Ongoing Terrorism/ISIS/al Qaeda Thread

[T@T]

Originally Posted by nik-

I think it's interesting that some are so desperate to find the "real causes" and we can't just listen to what the people who perpetrate these crimes tell us is the reason.

How many times does someone need to say they're doing something in the name of their religion, or against western decadence, or against the infidel before we just accept that maybe that is the actual reason.

This is the problem, even on this board moderate muslims refuse to admit there's a problem within the islamic faith.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by T@T

This is the problem, even on this board moderate muslims refuse to admit there's a problem within the islamic faith.

There's not a problem with the actual religion though. It's a problem within the Muslim faith. There are adequate reasons to cause mass casualties in most major religions and it happens from time to time. The problem is with current cultures within the religion and their dangerous interpretations. And with the fact were allowing them to propagate them

[polak]

What about the lack of a central body of islam to denounce these attacks?

That probably has more to do with it. Allowing these dangerous interpretations of the same stories.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

There's not a problem with the actual religion though. It's a problem within the Muslim faith. There are adequate reasons to cause mass casualties in most major religions and it happens from time to time. The problem is with current cultures within the religion and their dangerous interpretations. And with the fact were allowing them to propagate them

This is true, but let's be fair, the holy texts - which are the basis for the religion - don't help matters much when they contain scripture that, literally interpreted, calls for atrocious behaviour. Just as, no doubt, atrocities were committed because of the easy, literal interpretation of the Old Testament (there are no more Amalekites). So I take some issue with the notion that the religion itself bears no blame. For example, if the Qu'ran were exactly as it is, except that it did not contain the following passage, things would likely be marginally better for women:

Originally Posted by Sura 4:34

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

The belief that a scripture is the perfect word of God has behavioural consequences, is what I'm saying. From there, it follows that different scripture will have different behavioural consequences. This couldn't be better illustrated by the fact that fundamentalist Jains behave in a markedly different fashion from fundamentalist Muslims or Jews.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is true, but let's be fair, the holy texts - which are the basis for the religion - don't help matters much when they contain scripture that, literally interpreted, calls for atrocious behaviour. Just as, no doubt, atrocities were committed because of the easy, literal interpretation of the Old Testament (there are no more Amalekites). So I take some issue with the notion that the religion itself bears no blame. For example, if the Qu'ran were exactly as it is, except that it did not contain the following passage, things would likely be marginally better for women:


The belief that a scripture is the perfect word of God has behavioural consequences, is what I'm saying. From there, it follows that different scripture will have different behavioural consequences. This couldn't be better illustrated by the fact that fundamentalist Jains behave in a markedly different fashion from fundamentalist Muslims or Jews.

Fundamentalist Christians don't kill people because of wearing clothes made of two different fabrics only because they invented a way to invalidate old laws. It's not the book, it's the culture within the religion

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by polak

What about the lack of a central body of islam to denounce these attacks?

That probably has more to do with it. Allowing these dangerous interpretations of the same stories.

There is no "central body" governing Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism or any other religion really. They all interpret everything differently as well.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

There is no "central body" governing Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism or any other religion really. They all interpret everything differently as well.

That's not strictly true, different sects have central authorities, the pope, bishops etc.
Ironically Shia Islam has a much more centralized structure, their Imans are very much like our bishops and Shia Islam, like Ishmali's have no history of suicide bombing.

[afc wimbledon]

I think it's important to remember, in our outrage at a few hundred deaths in Europe that 'we' have blown up droned or generally caused half a million deaths in the Middle East in the last decade.

I don't say this to excuse these idiots but I do think we should dial back our sense of outrage, we in no uncertain terms planted this crop of morons.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

There is no "central body" governing Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism or any other religion really. They all interpret everything differently as well.

The Catholic Church still exerts a great deal of influence across Christianity.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Fundamentalist Christians don't kill people because of wearing clothes made of two different fabrics only because they invented a way to invalidate old laws. It's not the book, it's the culture within the religion

They used to - which, again, is why there are no Amalekites, why witches were burned, etc. The reason those specific things were done is because of what's in the book. Similarly, the reason that Christians have an objection to embryonic stem cell research and Muslims don't is because the Qu'ran stipulates that life begins some number of days after conception. Different beliefs have different behavioural consequences.

Certainly, cultural and historical development in the way those scriptures are taught and understood can moderate or adapt the practice of the religion. But the scripture is still part of it. No amount of cultural or historical moderation could alter Christian teaching to the extent that Christians come to practice under the belief that Jesus was NOT the son of God, for example.

Which goes to the next point - the process of moderation in practice ALSO depends on the specific teachings in the book. For example, "render under Ceasar what is Ceasar's" has done a ton of work in the way Christianity operates for most Christians. That's a scriptural tool that people interpreting and practicing the book can use to justify, for example, a respect for the separation of Church and State. That particular tool doesn't exist in Islam, and in fact the opposite is true, because it calls for governance according to a set of religiously imposed rules. Similarly, the New Testament provides scriptural tools for overriding some of the practices mandated in the Old Testament, which modern Christians are only too happy to avail themselves of. In Islam, the process of abrogation actually has the opposite effect by invalidating some of the more pleasant passages in favour of later, more morally questionable ones.

So it's not JUST the book, quite obviously, but it is in absolutely no small part the book. Specific doctrines have specific consequences.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I think it's important to remember, in our outrage at a few hundred deaths in Europe that 'we' have blown up droned or generally caused half a million deaths in the Middle East in the last decade.

I don't say this to excuse these idiots but I do think we should dial back our sense of outrage, we in no uncertain terms planted this crop of morons.

There it is again: 'we planted/created this'

No, 'we' did not.

Did we aid the process with our behavior? Yes. Have our actions facilitated its growth? Likely. Did we create, or 'plant' it? No.

The Islamic creed to eliminate infidels was not planted by the west. Some of the mental gymnastics displayed in this thread are astounding.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I think it's important to remember, in our outrage at a few hundred deaths in Europe that 'we' have blown up droned or generally caused half a million deaths in the Middle East in the last decade.

That 'caused' in your assertion carries some enormous assumptions - that there would have been no civil wars in Iraq or Syria without Western meddling, and that civilian casualties in war are morally equivalent to deliberately targeting of civilians.

There really is a difference between attacking military targets, trying to minimize civilians casualties, but causing civilian casualties anyway, and deliberating making every effort to maximize the number of civilians killed. If the West had the same goal as the jihadists - to maximize the number of civilians killed in a war between the West and Islam - the death toll in the Middle East would be in the millions.

At some point, we could see jihadists get their hands on biological weapons and kill millions. Would that stop the "but they do it too" false equivalence?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That 'caused' in your assertion carries some enormous assumptions - that there would have been no civil wars in Iraq or Syria without Western meddling, and that civilian casualties in war are morally equivalent to deliberately targeting of civilians.

There really is a difference between attacking military targets, trying to minimize civilians casualties, but causing civilian casualties anyway, and deliberating making every effort to maximize the number of civilians killed. If the West had the same goal as the jihadists - to maximize the number of civilians killed in a war between the West and Islam - the death toll in the Middle East would be in the millions.

At some point, we could see jihadists get their hands on biological weapons and kill millions. Would that stop the "but they do it too" false equivalence?

If we start a war, which we did in Iraq, it makes no difference if the civilians we killed in our aggressive actions were an accident, we are morally culpable for all of them just as much as the suicide bombers, we only get to hide behind 'it was an accident' if we didn't start the war.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

There's not a problem with the actual religion though. It's a problem within the Muslim faith. There are adequate reasons to cause mass casualties in most major religions and it happens from time to time. The problem is with current cultures within the religion and their dangerous interpretations. And with the fact were allowing them to propagate them

It's not just the faith, there's a part/sec of the actual religion that can't seem to evolve.

Example:

The Saudi's

[nik-]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

If we start a war, which we did in Iraq, it makes no difference if the civilians we killed in our aggressive actions were an accident, we are morally culpable for all of them just as much as the suicide bombers, we only get to hide behind 'it was an accident' if we didn't start the war.

but the war took the lid off pre-existing tensions, it didn't create them. "We" as the west are only responsible for removing a control, obviously with terrible consequences.

[Street Pharmacist]

Some good perspective on what's happening in Europe and how much fear there should be:

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by nik-

but the war took the lid off pre-existing tensions, it didn't create them. "We" as the west are only responsible for removing a control, obviously with terrible consequences.

'We' are responsible for 500,000 deaths alone in Iraq, I'm not talking about since we left, that's who we killed directly by bombing etc or indirectly, the absolute destruction of health care, sanitation, power and water.
'We' turned a reletively modern stable country into a medieval tribal theocracy.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by T@T

It's not just the faith, there's a part/sec of the actual religion that can't seem to evolve.

Example:

The Saudi's

Hey, leave the Saudi's alone. They're our allies.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

'We' are responsible for 500,000 deaths alone in Iraq, I'm not talking about since we left, that's who we killed directly by bombing etc or indirectly, the absolute destruction of health care, sanitation, power and water.
'We' turned a reletively modern stable country into a medieval tribal theocracy.

Yup, I don't really think you're going to get a rational argument that Iraq was a good decision.

It still didn't create the underlying problems. We didn't turn it into a medieval tribal theocracy, we removed the person that was preventing it from happening previously.

We created the situation where it could flourish, but the roots of sectarian violence were obviously there.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Some good perspective on what's happening in Europe and how much fear there should be:

Where is this data coming from?

Are these 1960s and 1970s UK attacks all IRA?

The numbers from this list of attacks in the UK certainly don't add up to the above showing hundreds killed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._Great_Britain