Explosion near Stadium in Paris, multiple shootings and hostage taking...

[blankall]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

That's very true, but like I said how many Mid-East based groups threaten India, isis talks more about Canada than it does about India. Look at that list, some attacks are by Sikh Nationalists, some are by Muslim Kashmir sympathizers, some are attacks by both Muslims and Hindus on each other, and some are by the the many independence movements within India. No either all these groups hate Hindus, or there are other, more significant political issues at play.

Al Queda threatens India all the time. In fact, they just launched a new branch of Al Queda to target India specifically:

http://theweek.com/speedreads/446947...es-jihad-india

ISIS has also made many threats towards India:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...w/48264942.cms

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by blankall

Al Queda threatens India all the time. In fact, they just launched a new branch of Al Queda to target India specifically:

http://theweek.com/speedreads/446947...es-jihad-india

ISIS has also made many threats towards India:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...w/48264942.cms

C'mon, you're going to spoil the emotionally satisfying narrative of colonial capitalist white countries getting their just desserts.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

C'mon, you're going to spoil the emotionally satisfying narrative of colonial capitalist white countries getting their just desserts.

It's more than a coincidence that these militant groups are at war with every nation that borders the Muslim world. It's definitely a gray area as to who is the aggressor. Yes, Western nations are bombing the Middle East. However, there are also groups who's agenda is clearly their own imperialist expansion, and would be attacking the West (and other bordering nations) regardless of any Western bombings.

It's a huge oversimplification to say that the Western world bombing the Middle East is the reason their are terrorist attacks. It's an extremely complex issue with a multitude of contributing factors.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I found this to be funny. Are you an expert on what is necessary and unnecessary in my life, as well as the lives of every other human being? Pretty lofty statement.

Saying religion is unnecessary is a simple statement of fact. Food, shelter, water, air - those are necessary. Religion isn't. What's funny about that?

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by blankall

Al Queda threatens India all the time. In fact, they just launched a new branch of Al Queda to target India specifically:

http://theweek.com/speedreads/446947...es-jihad-india

ISIS has also made many threats towards India:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...w/48264942.cms

Dude, I'm not saying that these groups don't talk about or threaten other countries, after all the stated goal of isis is to take over the world, I said that for example a group like isis threatens Canada MORE in its official videos/magazines/whatever than it does a country like India despite the fact that India is closer, has about a billion more non-Muslims, and actively is engaged in a region like Kashmir- I place more emphasis on that than some 32 page Urdu document found somewhere or a group talking big to gain some lost momentum.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

Dude, I'm not saying that these groups don't talk about or threaten other countries, after all the stated goal of isis is to take over the world, I said that for example a group like isis threatens Canada MORE in its official videos/magazines/whatever than it does a country like India despite the fact that India is closer, has about a billion more non-Muslims, and actively is engaged in a region like Kashmir- I place more emphasis on that than some 32 page Urdu document found somewhere or a group talking big to gain some lost momentum.

I really think you're downplaying the threat in India is all. India has consistently been a large target for terrorist groups like Al Queda. We just hear less about it, because India is further away and not part of Europe.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But if it has nothing to do with religion, why don't we see terrorists organizations sprouting from other regions of the world that have dysfunctional political systems, poverty, and post-colonial meddling, like sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and southeast Asia?

It takes a bad political climate and religious extremism to foster terrorism on this scale. And the two are connected - Muslims in the Middle East are trying to cope with the agonizing failure of their societies to reconcile their faith the modern world. Their political systems do not work. Their educational systems do not work (there have been almost no patents filed in the Arab world in the last 40 years). It's a culture in trauma. But that trauma won't be salved by killing Americans, Israelis, and French. The culture has to adapt, the way southeast Asia adapted and become prosperous, despite being mired in poverty 50 years ago. Some Muslims are adapting. Others (mainly in the Arab world) are not.

I would imagine the fact that none of these areas are oil rich is part of the equation. Dirt poor extremists in tiny villages in sub-Saharan Africa and poorer parts of Latin America aren't likely to stage much of an uprising. But when you have the West pouring billions into the pockets of Saudi Arabia, also then arming "militants" but not keeping especially close track of that weaponry once it's there...well it makes it much easier to start a terroristic uprising when you're funded handsomely and weapons are easy to come by.

Religion is part of it, politics is part of it, oil is part of it, history and colonialism are part of it. It's a giant cluster-eff of a situation, and we keep thinking we can fix it with troops and drones and firepower, but it just seems to toss more fuel on the fire.

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by blankall

I really think you're downplaying the threat in India is all. India has consistently been a large target for terrorist groups like Al Queda. We just hear less about it, because India is further away and not part of Europe.

I grew up in Pakistan, India has many threats but even in the heyday of AQ/Taliban there was some sporadic mention of India or China, but the main focus was always the "West". And today isis may touch upon these large countries here and there, but again the main focus is the West (and a lot more attention on Shias). And in my opinion it's because of two main factors, in order to fire up and motivate the base the threats are on those who are actively fighting and there's a certain jealousy of the West that is just not present for other areas of the world.

[GirlySports]

Anonymous has gotten involved since the Paris incident. Now tormenting ISIS with Rickrolls!

http://m.sfgate.com/weird/article/An...ls-6652449.php

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But if it has nothing to do with religion, why don't we see terrorists organizations sprouting from other regions of the world that have dysfunctional political systems, poverty, and post-colonial meddling, like sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and southeast Asia?

1) Let's remember that islamists being the main type of terrorists is a rather new phenomenon. Historically the main types have been extreme-right wing groups, extreme left wing groups, anarchists and separatists / independence fighters.

If it was actually Islam that made people prone to terrorism, we should see this pattern throughout history. But there is no such pattern, so clearly it can't be about Islam as such.

2) Sub-saharan Africa has tons of terrorist organizations. They just generally don't care about us in the West, which is why we don't hear from them. Latin Americans and Asians similarly are mostly going about their business of killing each other. Which is why we don't hear much about them.

But just because you don't see them in the headlines doesn't mean they're not out there.

3) While most terrorist organizations at the moment are islamists, this has a lot to do with the political process through which the terrorist label is applied. For example the Lord's Resistance Army (a bunch of supposed Christians in Uganda who like ISIS are also into beheadings and child sex-slavery) were never labeled terrorists.

In Central Africa anti-Muslim Christian militias, the have recently destroyed pretty much all the local mosques, committed numerous atrocities and driven out large parts of the local muslim population. Also not terrorists. Because they have no desire to kill Europeans in Europe. (To be fair though, there's also opposing Muslim militias there. It's a mess.)

And it's not like socialist and anarchist terrorism is completely gone. It's just that Greek radical anarchists firebombing luxury car dealers doesn't really grab our attention anymore. To put it bluntly, these days if nobody dies, nobody cares.

[Itse]

Let's try this from another angle.

I think few would deny that there is a popular brand of Islam right now that does encourage violence and martyrdom. However, Islam existed for hundreds of years without being any more (or less) violent other major religions (or atheists for that matter).

So while religion does play a part, it's not Islam in general that is the problem. It's the specific brand that is the problem. (There are actually names for it, but I forget.) So really blaming Islam is not so much wrong as it is simply inaccurate.

That inaccuracy is IMO however really harmful. It encourages fear and violence towards all Muslims, which is unfair and dangerous. Plus it directly benefits extremist groups such as ISIS.

That inaccurate language is also the biggest thing blocking constructive Western discussion of what exactly is the role of religion in that conflict. It's the language people use when they WANT war between Muslims and Christians. It's for example the language ISIS wants to use.

So seriously. If you're not deliberately trying to promote religious wars, don't talk like that.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Itse

1) Let's remember that islamists being the main type of terrorists is a rather new phenomenon. Historically the main types have been extreme-right wing groups, extreme left wing groups, anarchists and separatists / independence fighters.

If it was actually Islam that made people prone to terrorism, we should see this pattern throughout history. But there is no such pattern, so clearly it can't be about Islam as such.

2) Sub-saharan Africa has tons of terrorist organizations. They just generally don't care about us in the West, which is why we don't hear from them. Latin Americans and Asians similarly are mostly going about their business of killing each other. Which is why we don't hear much about them.

But just because you don't see them in the headlines doesn't mean they're not out there.

3) While most terrorist organizations at the moment are islamists, this has a lot to do with the political process through which the terrorist label is applied. For example the Lord's Resistance Army (a bunch of supposed Christians in Uganda who like ISIS are also into beheadings and child sex-slavery) were never labeled terrorists.

In Central Africa anti-Muslim Christian militias, the have recently destroyed pretty much all the local mosques, committed numerous atrocities and driven out large parts of the local muslim population. Also not terrorists. Because they have no desire to kill Europeans in Europe. (To be fair though, there's also opposing Muslim militias there. It's a mess.)

And it's not like socialist and anarchist terrorism is completely gone. It's just that Greek radical anarchists firebombing luxury car dealers doesn't really grab our attention anymore. To put it bluntly, these days if nobody dies, nobody cares.

You address this pretty well in point 3 above, but it is worth noting that, even though it's far from a comprehensive or exhaustive list, but of the 50 or so groups identified as Terrorist Entities on the Public Safety Canada website:

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/nt...-ntts-eng.aspx

at least 40 of them are Islamist, so ... there is that.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by driveway

You address this pretty well in point 3 above, but it is worth noting that, even though it's far from a comprehensive or exhaustive list, but of the 50 or so groups identified as Terrorist Entities on the Public Safety Canada website:

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/nt...-ntts-eng.aspx

at least 40 of them are Islamist, so ... there is that.

Absolutely, and even though there's a lot of politics involved in who gets listed as terrorists, there's no denying that right now islamists are the major player in international terrorism.

Btw, if you want to talk about religion and ISIS, the accurate branch of religion would apparently be Salafism (also known as Wahhabism) or most specifically Salafi Jihadism. Which is actually a very recent development.

[PostandIn]

Interesting reading in a couple Pew Research Reports:

What Muslims think about ISIS:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...dain-for-isis/

This one is hopeful to some degree.

What Muslims think about Islam:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/t...iety-overview/

This one amply demonstrates that liberals like Noam Chomsky and Ben Affleck and 'religious scholars' like Reza Aslan are either clueless about the core beliefs of many Muslims or are being deliberately obtuse in their public statements. For example, support for Sharia law in the middle east is very high. So is the belief that Allah is the source of human morality. Homosexuality is almost universally condemned. Women's rights are a mixed, but mostly bad, bag. Suicide bombing appears to be unpopular but must be particularly popular among jihadists. Stoning for adultery is mostly very popular and death for apostates is too.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by PostandIn

What Muslims think about Islam:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/t...iety-overview/

This one amply demonstrates that liberals like Noam Chomsky and Ben Affleck and 'religious scholars' like Reza Aslan are either clueless about the core beliefs of many Muslims or are being deliberately obtuse in their public statements. For example, support for Sharia law in the middle east is very high. So is the belief that Allah is the source of human morality. Homosexuality is almost universally condemned. Women's rights are a mixed, but mostly bad, bag. Suicide bombing appears to be unpopular but must be particularly popular among jihadists. Stoning for adultery is mostly very popular and death for apostates is too.

Other than the Sharia Law part, it sounds a little bit like Christianity.

[PostandIn]

Originally Posted by codynw

Other than the Sharia Law part, it sounds a little bit like Christianity.

Agreed, a little bit like Christianity. No Christians are killing apostates or stoning adulterers. That said, as an atheist, all religions could go away and the human race would be better off for it.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by PostandIn

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/t...iety-overview/

This one amply demonstrates that liberals like Noam Chomsky and Ben Affleck and 'religious scholars' like Reza Aslan are either clueless about the core beliefs of many Muslims or are being deliberately obtuse in their public statements. For example, support for Sharia law in the middle east is very high. So is the belief that Allah is the source of human morality. Homosexuality is almost universally condemned. Women's rights are a mixed, but mostly bad, bag. Suicide bombing appears to be unpopular but must be particularly popular among jihadists. Stoning for adultery is mostly very popular and death for apostates is too.

To be fair, bad attitudes towards homosexuality and women are really common among pretty much every major religion. (Although "everyone else is doing it too" isn't the greatest defense.)

Really those things started moving forward only after secularity became more of a thing in the West.

As some kind of a defense, let's talk about the Kurds again. They're majority Sunnis, but mostly rather secular. They've had women rulers in the 16th century and are nowadays relatively equalitarian. )Emphasis on the word "relatively" though. There are numerous really serious issues, such as female circumcisions and honor killings in Kurd culture. But still, it seems to me that if they had their own country and some peace, which is usually the best time to move forward issues that are not directly life threatening, human rights such as womens rights and gay rights could actually move forward there despite them being majority muslim.

In any case, IMO all that BS says more about religions in general than it says about Islam. (I'm by no means against religion, but I'm no big fan either.)

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by codynw

Other than the Sharia Law part, it sounds a little bit like Christianity.

Really?

You really don't think there's a difference between 93 per cent of people believing homosexuality is unacceptable and 31 per cent believing it's unacceptable? Or a population where 94 per cent believe sex outside of marriage is immoral and a population where 30 per cent do?

Do you really think 87 per cent of Christians believe a wife must always obey her husband?

Numbers matter.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Really?

You really don't think there's a difference between 93 per cent of people believing homosexuality is unacceptable and 31 per cent believing it's unacceptable? Or a population where 94 per cent believe sex outside of marriage is immoral and a population where 30 per cent do?

Do you really think 87 per cent of Christians believe a wife must always obey her husband?

Numbers matter.

Calm down. I didn't say "this is identical to Christianity!" Just saying there are similarities.

[Itse]

From what I've understood, Sharia Law can mean really different things to different muslims. Although I have no idea on what exactly that scale is.