Pakistan Park Attack Targeting Christians Kills 65, Mostly Children

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

A Belgian film and theater director named Ismaël Saidi has written a succinct, heartfelt response to a troubling question that Muslims often hear after an Islamist terrorist attack: “Why aren’t Muslims condemning the terrorist attacks en masse?” Saidi, who was born in Belgium to Moroccan parents, published his riposte on Facebook, where it was liked more than 15,000 times, and the Belgian newspaper La Libre has reprinted it. Saidi gave Slate permission to publish the post as well. My rough translation, which is hopefully a little more idiomatic than Facebook’s automatic translation, is below.

“Why aren’t Muslims taking to the streets en masse to condemn the attacks?”

Because we’re driving the taxis that have been taking the population home for free since yesterday …

Because we’re caring for the wounded in hospitals …

Because we’re driving the ambulances that are racing through the streets like shooting stars to try to save what life remains in us …

Because we’re at the reception desks of the hotels that have been welcoming onlookers for free since yesterday …

Because we’re driving the buses, the trams, and the subway cars so that life can continue, though wounded …

Because we’re still looking for criminals in our police, investigator, and magistrate outfits …

Because we’re crying for our dead, too …

Because we are no more spared than anyone else …

Because we are doubly, triply bruised …

Because the same faith produced the executioner and the victim …

Because we’re groggy, lost, and we’re trying to understand …

Because we spent the night on our doorstep waiting for a person who won’t come back again …

Because we’re counting our dead …

Because we’re in mourning …

The rest is only silence …

I don't really care what people say. Words are easy. Condemning is easy. I care about what they do. Obviously, there's nothing most Muslims can do about terrorist attacks. But for each active jihadi, there has to be 10 or more people feeding or hiding them. Thousands who shake their heads but do nothing more when a nephew talks about going to Syria. Tens of thousands attending mosques where hatred of the West and infidels is preached. Those are the next layers out. So those people are either radicals themselves (which means radicalism is a lot more widespread than a lot of people like to admit), or they're moderates who disapprove of the radicals, but not enough to actually do something about it, like call the police or have an imam removed from a mosque.

The IRA wasn't neutralized until those Catholics who had previously kept their mouths shut out of solidarity with their kind in the struggle against the hated Proddies started denying them any support, even the passive support of not turning in a cousin or a neighbour. Cousins, neighbours, and friends need to start pointing out the fanatics in their midst and bringing in the police to deal with them.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

EDIT: The quote from Traditional Ale didn't seem to work.

Very eloquent, but I am not sure it really answers the question that Cliff posed.

I think each of those lines are undoubtedly true, in particular the one about the faith producing both the executioner and the victim. This is what is most confusing to many.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Itse

Saying that at this point only underlines that you are an idiot or a bigot who is being deliberately obtuse so you can hold on to your incredibly stupid worldview.

You don't even deserve an answer, because this topic is seriously talked to death. You deserve to be mocked, and you should just shut up while adults are talking.

I was going to give this post the attention it deserves - which is none - but it's important to challenge people who cry bigotry whenever someone else disagrees with them about the nature of a problem.

If I was a bigot, I would not have said the front-line in this struggle is between moderate Muslims and radical Islamicists. I would have said the struggle is between all Muslims and the West. I would have said this is a clash of civilizations. I would have said Canada should not allow Muslim immigrants into this country. Bigots say all of those things. And I express my disagreement every time they do.

Next time you feel like using an ad hominen attack to shout down someone you disagree with, maybe offer your own considered opinion instead. I may not agree with it, but I'll let you say your piece and treat it as an opinion a reasonable person can hold.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I don't really care what people say. Words are easy. Condemning is easy. I care about what they do. Obviously, there's nothing most Muslims can do about terrorist attacks. But for each active jihadi, there has to be 10 or more people feeding or hiding them. Thousands who shake their heads but do nothing more when a nephew talks about going to Syria. Tens of thousands attending mosques where hatred of the West and infidels is preached. Those are the next layers out. So those people are either radicals themselves (which means radicalism is a lot more widespread than a lot of people like to admit), or they're moderates who disapprove of the radicals, but not enough to actually do something about it, like call the police or have an imam removed from a mosque.

The IRA wasn't neutralized until those Catholics who had previously kept their mouths shut out of solidarity with their kind in the struggle against the hated Proddies started denying them any support, even the passive support of not turning in a cousin or a neighbour. Cousins, neighbours, and friends need to start pointing out the fanatics in their midst and bringing in the police to deal with them.

What spurred Catholics to reject violence though was the fact that their legitimate grievances were addressed (or at least promised to be addressed) politically.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

What spurred Catholics to reject violence though was the fact that their legitimate grievances were addressed (or at least promised to be addressed) politically.

Yeah, it's a different situation. I don't see a grievance here that can be addressed.
"Infidels must be killed or enslaved!"
"Uhhh, we will guarantee your right to worship and give you at least 25% of seats in parliament"
"Sold!"

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I don't really care what people say. Words are easy. Condemning is easy. I care about what they do. Obviously, there's nothing most Muslims can do about terrorist attacks. But for each active jihadi, there has to be 10 or more people feeding or hiding them. Thousands who shake their heads but do nothing more when a nephew talks about going to Syria. Tens of thousands attending mosques where hatred of the West and infidels is preached. Those are the next layers out. So those people are either radicals themselves (which means radicalism is a lot more widespread than a lot of people like to admit), or they're moderates who disapprove of the radicals, but not enough to actually do something about it, like call the police or have an imam removed from a mosque.

The IRA wasn't neutralized until those Catholics who had previously kept their mouths shut out of solidarity with their kind in the struggle against the hated Proddies started denying them any support, even the passive support of not turning in a cousin or a neighbour. Cousins, neighbours, and friends need to start pointing out the fanatics in their midst and bringing in the police to deal with them.

I mean this sincerely, but what do you actually propose that a regular Muslim like myself should do? I mean most of us are just leading regular lives and working and the terrorists don't shout from the rooftops that they're about to do something.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Yeah, it's a different situation. I don't see a grievance here that can be addressed.
"Infidels must be killed or enslaved!"
"Uhhh, we will guarantee your right to worship and give you at least 25% of seats in parliament"
"Sold!"

Much like in N Ireland you can't address the grievances of the extremists but there are things we can do as 'the west' to answer moderates concerns, altering our unquestioned support of Isreal when they have acted like ######s for a couple of decades would be a start.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

I mean this sincerely, but what do you actually propose that a regular Muslim like myself should do? I mean most of us are just leading regular lives and working and the terrorists don't shout from the rooftops that they're about to do something.

I think ratting out your neighbour, or better yet, your dad, would show your true commitment to the Party. Just think Soviet Union circa 1937. Come on, make the call.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

I mean this sincerely, but what do you actually propose that a regular Muslim like myself should do? I mean most of us are just leading regular lives and working and the terrorists don't shout from the rooftops that they're about to do something.

I mean, you don't have to do anything. But that link I posted earlier, those folks could probably use your support, even if it's just expressing solidarity. I'm not with CliffFletcher, I do in fact care what people say. A reasoned conversation on these topics will in fact help.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

I mean this sincerely, but what do you actually propose that a regular Muslim like myself should do? I mean most of us are just leading regular lives and working and the terrorists don't shout from the rooftops that they're about to do something.

Nothing! Live your life! Why should you as a Muslim really even have to think about having an answer for terrorism?

Let's take a look at Cliff's math here, with the assumption being there are approximately 106,000 Muslims involved in jihadist groups (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/26/opinio...any-jihadists/).

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Condemning is easy. I care about what they do. Obviously, there's nothing most Muslims can do about terrorist attacks.

Let's see what 'most' means. There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world...

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But for each active jihadi, there has to be 10 or more people feeding or hiding them.

10 or more seems very high per jihadi, but let's say 10.

11 X 106,000 = 1,166,000

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Thousands who shake their heads but do nothing more when a nephew talks about going to Syria.

Thousands = >10,000 (we'll say 9,999 to push it)

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Tens of thousands attending mosques where hatred of the West and infidels is preached.

Tens of thousands = 99,999

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Those are the next layers out. So those people are either radicals themselves (which means radicalism is a lot more widespread than a lot of people like to admit), or they're moderates who disapprove of the radicals, but not enough to actually do something about it, like call the police or have an imam removed from a mosque.

1,166,000 + 9,999 + 99,999 = 1,275,998

1,275,998 / 1,600,000,000 = 0.000797

So... rounding up... 0.08% of Muslims make up the amount of the population that we should either be concerned about as radicals, or angry about as moderates.

You? You're probably in the 99.92% of Muslims who have absolutely zero responsibility for anything terrorism related and can go on living your life like most Muslims ought to be able to: peacefully and without random English dudes asking you to explain Brussels.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

I mean this sincerely, but what do you actually propose that a regular Muslim like myself should do? I mean most of us are just leading regular lives and working and the terrorists don't shout from the rooftops that they're about to do something.

When I say regular Muslims need to take action, I don't mean every regular Muslim. If you don't attend a mosque where the imam promotes Sharia law, or don't know anyone who is being seduced by ISIS propoganda, there's little you can do. But there has to be some contact between the radicals and some regular Muslims. They don't exist in another world. They live and breathe in the same communities.

Imagine a series of concentric circles. At the centre are the jihadis who carry out terrorist attacks. The next circle out are their active supporters, who fund and train and house them. The next circle out are those who preach the ideology if jihad and ultra-conservatism. The next circle out are those who tolerate the ideology of jihad and ultra-conservatism, even if they take no action. And so on. So at which of those circles does radical Islamicists end and regular Muslims begin? They have to touch somewhere.

Another question. If moderate Muslims can do nothing to oppose the violent radicals in their communities, who can? Do you think this is a struggle that can be won solely with government intelligence and policing? And even there, isn't there some role for regular Muslims in sharing intelligence and aiding police?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You? You're probably in the 99.92% of Muslims who have absolutely zero responsibility for anything terrorism related and can go on living your life like most Muslims ought to be able to: peacefully and without random English dudes asking you to explain Brussels.

Obviously I'm not explaining myself clearly. I believe that while intelligence agencies, police, and in some cases the military, can sometimes prevent and deter acts of terrorism, there's little they can do to drain the ideological swamps that breed new radicals. Our best hope is for moderate Muslims to reject the zealots in their communities. Because without communities to support them, the Islamicists cannot draw new recruits.

Now you're up: what are your suggestions for combating a violent fundamentalist ideology with a global capacity for terrorism?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

0.08% of Muslims make up the amount of the population that we should either be concerned about as radicals, or angry about as moderates.

You cannot possibly believe your own math here.

There are literally tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of conservative muslims who say they're in favour of killing anyone who leaves the religion. Similar numbers who support either flogging or amputation as punishments for theft, or death by stoning for adulterers. That's certainly not the case in Canada, or Western Europe, but even in Malaysia or Indonesia this is a widely held set of views, based on available polling data.

What qualifies as "moderate" or "radical" to you?

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

When I say regular Muslims need to take action, I don't mean every regular Muslim. If you don't attend a mosque where the imam promotes Sharia law, or don't know anyone who is being seduced by ISIS propoganda, there's little you can do. But there has to be some contact between the radicals and some regular Muslims. They don't exist in another world. They live and breathe in the same communities.

Imagine a series of concentric circles. At the centre are the jihadis who carry out terrorist attacks. The next circle out are their active supporters, who fund and train and house them. The next circle out are those who preach the ideology if jihad and ultra-conservatism. The next circle out are those who tolerate the ideology of jihad and ultra-conservatism, even if they take no action. And so on. So at which of those circles does radical Islamicists end and regular Muslims begin? They have to touch somewhere.

Another question. If moderate Muslims can do nothing to oppose the violent radicals in their communities, who can? Do you think this is a struggle that can be won solely with government intelligence and policing? And even there, isn't there some role for regular Muslims in sharing intelligence and aiding police?

The thing is, the internet has decentralized everything- now someone can go online and be radicalized by someone thousands of miles away and find out how to carry out an attack in secret. To answer your question, there's actually very little a moderate can do. They can spread a message of peace, but there'll always some guy out there online telling them to ignore the "sellouts".

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Obviously I'm not explaining myself clearly. I believe that while intelligence agencies, police, and in some cases the military, can sometimes prevent and deter acts of terrorism, there's little they can do to drain the ideological swamps that breed new radicals. Our best hope is for moderate Muslims to reject the zealots in their communities. Because without communities to support them, the Islamicists cannot draw new recruits.



Now you're up: what are your suggestions for combating a violent fundamentalist ideology with a global capacity for terrorism?

Maybe you're involved with anti-terrorism efforts or the Muslim community and have the appropriate knowledge to be making suggestions for how to fix the problem. I don't. Your solution is clear cut but ignores the factors outside of the teachings of Islam that drives people to extremism.

I just think your use of the term "moderate Muslim" is empty. Some think it's a term bred from islamophobia. What's a "moderate Muslim" to you? In most circles, you'd call that a typical Muslim person and I see them speaking out constantly. A typical Muslim, the majority, does not support extremism. Who are you calling for action from?

[nik-]

I personally think that anyone who supports any of the tenets of the religion that impact other people's lives is not moderate. People who support Sharia are not moderate. People who support penalties for leaving the religion are not moderate. People who have any level of support for a caliphate are not moderate. People who want to align behind their religion as a political force are not moderate. People who think that homosexuals should have less rights are not moderate.

It's not just supporting extremism or not. "Moderate" isn't a statement relative to other believers, it's relative to modern secular societies.

To add, I think a large portion of the problem is baked into the religion and can't be separated. Namely the finality and perfection and the lack of separation between state and religion.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

The thing is, the internet has decentralized everything- now someone can go online and be radicalized by someone thousands of miles away and find out how to carry out an attack in secret. To answer your question, there's actually very little a moderate can do. They can spread a message of peace, but there'll always some guy out there online telling them to ignore the "sellouts".

I have to say, I've noticed particularly a growing wave of support and influence for people like Maajid Nawaz, Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, Asra Nomani, Sarah Haider, Ali Rizvi (though the last two are ex-Muslims) who are committed to reforming their religion and opposing elements within it that are violent, sure, but also those that are out of step with values of secularism and human rights. So there's certainly something they can do, and are doing, and you could engage in that conversation. If you want to, that is. I don't want to make this into some moral imperative, but I do think that would qualify as doing something positive.

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I have to say, I've noticed particularly a growing wave of support and influence for people like Maajid Nawaz, Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, Asra Nomani, Sarah Haider, Ali Rizvi (though the last two are ex-Muslims) who are committed to reforming their religion and opposing elements within it that are violent, sure, but also those that are out of step with values of secularism and human rights. So there's certainly something they can do, and are doing, and you could engage in that conversation. If you want to, that is. I don't want to make this into some moral imperative, but I do think that would qualify as doing something positive.

Won't make that much of a difference in terrorism, in fact some of these people are used as examples of the need to fight to save the religion. In my opinion, the two things that will show some real impact are 1) beating or greatly reducing the land of Isis which shows that you are on a losing team 2) Solving conflicts like Israel/Palestine

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You cannot possibly believe your own math here.

My math was based on Cliff's numbers regarding Muslims with direct connection to extremism, those he felt had a duty of action. Impact related, not belief related.

I am flattered by the attention you shower me with though. Taken and I don't date guys who just like arguing with me, but flattered

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Much like in N Ireland you can't address the grievances of the extremists but there are things we can do as 'the west' to answer moderates concerns, altering our unquestioned support of Isreal when they have acted like ######s for a couple of decades would be a start.

Hamas is no different than ISIS. Israel needs our support, as do Palestinians, and with a goal of zero violence. Hamas is a legit political party representing Palestinians - their charter calls for the death of all Jews. But certainly you gloss over that.

I join the fray here every time someone figures out a bad reason to rationalize terrorist attacks against Israel. As I keep repeating in assorted threads here, how about we condemn unprovoked Palestinian violence? How many stabbings have to take place or rockets fired (already this year)? Some of you condemn Isis yet turn around and rationalize Hamas.

If Hamas had zero support for violence, then perhaps they would try something different (right now they have political relationships with assorted countries). Same goes for ISIS, pure condemnation, across the board, across the world, not just governments, but the citizens as well.