The failure of Liberalism (Regressive left) to deal with Islam

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

What studies?? I find this an incredible claim. Mormon terrorists? Buddhist terrorists? Sikh terrorism?

Wait, MORMON terrorism? Ludicrous claim. Absolutely ludicrous.

The more I read about this crap the less I identify as being a progressive. No wonder last few years I've felt like a man without a country... small L liberals are being replaced by progressives.

Your lack of knowledge is absolutely ludicrous.

Do you know what terrorism means?

There are Buddhist terrorists and Sikh terrorists. Ask the Muslims in India about Sikh terrorism..and the Rohingya people in Burma about Buddhist terrorism. Maybe even the minorities in China can tell you more about Buddhist terrorism?

The more I read crap from idiots like yourself the more I believe this isnt a matter of opinion but rather a test of knowledge and understanding of the global political/religious systems. Some dummy with no knowledge of the world watches a few hours of FOX news and a couple youtube videos and thinks the only terrorism on earth is done by Muslims. Then they take a step and couple the fact that a lot of global terrorism is done by Islamists -with their idea that Islam as a religion is the only source for terrorism world-wide.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Jesus. You guys should go outside. It's nice.

I am outside.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by nik-

Do you honestly believe the people driving these movements aren't familiar with their religion? Not every foot soldiers but the leadership and a large component of the fighters. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is an islamic scholar. Al-Zawahiri was devout since he was a child.

You're basically ignoring what they themselves are stating in order to deflect the possibility that they are finding their path in their religious texts.

I think misunderstand my point. It's not that there are no religiously motivated terrorists who truly believe that what they do is the the gods will. Of course there are. That just does not mean that there is something about the general faith of Islam that creates them, in comparison to other mainstream religions and many secular ideologies (such as nationalism, fascism and communism).

It's also not that there's no s*** parts in Islamic texts. It's that it doesn't seem to make a difference in comparison to other religions. According to science. I'm not just making this stuff up.

IMO it's also relevant that pretty much all these new radical Islamist terrorist organizations follow a single relatively small fundamentalist branch of Islam called Wahhabism (or Salafism), which is a relatively recent development within Islam.

Many in the Muslim world are saying that Wahhabism is a genuine problem, and that I tend to agree with. And btw, I do think that the kind of people in the west who know enough about Islam to make that disctinction also tend to be the kind of liberals that are super uncomfortable about the idea of blaming a certain branch of religion.

But then again, I think a larger reason for why there is no major discussion on Wahhabism in the west is that most people don't know enough or don't care to make that distinction.

As for the bold. What? This is just patently dishonest.

That claim is backed by a paper on the commonly shared views of the scientific community in this topic that I linked to this thread. It's not my opinion, I was simply pointing out a fact.

You can of course claim that the research must be wrong. I agree that this is a possibility.

I'm sure you'll relink your picture of the terrorists deaths in Europe again implying that Basque terrorists, IRA etc were just as bad because many people were killed by them. Which totally ignores the disparity in comparable timespans (40+ years compared to like 20)

It was a decade-by-decade presentation, so I fail to see how what you say is possible.

and the radical advances in surveillance and technology.

According to the US governments own analysis...

(as reported here for example)

NSA's dragnet domestic surveillance "had no discernible impact" on preventing terrorist acts. Instead, the majority of threats over the last decade were detected by regular old intelligence and law enforcement methods—tips, informants, CIA and FBI ops, routine law enforcement.

It also ignores that the majority of attacks come in the Muslim world itself.

This is true. However, that strengthens my point.

You can argue that the increase of Muslims is a reason why terrorism has increased in Europe, and that it proves that there is something wrong with Islam.

However, that same explanation can not possibly be true for the Muslim world. They've all been Muslims for hundreds of years. There must be something else going on there.

(Plus let's remember there has been no shortage of terrorism in the Middle East at least since the Zionists started to fight for control of Palestine in the 1920's.)

[Crumpy-Gunt]

No Itse. This is all happening in a vacuum. There are no causes and underlying reasons for the rise in global fundamental Islamist terrorism since the 20s. Islam and the Quran are the only cause for all of this. You are sympathizing with terrorists! They are jealous of our freedoms! They do this because of the Quran and all terrorists are religious experts. The discovery of oil, Zionism, the cold war and Western foreign policy have nothing to do with this. Their religion tells them to kill all of us infidels and the DAMN regressive left is too weak and stupid to deal with these barbarians!! Stop trying to make sense of it. They are evil and they want to rape our children. They want to rape our grandmothers! Obama is one of them!

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Jesus. You guys should go outside. It's nice.

I'm sick and the kid is hogging the TV because she can't get enough of the olympics.

I don't have much else to do

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

Your lack of knowledge is absolutely ludicrous.

Do you know what terrorism means?

There are Buddhist terrorists and Sikh terrorists. Ask the Muslims in India about Sikh terrorism..and the Rohingya people in Burma about Buddhist terrorism. Maybe even the minorities in China can tell you more about Buddhist terrorism?

The more I read crap from idiots like yourself the more I believe this isnt a matter of opinion but rather a test of knowledge and understanding of the global political/religious systems. Some dummy with no knowledge of the world watches a few hours of FOX news and a couple youtube videos and thinks the only terrorism on earth is done by Muslims. Then they take a step and couple the fact that a lot of global terrorism is done by Islamists -with their idea that Islam as a religion is the only source for terrorism world-wide.

Enlighten me with examples of Mormon terrorism. Lol.

edit: There's a lot of goal post moving going on here too. I am suggesting that the idea that all religions equally are responsible for terrorism and there's no difference between the religions is beyond stupid. The fact there's push back on this demonstrates how bereft progressives are with morale high ground. I'm actually somewhat stupefied anyone would have the balls to write something like that; that Islam and Mormonism have an equal history of terrorism. Just turn your computer off. Seriously.

Originally Posted by Itse

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

Hey what's that make the score for acts of terror for Islam vs Mormonism?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Enlighten me with examples of Mormon terrorism. Lol.

They terrorize my door every Saturday.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Enlighten me with examples of Mormon terrorism. Lol.

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

The Mountain Meadows massacre was a series of attacks on the Baker–Fancher emigrant wagon train, at Mountain Meadows in southern Utah. The attacks began on September 7 and culminated on September 11, 1857, resulting in the mass slaughter of the emigrant party by members of the Utah Territorial Militia from the Iron County district, together with some Paiute Native Americans. The militia, officially called the Nauvoo Legion, was composed of southern Utah's Mormon settlers (members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the LDS Church). Intending to leave no witnesses and thus prevent reprisals, the perpetrators killed all the adults and older children—about 120 men, women, and children in total.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I'm actually somewhat stupefied anyone would have the balls to write something like that; that Islam and Mormonism have an equal history of terrorism.

No one has written that except for you.

To begin with, there are about 15 million Mormons, almost all of whom live in the rich and peaceful western countries. There are about 1.5 billion Muslims, most of whom live in Middle-East, Africa and Southern / Southeast Asia.

More importantly, it's not actually statistical argument. But I'm not going to start quoting every damned piece of research on the topic here. Instead of ranting that "this is unpossible and you must be an idiot for believing in it", look it up and make up your own mind. Don't shoot the messenger.

(Okay actually shoot Crumpy-Gunt all you want. He has chosen his poison. I really wish he'd tone it down myself.)

I'll be the first to say that it's not a hard science.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Itse

No one has written that except for you.

To begin with, there are about 15 million Mormons, almost all of whom live in the rich and peaceful western countries. There are about 1.5 billion Muslims, most of whom live in Middle-East, Africa and Southern / Southeast Asia.

More importantly, it's not actually statistical argument. But I'm not going to start quoting every damned piece of research on the topic here. Instead of ranting that "this is unpossible and you must be an idiot for believing in it", look it up and make up your own mind. Don't shoot the messenger.

(Okay actually shoot Crumpy-Gunt all you want. He has chosen his poison. I really wish he'd tone it down myself.)

I'll be the first to say that it's not a hard science.

You made the claim I'm seeking more clarity on. Common sense says your claim isn't true.

- Studies have found no difference in any of the major religions tendency to produce terrorists. In fact they have not even found religions to be any different from secular ideologies in that regard.

Which studies? Which data? I'd love to see any study or data that shows that Islam and Mormonism produce the same # of terrorists. In one post you say that this study exists, yet, just now you're saying that you can't be bothered to produce that data. Which is it?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

In one post you say that this study exists, yet, just now you're saying that you can't be bothered to produce that data. Which is it?

Where exactly did I say that?

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

Your lack of knowledge is absolutely ludicrous.

Do you know what terrorism means?

There are Buddhist terrorists and Sikh terrorists. Ask the Muslims in India about Sikh terrorism..and the Rohingya people in Burma about Buddhist terrorism. Maybe even the minorities in China can tell you more about Buddhist terrorism?

The more I read crap from idiots like yourself the more I believe this isnt a matter of opinion but rather a test of knowledge and understanding of the global political/religious systems. Some dummy with no knowledge of the world watches a few hours of FOX news and a couple youtube videos and thinks the only terrorism on earth is done by Muslims. Then they take a step and couple the fact that a lot of global terrorism is done by Islamists -with their idea that Islam as a religion is the only source for terrorism world-wide.

1) Thanks, always nice to be called an idiot
2) I hate Fox News
3) I don't think the only terrorism on Earth happens by Muslims


10/10 post tho

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Itse

Where exactly did I say that?

In a couple places

Originally Posted by Itse

No one has written that except for you.

To begin with, there are about 15 million Mormons, almost all of whom live in the rich and peaceful western countries. There are about 1.5 billion Muslims, most of whom live in Middle-East, Africa and Southern / Southeast Asia.

More importantly, it's not actually statistical argument. But I'm not going to start quoting every damned piece of research on the topic here. Instead of ranting that "this is unpossible and you must be an idiot for believing in it", look it up and make up your own mind. Don't shoot the messenger.

(Okay actually shoot Crumpy-Gunt all you want. He has chosen his poison. I really wish he'd tone it down myself.)

I'll be the first to say that it's not a hard science.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Enlighten me with examples of Mormon terrorism. Lol.

edit: There's a lot of goal post moving going on here too. I am suggesting that the idea that all religions equally are responsible for terrorism and there's no difference between the religions is beyond stupid. The fact there's push back on this demonstrates how bereft progressives are with morale high ground. I'm actually somewhat stupefied anyone would have the balls to write something like that; that Islam and Mormonism have an equal history of terrorism. Just turn your computer off. Seriously.



Hey what's that make the score for acts of terror for Islam vs Mormonism?

The only person moving the goal posts here is you.

Itse said "- Studies have found no difference in any of the major religions tendency to produce terrorists. In fact they have not even found religions to be any different from secular ideologies in that regard."

You responded with "What studies?? I find this an incredible claim. Mormon terrorists? Buddhist terrorists? Sikh terrorism?

Wait, MORMON terrorism? Ludicrous claim. Absolutely ludicrous."

I provided examples of Sikh and Buddhist terrorism, and Itse shared one on Mormon terrroism. Now you want to change the discussion to Islam vs Mormonism in terrorism ''score''. Nobody is talking about the amounts of people killed by Mormons (a small denomination) or the amount of Mormon terrorists. Not that Mormon even qualifies for this discussion as the study refers to the major religions. If you want to discuss Christian terrorism vs Muslim terrorism thats another thing. But you wont because the study is right when it comes to the fact that there is no real difference in the tendency of major religions and secular ideologies to produce terrorists.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

In a couple places

What part of "It's not a statistical argument" did you not understand?

But again, here's an easy-to-digest summary of the main lines of consensus in the research on radicalization. Feel free to dig deeper into the individual studies yourself, if you feel that the consensus must be wrong. (Or that this summary must misrepresent the consensus.)


http://www.radicalisationresearch.or...2012-causes-2/

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Itse

What part of "It's not a statistical argument" did you not understand?

But again, here's an easy-to-digest summary of the main lines of consensus in the research on radicalization. Feel free to dig deeper into the individual studies yourself, if you feel that the consensus must be wrong. (Or that this summary must misrepresent the consensus.)

http://www.radicalisationresearch.or...2012-causes-2/

I assumed any study would include actual data.

Otherwise what are they basing their conclusion on? Opinions are fun. Facts are facts...if you researched acts of terrorism going back a century do you really think the per capita for Muslims being terrorists would be equal or close to Mormons?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I assumed any study would include actual data.

Otherwise what are they basing their conclusion on? Opinions are fun. Facts are facts...if you researched acts of terrorism going back a century do you really think the per capita for Muslims being terrorists would be equal or close to Mormons?

If you feel like debating the scientific consensus, I encourage you to look up the original research. If you throw an email at the guy who wrote that summary, or someone at that journal, they might be interested in helping you. As will any good university library.

I do however warn you that there is actually more to science than adding up numbers.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Itse

If you feel like debating the scientific consensus, I encourage you to look up the original research. If you throw an email at the guy who wrote that summary, or someone at that journal, they might be interested in helping you. As will any good university library.

I do however warn you that there is actually more to science than adding up numbers.

This is a fairly flaccid argument. Of course science is more than numbers. But we're literally taking about numbers here. You can't apply opinions and feelings in substitution of numbers. Either Islam has a higher number of terrorists per believer or they don't. We aren't debating art or philosophy here.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Itse

I think misunderstand my point. It's not that there are no religiously motivated terrorists who truly believe that what they do is the the gods will. Of course there are. That just does not mean that there is something about the general faith of Islam that creates them, in comparison to other mainstream religions and many secular ideologies (such as nationalism, fascism and communism).

It's also not that there's no s*** parts in Islamic texts. It's that it doesn't seem to make a difference in comparison to other religions. According to science. I'm not just making this stuff up.

IMO it's also relevant that pretty much all these new radical Islamist terrorist organizations follow a single relatively small fundamentalist branch of Islam called Wahhabism (or Salafism), which is a relatively recent development within Islam.

Many in the Muslim world are saying that Wahhabism is a genuine problem, and that I tend to agree with. And btw, I do think that the kind of people in the west who know enough about Islam to make that disctinction also tend to be the kind of liberals that are super uncomfortable about the idea of blaming a certain branch of religion.

But then again, I think a larger reason for why there is no major discussion on Wahhabism in the west is that most people don't know enough or don't care to make that distinction.



That claim is backed by a paper on the commonly shared views of the scientific community in this topic that I linked to this thread. It's not my opinion, I was simply pointing out a fact.

You can of course claim that the research must be wrong. I agree that this is a possibility.



It was a decade-by-decade presentation, so I fail to see how what you say is possible.



According to the US governments own analysis...

(as reported here for example)





This is true. However, that strengthens my point.

You can argue that the increase of Muslims is a reason why terrorism has increased in Europe, and that it proves that there is something wrong with Islam.

However, that same explanation can not possibly be true for the Muslim world. They've all been Muslims for hundreds of years. There must be something else going on there.

(Plus let's remember there has been no shortage of terrorism in the Middle East at least since the Zionists started to fight for control of Palestine in the 1920's.)

I would really like to see these studies that claim there is no difference between religions when it comes to producing terrorists.

Wahhabism isn't new at all, so I'm not sure where you got that from. The widespread existence of it may be relatively new. There's also plenty of discussion on Wahhabism, including in the past on this very board. It's also not the only major inspiration. It wasn't for Al Qaeda, that was Qutb and he wasn't Wahhabist. His ideology was just anti-western way of life.

You concede that there are #### parts in Islamic texts. Do you agree or disagree that these parts should be totally open to public criticism?

That claim is backed by a paper on the commonly shared views of the scientific community in this topic that I linked to this thread. It's not my opinion, I was simply pointing out a fact.

You can of course claim that the research must be wrong. I agree that this is a possibility.

Can you repoint me to this? I must have missed it wading through all the crap vitriol that other poster was spewing.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

This is a fairly flaccid argument. Of course science isn't more than numbers. But we're literally taking about numbers here. You can't apply opinions and feelings in substitution of numbers. Either Islam has a higher number of terrorists per believer or they don't. We aren't debating art or philosophy here.

What? No. We literally are not.

I'm sorry that this is so difficult for you, but it seems we're at a point where I would have to start explaining what science is, and that's just too much to ask. This is not my problem.