


> OK.
> 
> But what about Muslims that are already resident?
> 
> Probably a more significant issue in some European countries than in the US. Though Muslims could maybe pop over the border from Canada without too much trouble.


I'm not denying that. We could start with throwing open the borders to refugees. That would be a first step.

A second step could be to just practice better immigration policy, or better yet, just do a better job at vetting according to guidelines already on the books.

The Russians warned us of the Tsarnaev brothers, or at least one of them.

The wife in the San Bernadino event apparently lied on her visa application about where she lived. That was not caught.

I find it rather odd and sad that immediately after the Brussels attack, there were suspects and manhunts on the way and within a day a web of links and contacts made public to the news media.

All of that information could not have been gathered and sifted in that short a period of time. It makes me think that the authorities already knew about these people at the very least.

Europe has a real problem on its hands. These are second generation immigrants and yet they've failed to be integrated. The US is not perfect by any means, but immigrants typically will be assimilated within 1-2 generations and made to feel American.

I doubt the Brussels bombers felt as though they were Belgian.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Kingstonian said:


> Would you care to outline your solution?


A few ideas:

1.) American foreign policy needs to change - we cannot remain so intertwined with Middle Eastern affairs and expect that there won't be consequences. When you play in a snake pit, you're going to get bit! George Washington's admonition to avoid foreign entanglements and permanent alliances is still sound advice, regardless of what the neocon and liberal interventionists believe. We need to stay the heck out of every damn Middle Eastern civil war, develop a more balanced policy that is devoid of blind allegiance to Israel, and cease supporting odious regimes in the region. _Related_: There are plenty of powerful players in the Middle East; they need to manage their own affairs, including terrorism, despite the Machiavellian mixed motivations and cross purposes so many of them harbor.

2.) Culture matters, and to allow unfettered immigration into the United States is ludicrous. American immigration policy should be highly selective, and be beneficial to both the U.S. and those emigrating. We used to follow such guidelines, but no longer do. We ought to resume them.

3.) To the extent possible, we should use American economic muscle against terroristic regimes and groups. Freeze assets, no financing or trade, etc.

4.) Begin using police tactics such as those practiced in New York City to reduce terror threats internally and externally. We also need better intelligence sharing, networking, and communication throughout the U.S. and the rest of the world. We often wait until tragedy strikes before utilizing procedures that could've prevented the tragedy in the first place!

5.) We need to stop hiding behind the delicacy of politically correct distortions about the violent aspects of Islam, and have a much more honest dialogue. We certainly know how to cast opprobrium (with the attendant name-calling) on anyone who believes that men's bathrooms are for men, and ladies' bathrooms are for women, and we certainly know how to skewer Donald Trump (I am not a Trump supporter) for whatever utterance of the day is deemed an atrocity. Maybe it might be beneficial to discuss the truth of a primary interpretation of Islam and how its adherents seek to implement it?

I believe such policies have a greater chance of ameliorating Islamic terror than the current "open borders" and "Islam is a religion of peace" policies.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

1 and 2 are standard paleoconservatives ideas. However, they are just ideas. They have not got anywhere electorally. A new party would be required first I suspect.

"What paleoconservatism tries to tell Americans is that the dominant forces in their society are no longer committed to conserving the traditions, institutions, and values that created and formed it, and, therefore, that those who are really conservative in any serious sense and wish to live under those traditions, institutions, and values need to oppose the dominant forces and form new ones."


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Kingstonian said:


> 1 and 2 are standard paleoconservatives ideas. However, they are just ideas. They have not got anywhere electorally. A new party would be required first I suspect.
> 
> "What paleoconservatism tries to tell Americans is that the dominant forces in their society are no longer committed to conserving the traditions, institutions, and values that created and formed it, and, therefore, that those who are really conservative in any serious sense and wish to live under those traditions, institutions, and values need to oppose the dominant forces and form new ones."


You asked me for my solutions, which are inherently "ideas." You then dismiss those ideas as merely being "ideas." In all sincerity, I have no idea (sorry!) what point you're trying to make!

For the record, there is great momentum building for point #2, and has been doing so for a few years. Point #1 is incredibly sound, but unfortunately the two major American political parties are too interventionist to utilize such sensible policies. But one must start somewhere, and the political zeitgeist extant in the U.S. today in no way detracts from the logic of point #1.

Not sure why you chose to provide a quotation about "paleoconservatism" - did you think I didn't know the term? Of course I do!


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> I'm not denying that. We could start with throwing open the borders to refugees. That would be a first step.
> 
> A second step could be to just practice better immigration policy, or better yet, just do a better job at vetting according to guidelines already on the books.
> 
> ...


Actually, according to news reports, the second-generation Muslims are culturally French or Belgian, speak flawless French, drink, smoke dope and do other young people things. They really don't know enough about Islam to realize that the half-baked jihadism they are getting off the internet is pretty far from mainstream practice.

Gurdon


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Kingstonian said:


> Would you care to outline your solution?


This evening a friend has suggested to me a relatively straightforward remedy to the entire Middle East problem that is already at hand, and at very modest expense.

His idea is that, since the RAF and other air forces fighting ISIS apparently enjoy more-or-less unhindered command of the skies over much of the region, it should be a relatively simple matter, at periodic intervals, to spray all water courses and populated areas with some pacifying substance. I am no pharmacist but I am sure there are a number of otherwise harmless substances that would answer this need admirably.


----------



## Dcr5468 (Jul 11, 2015)

After watching the documentary "only the Dead See the End of War" on HBO, which debuted this week, I can assure you we should never send combat troops en mass to the Middle East again...perhaps special ops but not grounds troops. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> This evening a friend has suggested to me a relatively straightforward remedy to the entire Middle East problem that is already at hand, and at very modest expense.
> 
> His idea is that, since the RAF and other air forces fighting ISIS apparently enjoy more-or-less unhindered command of the skies over much of the region, it should be a relatively simple matter, at periodic intervals, to spray all water courses and populated areas with some pacifying substance. I am no pharmacist but I am sure there are a number of otherwise harmless substances that would answer this need admirably.


Perhaps a substance also engineered to precipitate a cessation of fecundity.....?


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Perhaps I should have asked for solutions with a likelihood of being implemented.

Some of the above read like a plot from 'The Avengers'. All that is required is for Steed and Emma to ride off into the sunset at the end.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Anyway, mass migration from Muslim lands is probably part of Coudenhove Kalergi's plan for Pan Europa.

Which would also make a good plot for 'The Avengers'.

Raspail had a similar plot in 'The Camp of the Saints' but switched Muslims to Indians as he thought Muslims might be a bit incendiary.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Gurdon said:


> Actually, according to news reports, the second-generation Muslims are culturally French or Belgian, speak flawless French, drink, smoke dope and do other young people things. They really don't know enough about Islam to realize that the half-baked jihadism they are getting off the internet is pretty far from mainstream practice.
> 
> Gurdon


No, no, no, that can't be true! It can _only_ be the case that they are Muslims and are therefore dedicated to the overthrow of Western civilisation as we know it!


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Kingstonian said:


> Perhaps I should have asked for solutions with a likelihood of being implemented.
> 
> Some of the above read like a plot from 'The Avengers'. All that is required is for Steed and Emma to ride off into the sunset at the end.


Psychochemical warfare is nothing new, certainly the Vikings made use of it and possibly the Greeks, and of course Hitler's stormtroopers were stuffed full of amphetamines (and the Argentines believed the Ghurkas had been made half-crazed by having their rations cut with LSD), but in the past it has largely been the soldiery that were drugged. Dosing entire populations would nevertheless be a fairly straightforward proposition - much easier, more humane and perhaps more effective than conventional warfare.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I don't care what they consider themselves to be.


Quite.



SG_67 said:


> And one need not be an expert on the former Yugoslavia to know that there were ethnic and nationalist tensions within the Balkans before during the days of Hapsburg rule. It's a part of the world where ethnic cleansing is an all too recent part of history. Also, please bear in mind that during WWI, the Germans and Austrians would, for propaganda purposes, refer to the entente powers (Russia excluded of course) as "the West".


Your point is?



SG_67 said:


> The fact is one cannot realistically point to the Balkan wars of the 1990's and draw a comparison to what is going on with ISIL or current terrorist activity within the Muslim world. Serbs were not going overseas and blowing up Western European airports or blowing up mosques in England.


But one can point to the break up of Yugoslavia and show that Serbs were killing Muslims in large numbers, and that terrorism is not only used by Muslims, which suggests that one cannot say that terrorism is a solely Muslim phenomenon based on Islam.



SG_67 said:


> One cannot even say that such acts were based on Christian doctrine, rather ethnic and nationalist strife.


Really? What is the difference between a Serb and a Bosnian and a Croat? The only difference is their religion.



SG_67 said:


> The fact remains so and cannot be refuted; the Islamic world lives in a pre-Renaissance, medieval climate and has wreaked nothing but ruin onto itself.


Ruin onto itself? How much unrest was there in the Middle East before WW1? To what extent was international Islamic terrorism an issue before 1970? What happened to change the status quo?



SG_67 said:


> Their populations are pouring out and seeking out the west without a real understanding of what the west is. Much of this is the fault of the west for espousing multiculturalism and failing to integrate immigrant communities successfully. But the bulk of the problem lies in the culture of the Middle East.


You seem to miss the point that many of the refugees fleeing the violence in Syria and Iraq are Christians.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Langham, you think it likely that this could be implemented?

I prefer the Avengers episode where they have developed a system for floods of Biblical proportions. It somehow seems more in keeping. Noel Purcell is building an ark, which they try to sabotage, and a wonderful Welsh actor Talfryn Thomas holds forth on 'the wages of sin'. I never quite worked out why he is supposed to be in the English countryside though.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Kingstonian said:


> Langham, you think it likely that this could be implemented?
> 
> I prefer the Avengers episode where they have developed a system for floods of Biblical proportions. It somehow seems more in keeping. Noel Purcell is building an ark, which they try to sabotage, and a wonderful Welsh actor Talfryn Thomas holds forth on 'the wages of sin'. I never quite worked out why he is supposed to be in the English countryside though.


I don't think I ever saw that episode, although I was an avid viewer as a boy.

Yes, I think it _could_ be implemented - but I don't think it will. I haven't checked but I believe there are various schedules in the Geneva Conventions that might interfere with such a plan.

There is undeniably a shortage of peace and love in the region, and in principle I see no reason why this deficit should not be addressed in an entirely pharmaceutical way.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Quite.
> 
> Your point is?
> 
> ...


The nature and the underlying issues during the Balkans wars of the 90's was more along the lines of a civil war than what we are experiencing now. I'm not defending or apologizing for it, simply stating that the political context was different. Serbs were not trying to annihilate a race or religion or culture. They were trying to consolidate and expand territory. They could be reasoned with, with the proper application of force of course. They were not fueled by religious zeal and they did not export their violence outside of their borders.

As for stability in the Middle East? Yup! Let's bring back the Ottoman Empire; problem solved.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Langham said:


> I don't think I ever saw that episode, although I was an avid viewer as a boy.


https://theavengers.tv/forever/peel1-8.htm

The series is on channel 61 of freeview at 8pm Monday to Friday. One of the few watchable programmes on the telly.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Kingstonian said:


> https://theavengers.tv/forever/peel1-8.htm
> 
> The series is on channel 61 of freeview at 8pm Monday to Friday. One of the few watchable programmes on the telly.


Channel 61? Thanks - I'll have a look.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> The nature and the underlying issues during the Balkans wars of the 90's was more along the lines of a civil war than what we are experiencing now. I'm not defending or apologizing for it, simply stating that the political context was different. Serbs were not trying to annihilate a race or religion or culture. They were trying to consolidate and expand territory. They could be reasoned with, with the proper application of force of course. They were not fueled by religious zeal and they did not export their violence outside of their borders.
> 
> As for stability in the Middle East? Yup! Let's bring back the Ottoman Empire; problem solved.


Only they were. They were trying to destroy, annihilate the Bosnians in the territory that they considered to be theirs. The reason was that the Bosnians were Muslim. There was no other reason, as the Bosnians were culturally and ethnically identical to the Serbs, apart from their religion. The Croat/Serb issue was the same, religion, nothing else. When the Ustase and the Chetniks in 1941-5 were killing each other, the basis of their killing was religion, as there was, and is, no ethic difference.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ except that the Serbs were not getting tourist visas to Lebanon or turkey and then blowing themselves up in train stations. 

Nor were the Serbs religious fanatics trying to institute some strict version of a Christian government. Again, I'm not excusing it by any means but you cannot realistically claim that the political and cultural basis for the Balkan wars is an any way similar to, or representative of, what ISIL or other fundamentalist Jihadi groups are trying to achieve.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ except that the Serbs were not getting tourist visas to Lebanon or turkey and then blowing themselves up in train stations.
> 
> Nor were the Serbs religious fanatics trying to institute some strict version of a Christian government. Again, I'm not excusing it by any means but *you cannot realistically claim that the political and cultural basis for the Balkan wars is an any way similar to*, or representative of, what ISIL or other fundamentalist Jihadi groups are trying to achieve.


I can indeed. They killed people, thousands of people solely on the basis of their religion in order to make the country that they claimed as theirs Muslim free. Not only that, but they also killed Croats because theirs was the wrong brand of Christianity.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*The nature of Islam*

The following quotation is from the conclusion of "Muhammad," by Michael Cook, professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton. The book is one of the series Past Masters, published by Oxford University Press. I hope others might find it useful, as I did, in trying to understand the nature of Islam in the context of the current discussion. The book is a short read and situates Islam with respect to the other two Abrahamic faiths.

"&#8230;. and I shall therefore seek only to identify that quality of Islam which has most worked on me in the writing of this book. Both Judaism and Christianity are religions of profound pathos - Judaism with its dream of ethnic redemption from present wretchedness, Christianity with its individual salvation through the sufferings of a God of love. In each case the pathos is indeed moving; but it is a pathos which too easily appeals to the notion of self-pity. Islam, in contrast, is strictly free of this temptation. The bleakness which we saw in the conception of the relationship between God and man is the authentic, unadulterated bleakness of the universe itself."

The concluding sentence seems apposite, and requires, for me at least, no theological validation.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ except that the Serbs were not getting tourist visas to Lebanon or turkey and then blowing themselves up in train stations.
> 
> Nor were the Serbs religious fanatics trying to institute some strict version of a Christian government. Again, I'm not excusing it by any means but you cannot realistically claim that the political and cultural basis for the Balkan wars is an any way similar to, or representative of, what ISIL or other fundamentalist Jihadi groups are trying to achieve.


You appear, on further reflection, to have a curious set of double standards. You condemn the peoples of the Balkans as being, as you put it "*Only recently ..... emerged from the middle ages.*", yet you don't appear to be suggesting that their culture should exclude them from the West, whether Europe or the US. You further argued that "*one solution is to stop allowing the wholesale immigration of a medieval, misogynist culture into Western Europe and America.* ". Does that include those dreadful Balkan peoples? Surely, if their near medieval Eastern culture is responsible for their massacres of Muslims they should also be banned from entering the West?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ allowing Eastern Europeans to freely immigrate to Western Europe is a matter for the Europeans to decide. 

It still goes to the larger point of is it wise to just throw your borders open and pretend as though thoroughly distinct culture can live together without assimilation. 

Again, I hold that Islam, it'd tenets, the way it is viewed and practiced and middle eastern culture as a whole is incompatible with liberal democracy and an open society where people's rights are respected and dissenting views are not subject to the death penalty. 

I'll let you offer up digressions from that point and continue to point out ad hoc examples. 

By the way, the Balkan wars were some twenty years ago. Is the killing and massacring still ongoing?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ allowing Eastern Europeans to freely immigrate to Western Europe is a matter for the Europeans to decide.
> 
> It still goes to the larger point of is it wise to just throw your borders open and pretend as though thoroughly distinct culture can live together without assimilation.
> 
> ...


Not that I'm aware of, but the people who did the killing are still around. Mind you, the sectarian violence in Ireland, North and South, is still going on, yet Irish people find it easier to enter the US than Brits do, which appears to be something of a paradox.
Perhaps you're suggesting that the mindset which caused the exterminations of Muslims in the Balkans has disappeared in the intervening time?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I can't remember the last time an Irishman bombed people gathered at the finish line of the Boston Marathon or an office Christmas party.

By the way, I'm quite sure if an Irishman with known connections to terrorist acts were to try to enter the US, he'd likely be arrested.

Also, perhaps the mindset hasn't but there is enough order in that society to keep in check those instincts. One can hardly say the same for the Middle East.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ^ *I can't remember the last time an Irishman bombed people gathered at the finish line of the Boston Marathon or an office Christmas party.
> *
> By the way, I'm quite sure if an Irishman with known connections to terrorist acts were to try to enter the US, he'd likely be arrested.
> 
> Also, perhaps the mindset hasn't but there is enough order in that society to keep in check those instincts. One can hardly say the same for the Middle East.


Unfortunately I must point out that both Loyalist and Republican terrorists in Ireland / Northern Ireland have a long record of targeting soft civilian targets (both in Ireland, Northern Ireland and the British mainland) during The Troubles (indeed the current leader of the Labour Party made a point of refusing to condemn Republican terrorist atrocities, observed a minute's silence for IRA terrorists, etc., etc.) (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/po...rbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html; https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/...-now-led-by-people-who-wanted-the-ira-to-win/).

However, this is just classic Chouan-esque shtick: in this case, the art of distraction with specious irrelevancies.

While there were of course strong religious dimensions to The Troubles, this was primarily a classic dispute about territory. If IRA / Sein Fein had been successful in its campaign for a united Ireland, its aim was not to replace a Western democracy with a theocracy (and a Catholic theocracy would in any event lack some of the objectionable aspects of a Islamic theocracy). The goal of a united Ireland, pursued peacefully through legitimate and democratic means, is not inherently objectionable or illegitimate (even if I disagree with it); pursuing it through violence and terrorism was what made IRA / Sein Fein's campaign illegitimate.

The fact remains - from which Chouan for reasons best known to himself seems to wish to distract attention - that Islamo-fascist terrorism is wholly incompatible with modern Western democracies and is prepared to use improvised weapons of mass destruction on soft civilian targets. That is different in nature and quality to sectarian violence in either Northern Ireland or the Balkans.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Balfour said:


> The fact remains - from which Chouan for reasons best known to himself seems to wish to distract attention - that Islamo-fascist terrorism is wholly incompatible with modern Western democracies and is prepared to use improvised weapons of mass destruction on soft civilian targets.


The Corbynesque left seethe with a hatred of "modern Western democracies", and especially countries like Britain which have an imperial history. 
They're quite willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.
Hence the official embrace of Islam and the continued push for unlimited immigration which has turned most British cities into third world slums.
It didn't start with New Labour, but they did ramp it up of the scale, and Cameron's Blue labour has done nothing to change course.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Balfour said:


> Unfortunately I must point out that both Loyalist and Republican terrorists in Ireland / Northern Ireland have a long record of targeting soft civilian targets (both in Ireland, Northern Ireland and the British mainland) during The Troubles (indeed the current leader of the Labour Party made a point of refusing to condemn Republican terrorist atrocities, observed a minute's silence for IRA terrorists, etc., etc.) (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/po...rbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html; https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/...-now-led-by-people-who-wanted-the-ira-to-win/).
> 
> However, this is just classic Chouan-esque shtick: in this case, the art of distraction with specious irrelevancies.


Disregarding your usual disparagements, how is the fact that religious based terrorism, that isn't Islamist, a specious irrelevancy? I assume that you have read the posts? I assume that you do understand the arguments? I did assume that you were a man of at least some education and some intelligence, so what is it that you find hard to understand? Or is it deliberate obtuseness?
I'm not sure what relevance the Torygraph and the Spectator (the Tory Party's house magazine) articles have in this discussion, perhaps they are of specious irrelevancy?



Balfour said:


> While there were of course strong religious dimensions to The Troubles, this was primarily a classic dispute about territory. If IRA / Sein Fein had been successful in its campaign for a united Ireland, its aim was not to replace a Western democracy with a theocracy (and a Catholic theocracy would in any event lack some of the objectionable aspects of a Islamic theocracy). The goal of a united Ireland, pursued peacefully through legitimate and democratic means, is not inherently objectionable or illegitimate (even if I disagree with it); pursuing it through violence and terrorism was what made IRA / Sein Fein's campaign illegitimate.


Are you suggesting here that the sectarian terrorism in N.Ireland was solely Republican? I must assume that you haven't read my previous post where I mentioned the Shankill Butchers, or did you think that the sectarian based killings of random catholics, solely on the basis of their faith is a specious irrelevancy? Or was it basic ignorance of the issue?



Balfour said:


> The fact remains - from which Chouan for reasons best known to himself seems to wish to distract attention - that Islamo-fascist terrorism is wholly incompatible with modern Western democracies and is prepared to use improvised weapons of mass destruction on soft civilian targets. That is different in nature and quality to sectarian violence in either Northern Ireland or the Balkans.


I do find this assertion quite offensive. I am used, by now, to you being deliberately offensive, and deliberately misrepresenting my views, but this assertion is not only wrong, but also attributing views to me that are in themselves offensive. Where have I sought to distract attention? Where have I sought to suggest that there is anything but evil in the Islamist terrorist attacks? Where have I suggested that what you describe as Islamo-fascist terrorism might in any way be compatible with Western democracy?
Again, I suggest that you have failed to understand my argument, or are deliberately seeking to misrepresent it, for your own reasons.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Odradek said:


> The Corbynesque left seethe with a hatred of "modern Western democracies", and especially countries like Britain which have an imperial history.


Really? Do you have any evidence for that? Beyond the deliberate misrepresentation in the populist press, of course!



Odradek said:


> Hence the official embrace of Islam and the continued push for unlimited immigration which has turned most British cities into third world slums.


Again, really? What push for unlimited immigration?


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Balfour said:


> Unfortunately I must point out that *both Loyalist* and Republican *terrorists* in Ireland / Northern Ireland have a long record of targeting soft civilian targets (both in Ireland, Northern Ireland and the British mainland) during ...





Chouan said:


> ...
> Are you suggesting here that the sectarian terrorism in N.Ireland was solely Republican? ...
> 
> I do find this assertion quite offensive. I am used, by now, to you being deliberately offensive, and deliberately misrepresenting my views, but this assertion is not only wrong, but also attributing views to me that are in themselves offensive. ...


While I do not propose to respond to the usual Chouanical nonsense (although he seems particularly excitable today), to more fair-minded readers I will point out the reference to Loyalist terrorists with which I commenced my post.

For him to conclude his post with the last quoted text above is really a priceless irony.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Chouan said:


> Really? Do you have any evidence for that? Beyond the deliberate misrepresentation in the populist press, of course!


Day to day experience.
I know some people who work in BBC news who typify such an attitude.

My children's school library is full of those "Horrible Histories" books which are nothing but propaganda.

The BBC and all other media pursue a strict policy of "diversity" at the expense of truth and reality.



Chouan said:


> Again, really? What push for unlimited immigration?


*Labour 'sent out search parties for immigrants', Lord Mandelson admits*



> *Labour sent out "search parties" for immigrants in a policy which has created a "problem" for British people unable to find work, Lord Mandelson has admitted.*


*Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser*



> The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
> He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Pentheos said:


> https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
> 
> Can someone point me to the Christian version? Thx.


Still waiting.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

The apotheosis of micro to macro...... *

Butlin's rocked by race row as kids are urged to boo wrestler 'Hakeem' as he enters ring with Muslim flag to battle Brit 'Tony Spitfire'*

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepa...estling-show-urged-to-boo-Muslim-fighter.html


----------



## sbdivemaster (Nov 13, 2011)

Shaver said:


> The apotheosis of micro to macro...... *
> 
> Butlin's rocked by race row as kids are urged to boo wrestler 'Hakeem' as he enters ring with Muslim flag to battle Brit 'Tony Spitfire'*
> 
> https://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepa...estling-show-urged-to-boo-Muslim-fighter.html


Someone needs to explain "babyface" and "heel" to those people...


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Pentheos said:


> Still waiting.


A week later, still waiting for the moral equivocators to inform me about contemporary Christian atrocities and suicide bombings and terrorism. Thx.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> A week later, still waiting for the moral equivocators to inform me about contemporary Christian atrocities and suicide bombings and terrorism. Thx.


As I'm unaware of any posts on this thread by any moral equivocators, I'm not sure what it is that you're after.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Chouan said:


> Look back in the thread and you'll see near contemporary examples. Only you will, of course, shift the goalposts to exclude the examples given as your mates have already done, as they are uncomfortably inconvenient for the theory that terrorism is an Islamist monopoly. On the other hand, as I'm unaware of any posts on this thread by any moral equivocators, I'm not sure what it is that you're after.


Some event from 20 years ago? C'mon. The Islamist body count from 4/2/16 to 4/8/16 was 158 killed and 352 injured.

Again, inform me about Christian terrorism last week. This month. This year. The number of non-Christians dead. Mosques burned to the ground. Buddhist temples ransacked and dynamited. Cultural heritage destroyed.

The equivocators always say, "The crusades." As though those weren't some time ago and weren't in reaction to Muslim incursions.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ the issue of "historical context" is forever a lazy mind's way of not having to take a moral stance either due to intransigence or any other reason.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> Some event from 20 years ago? C'mon. The Islamist body count from 4/2/16 to 4/8/16 was 158 killed and 352 injured.
> 
> Again, inform me about Christian terrorism last week. This month. This year. The number of non-Christians dead. Mosques burned to the ground. Buddhist temples ransacked and dynamited. Cultural heritage destroyed.
> 
> The equivocators always say, "The crusades." As though those weren't some time ago and weren't in reaction to Muslim incursions.


Could you please identify one of these "moral equivocators"? I'm sure that some exist, but I haven't seen any posting in this thread.

I did say that the goalposts would be shifted again, and sure enough.....


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> The equivocators always say, "The crusades." As though those weren't some time ago and weren't in reaction to Muslim incursions.


And who, here, has argued that?


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Chouan said:


> And who, here, has argued that?


Why limit it to "here"? Some guy, you may have heard of him, named Barack Obama said, "And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ."

I don't understand what you mean by goalposts moving. Please explain.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> Why limit it to "here"? Some guy, you may have heard of him, named Barack Obama said, "And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ."
> 
> I don't understand what you mean by goalposts moving. Please explain.


Read the thread. The goalpost shifting is obvious, by which I mean the changing of criteria whenever evidence is presented.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> Why limit it to "here"?


Because you twice requested that moral equivocators respond here on this thread. I'm inclined to think that Mr.Obama is unlikely to be a contributor to this forum, not that I consider him to be a moral equivocator in any case, so what his views are aren't really relevant to your demand for a response.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Chouan said:


> Read the thread. The goalpost shifting is obvious, by which I mean the changing of criteria whenever evidence is presented.


You mean like presenting evidence of widespread contemporary Islamic extremist terrorism and zero Christian terrorism?

The scimitar drips with the infidel's blood---the cross only with the blood of the ultimate self-sacrifice.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ You're always fond of finding these nuts and trying to equivocate what's happening in the Islamic world to them. 

Islamist terrorism is pervasive. It's state policy and very little internecine push back. When the convicted Pan Am 103 bomber was released to Libya he was embraced by the government and welcomed as a hero. 

I would like to see the reception that Anders Behring Breivik receives were he all of a sudden released back to his hometown.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ You're always fond of finding these nuts and trying to equivocate what's happening in the Islamic world to them.
> 
> Islamist terrorism is pervasive. It's state policy and very little internecine push back. When the convicted Pan Am 103 bomber was released to Libya he was embraced by the government and welcomed as a hero.
> 
> I would like to see the reception that Anders Behring Breivik receives were he all of a sudden released back to his hometown.


Terrorism is terrorism. You seem to be determined that terrorism is an exclusively Islamist phenomenon, and seek to find an excuse or justification, or difference of some kind to exclude from consideration any non-Islamic terrorism. I'm sure that you have _*some*_ kind of rational reason for why you have such an agenda.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

That wasn't terrorism....it was mass murder. It did not have a pervasive and part of an organized agenda. 

Brussels was preceded by Paris, which one can argue was preceded by Charlie Hebdo. It's part of a plan, albeit one which will not go anywhere, but still part of a plan. 

I don't think the gentleman in question really had the backing of an organization or sovereign state for that matter. 

Terrorism is as terrorism does. I think if you were query most Scandinavians and Europeans, they would be more concerned about Islamic terrorists that right wing nuts.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Chouan said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik


If you had bothered to read that, you would have seen that he states he is not a Christian.

I do know that he played World of Warcraft though---in fact, he was a very dedicated player.

One could therefore blame his mass murders more squarely on a video game than on Christianity.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> If you had bothered to read that, you would have seen that he states he is not a Christian.
> 
> I do know that he played World of Warcraft though---in fact, he was a very dedicated player.
> 
> One could therefore blame his mass murders more squarely on a video game than on Christianity.


Neither is he a Muslim, surely a prerequisite for _*any*_ terrorist? Otherwise, as has been repeatedly asserted, he can only be a mass murderer.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> That wasn't terrorism....it was mass murder. It did not have a pervasive and part of an organized agenda.
> 
> Brussels was preceded by Paris, which one can argue was preceded by Charlie Hebdo. It's part of a plan, albeit one which will not go anywhere, but still part of a plan.
> 
> ...


So, another shifting of the goalposts.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Neither is he a Muslim, surely a prerequisite for _*any*_ terrorist? ...


That's not what is being asserted. Goal post changing, are you?

Breivik is an isolated wingnut. One can debate whether his actions should be described as terrorism or more like the Hungerford and Dunblane mass killings (it is - debatably - terrorism in view of his avowed commitment to National Socialism, but the reality is that whatever his spurious political justification, the weight of the matter would tend to suggest the latter; it would be interesting to know if he intended to escape and wage a lone dog campaign - that would swing classification towards a particular type of terrorism).

Of course there are terrorists of many stripes and persuasions. The point being made is that Islamo-fascist terrorism us a particularly pernicious and virulent strain of terrorism that presents a national security threat of a different order of magnitude to recent modern examples of other forms of terrorism in Western democracies, evidenced in particular by the use of improvised weapons of mass destruction and many other organisational, structural and motivational factors, in particular that it is fueled by a fanaticism which again distinguishes it from other threats.

There's no negotiating with many in this camp. They simply want to kill us or destroy our freedoms and liberties and subject us to a Caliphate.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> So, another shifting of the goalposts.


It's not even the same sport!


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

I really do not understand why anyone that uses common sense would respond to chouan. From the outside reading this you can see that even when presented with reason and sound facts he will deny that they are facts, or ignore it and continue with his nonsense. 

I understand wanting to have a spirited discussion or even debating issues, but this has long since been over, and anyone responding to him is merely feeding the troll.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Dmontez said:


> I really do not understand why anyone that uses common sense would respond to chouan. From the outside reading this you can see that even when presented with reason and sound facts he will deny that they are facts, or ignore it and continue with his nonsense.
> 
> I understand wanting to have a spirited discussion or even debating issues, but this has long since been over, and anyone responding to him is merely feeding the troll.


You use the the troll word again. You appear to believe that because my view doesn't coincide with yours, I must be trolling. Such arrogance!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Balfour said:


> That's not what is being asserted. Goal post changing, are you?


That is exactly what has been repeatedly asserted, that terrorism is linked directly to Islam. Not to an aberration of Islam, as many Muslim leaders have stated, but to Islam. Every example of terrorism given that is not linked to Islam is dismissed, as too long ago, not relevant, doesn't include suicide bombing. Terrorism is terrorism, whoever carries it out.



Balfour said:


> Breivik is an isolated wingnut. One can debate whether his actions should be described as terrorism or more like the Hungerford and Dunblane mass killings (it is - debatably - terrorism in view of his avowed commitment to National Socialism, but the reality is that whatever his spurious political justification, the weight of the matter would tend to suggest the latter; it would be interesting to know if he intended to escape and wage a lone dog campaign - that would swing classification towards a particular type of terrorism).
> 
> Of course there are terrorists of many stripes and persuasions. The point being made is that Islamo-fascist terrorism us a particularly pernicious and virulent strain of terrorism that presents a national security threat of a different order of magnitude to recent modern examples of other forms of terrorism in Western democracies, evidenced in particular by the use of improvised weapons of mass destruction and many other organisational, structural and motivational factors, in particular that it is fueled by a fanaticism which again distinguishes it from other threats.
> 
> There's no negotiating with many in this camp. They simply want to kill us or destroy our freedoms and liberties and subject us to a Caliphate.


Indeed, many of them do wish for the destruction of our society, but it isn't as simple as "Islam wants to destroy the West" and "Terrorism is an Islamic activity".


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Dmontez said:


> I really do not understand why anyone that uses common sense would respond to chouan. From the outside reading this you can see that even when presented with reason and sound facts he will deny that they are facts, or ignore it and continue with his nonsense.


Care to explain just what it is that I have posted that is nonsense?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> That is exactly what has been repeatedly asserted, that terrorism is linked directly to Islam. Not to an aberration of Islam, as many Muslim leaders have stated, but to Islam. Every example of terrorism given that is not linked to Islam is dismissed, as too long ago, not relevant, doesn't include suicide bombing. Terrorism is terrorism, whoever carries it out.
> 
> Indeed, many of them do wish for the destruction of our society, but it isn't as simple as "Islam wants to destroy the West" and "Terrorism is an Islamic activity".


No one has suggested for a moment, either by omission or commission, that terrorism is exclusive to Islam. It's terrorism committed by Muslims tied to an apocalyptic vision that makes it both unique and existential in its threat to the west.

I've said this before; theft is theft. But there's a big difference between the likes of Bernie Maddoff and a street urchin who picks your pocket.

By the way, you seem to hold out this fantasy that terrorism is deplored by "Muslim leaders". I fail to see evidence of it. If it's deplored, it's sanction is not having much of an affect on the use of it. It appears as though the real Muslim leaders are those dictating the terms on which the religion will impose itself on the west. It's the moderates who are the true heretics.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> By the way, you seem to hold out this fantasy that terrorism is deplored by "Muslim leaders". I fail to see evidence of it. If it's deplored, it's sanction is not having much of an affect on the use of it. It appears as though the real Muslim leaders are those dictating the terms on which the religion will impose itself on the west. It's the moderates who are the true heretics.


Many Muslim leaders have condemned the terrorism, yet, strangely enough, the populist media never reports it, so, of course you fail to see evidence of it. It is very hard to see something that isn't being reported, and which you don't want to see in any case. It is, of course, far easier to believe one's own pre-conceived opinion, than seek evidence that challenges it when the populist news media doesn't report it. There were several demonstrations by Muslims in the UK, and elsewhere in Europe, condemning what has happened in Paris, and Brussels, as well as statements by Muslim religious leaders in most European countries also condemning what had happened. https://www.cityam.com/237408/bruss...-leaders-release-statement-condemning-attacks https://5pillarsuk.com/2016/03/22/muslim-leaders-condemn-brussels-attacks/ 
Evidence here from the US https://www.wesh.com/news/local-muslim-leader-condemns-brussels-terror-attacks/38646670 https://woodtv.com/2016/03/22/local-muslim-leaders-condemn-brussels-attacks/ https://abc7chicago.com/news/chicagos-muslim-community-condemns-brussels-terror-attacks/1258141/ I don't know how you missed the last one as it is local to you?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Many Muslim leaders have condemned the terrorism, yet, strangely enough, the populist media never reports it, so, of course you fail to see evidence of it. It is very hard to see something that isn't being reported, and which you don't want to see in any case. It is, of course, far easier to believe one's own pre-conceived opinion, than seek evidence that challenges it when the populist news media doesn't report it. There were several demonstrations by Muslims in the UK, and elsewhere in Europe, condemning what has happened in Paris, and Brussels, as well as statements by Muslim religious leaders in most European countries also condemning what had happened. https://www.cityam.com/237408/bruss...-leaders-release-statement-condemning-attacks https://5pillarsuk.com/2016/03/22/muslim-leaders-condemn-brussels-attacks/
> Evidence here from the US https://www.wesh.com/news/local-muslim-leader-condemns-brussels-terror-attacks/38646670 https://woodtv.com/2016/03/22/local-muslim-leaders-condemn-brussels-attacks/ https://abc7chicago.com/news/chicagos-muslim-community-condemns-brussels-terror-attacks/1258141/ I don't know how you missed the last one as it is local to you?


Ask those same leaders why there is terrorism and inevitably Israel will come up.

The fact that so called Muslim "leaders" condemn it is meaningless. It's not having any effect therefore they are not leaders.

If muslims were truly outraged, it would be stopped. The same way that the KKK is no longer terrorizing people.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Ask those same leaders why there is terrorism and inevitably Israel will come up.
> 
> The fact that so called Muslim "leaders" condemn it is meaningless. It's not having any effect therefore they are not leaders.


More goalpost shifting. You said "*By the way, you seem to hold out this fantasy that terrorism is deplored by "Muslim leaders". I fail to see evidence of it*.". I pointed out that this was simply not true, so you now change your stance and assert that because what moderate Muslim leaders say isn't having an effect on Daesh, they aren't leaders! 



SG_67 said:


> If muslims were truly outraged, it would be stopped. The same way that the KKK is no longer terrorizing people.


Really? In the same way that anti-Nazi Germans were outraged by what Nazi Germany was doing, and stopped it? Or in the same way that anti-communist Russians were outraged by what Stalin was doing, and stopped it?
You appear to think that "Muslims" are a monoculture, all one people with identical views and culture. One might just as easily say that all Christians have the same culture, which is just as much patent nonsense!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> More goalpost shifting. You said "*By the way, you seem to hold out this fantasy that terrorism is deplored by "Muslim leaders". I fail to see evidence of it*.". I pointed out that this was simply not true, so you now change your stance and assert that because what moderate Muslim leaders say isn't having an effect on Daesh, they aren't leaders!




They are not leaders if they have no influence. Leaders influence. 



> Really? In the same way that anti-Nazi Germans were outraged by what Nazi Germany was doing, and stopped it? Or in the same way that anti-communist Russians were outraged by what Stalin was doing, and stopped it?
> You appear to think that "Muslims" are a monoculture, all one people with identical views and culture. One might just as easily say that all Christians have the same culture, which is just as much patent nonsense!


Interesting you mention the Nazis. Setting aside that your analogy is irrelevant as you love to bring up thing from 80 years ago, consider the fact that as a society Germany was able to confront it's own internal demons through self reflection.

Where is that self reflection in the Islamic world? Better yet, do comments from dubious groups such as CAIR have any currency in the Islamic world?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> They are not leaders if they have no influence. Leaders influence. [/COLOR]
> 
> Interesting you mention the Nazis. Setting aside that your analogy is irrelevant as you love to bring up thing from 80 years ago, consider the fact that as a society Germany was able to confront it's own internal demons through self reflection.
> 
> Where is that self reflection in the Islamic world? Better yet, do comments from dubious groups such as CAIR have any currency in the Islamic world?


Interesting that you entirely disregard what I actually wrote...... Interesting that you continue to deny the fact that Muslim leaders condemn the terrorism, despite the evidence, by applying your own rather narrow definition of what a Muslim leader is. Interesting that you continue to stereotype all Muslims as being culturally the same, as if all Christians , and all Jews and all atheists share exactly the same political and cultural and societal views.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

There has to be at least some definition of a leader. Leaders exert influence. I would hope that you would agree that for someone to be a leader, he must have some measure of influence that can be measured in some way. 

Otherwise, what keeps anyone from standing on the corner and proclaiming that he is a leader.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

A culture that is excessively doctrinaire and punitive will necessarily be more self similar than one which is not, surely?



Chouan said:


> Interesting that you entirely disregard what I actually wrote...... Interesting that you continue to deny the fact that Muslim leaders condemn the terrorism, despite the evidence, by applying your own rather narrow definition of what a Muslim leader is. Interesting that you continue to stereotype all Muslims as being culturally the same, as if all Christians , and all Jews and all atheists share exactly the same political and cultural and societal views.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Interesting that you entirely disregard what I actually wrote...... Interesting that you continue to deny the fact that Muslim leaders condemn the terrorism, despite the evidence, by applying your own rather narrow definition of what a Muslim leader is. Interesting that you continue to stereotype all Muslims as being culturally the same, as if all Christians , and all Jews and all atheists share exactly the same political and cultural and societal views.





Shaver said:


> A culture that is excessively doctrinaire and punitive will necessarily be more self similar than one which is not, surely?


Consider the varying interpretations within Judaism itself. Consider also the vast variations, doctrinal as well as institutional, within Christendom.

Consider the price for apostasy. Consider also the level of tolerance for descent within each culture.

Now consider these things in the Muslim world.

The reason, Chouan, that your arguments fail is because they fly in the face of evidence. Your reasoning is, at best, strained and does not hold up to scrutiny.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> A culture that is excessively doctrinaire and punitive will necessarily be more self similar than one which is not, surely?


Compare Christian fundamentalists in the US, the various African forms of Christianity, the Coptic Church, the Ethiopian Church, the Syrian Church, the Catholic Church, the various Eastern Orthodox forms, Greek, Russian, Serb, Uniate, the Church of England, the "Wee Free"..... To what extent are they the same?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Consider the varying interpretations within Judaism itself. Consider also the vast variations, doctrinal as well as institutional, within Christendom.
> 
> Consider the price for apostasy. Consider also the level of tolerance for descent within each culture.
> 
> ...


Ah, another shift of the goalposts. You ask for evidence of Muslim leaders condemning terrorism, so I provide it, so you change the definition of leader. You stereotype all Muslims, with no evidence at all, beyond your own assertions, yet argue that my view *"**they fly in the face of evidence. Your reasoning is, at best, strained and does not hold up to scrutiny.".* Yet you have consistently been unable to either prove your point or refute mine, without constantly changing the criteria, in an attempt to discount the evidence.
My arguments fly in the face of evidence. What evidence? You've offered none.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Interesting that you entirely disregard what I actually wrote...... Interesting that you continue to deny the fact that Muslim leaders condemn the terrorism, despite the evidence, by applying your own rather narrow definition of what a Muslim leader is. Interesting that you continue to stereotype all Muslims as being culturally the same, as if all Christians , and all Jews and all atheists share exactly the same political and cultural and societal views.





Chouan said:


> Ah, another shift of the goalposts. You ask for evidence of Muslim leaders condemning terrorism, so I provide it, so you change the definition of leader. You stereotype all Muslims, with no evidence at all, beyond your own assertions, yet argue that my view *"**they fly in the face of evidence. Your reasoning is, at best, strained and does not hold up to scrutiny.".* Yet you have consistently been unable to either prove your point or refute mine, without constantly changing the criteria, in an attempt to discount the evidence.
> My arguments fly in the face of evidence. What evidence? You've offered none.


Perhaps it would be helpful if you defined the term leader.

Better yet, perhaps you would agree that condemnations from such "leaders" are having little impact on the behavior of such radicals?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Perhaps it would be helpful if you defined the term leader.
> 
> Better yet, perhaps you would agree that condemnations from such "leaders" are having little impact on the behavior of such radicals?


Why? Your point was "*By the way, you seem to hold out this fantasy that terrorism is deplored by "Muslim leaders". I fail to see evidence of it.*" I provided links to examples from the plethora available. In order to fail to see the evidence of this, you deny that they're leaders. 
You have yet to provide the evidence that I am flying in the face of.
I agree that the deploring of violence by many Muslim leaders is having little impact on the behaviour of Daesh and the Daesh supporters. If the beliefs of Daesh are an aberration of Islam, and that, therefore, supporters of Daesh are supporters of an aberration of Islam, why would supporters of Daesh heed the condemnation of Daesh violence from main-stream Muslim leaders? Plenty of European Christians condemned and deplored the atrocities carried out by the Bosnian Serbs, plenty of Christian leaders, indeed, plenty of Eastern Orthodox leaders, deplored their atrocities, but they had no effect on those carrying them out.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ My question still stands; please define what a leader is. You are free to use the generic context if you prefer. 

Would you a least agree that for anyone to be a leader, he must at least be able to exert some influence on the led?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Interesting you mention the Nazis. Setting aside that your analogy is irrelevant as you love to bring up thing from 80 years ago, consider the fact that as a society Germany was able to confront it's own internal demons through self reflection.
> 
> Where is that self reflection in the Islamic world? Better yet, do comments from dubious groups such as CAIR have any currency in the Islamic world?


Given that the Nazi state was destroyed 70 years ago, it is natural that self-reflection has taken place. However, as Daesh still exists, to argue that such self-reflection in Syria and Iraq, is absent is hardly surprising as I would imagine that those under the control of Daesh are more concerned about survival than self-reflection at the moment!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Given that the Nazi state was destroyed 70 years ago, it is natural that self-reflection has taken place. However, as Daesh still exists, to argue that such self-reflection in Syria and Iraq, is absent is hardly surprising as I would imagine that those under the control of Daesh are more concerned about survival than self-reflection at the moment!


Before Daesh there was Al Qaeda. Hezbollah and Hamas also precede Daesh. In fact, didn't the Palestinians elect Hamas to form a government?

Do you see a pattern or does history begin and end with Daesh?

Daesh exists because there is a level of consent.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Before Daesh there was Al Qaeda. Hezbollah and Hamas also precede Daesh. In fact, didn't the Palestinians elect Hamas to form a government?


Indeed they did. Remind us of what Hamas and Hezbollah are. Are they Islamist organisations? Or are they political organisations with a political end, rather like the Provisional IRA?



SG_67 said:


> Do you see a pattern or does history begin and end with Daesh?
> 
> Daesh exists because there is a level of consent.


The Bosnian Serb Army existed because there was a level of consent. Would you, therefore, condemn all Christians for allowing their actions, in the way that you appear to condemn all Muslims for the actions of Daesh?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ My question still stands; please define what a leader is. You are free to use the generic context if you prefer.
> 
> Would you a least agree that for anyone to be a leader, he must at least be able to exert some influence on the led?


Are you denying that Islamic leaders in Illinois, for example, have any influence on Muslims in Illinois? Or do you demand that a Muslim leader in Illinois should be able to influence Muslims in Syria? That would suggest that the Archbishop of York should have been able to influence the Serbs at Srebrenica.


----------

