What? Now, we literally are not talking about numbers here. I'm sorry if this is too complicated for you, but literally that is just not what anyone else is talking about than you.
I'm sorry that this is so difficult for you, but I'm honestly just getting too tired to explain it to you again.
It's all there in the thread anyway. If you can't understand it, then you just can't. It's not my problem.
It is numbers. Don't be dense. We're taking about per capita terrorism of major religions. You just don't want to explore that data because it exposes how stupid your claim is.
With the abandonment of modern secularism by Turkey - until recently the great hope that a Muslim nation could be compatible with liberal secular democracy - I don't know how anyone could fail to acknowledge that Islamic societies are experiencing agonizing trauma trying to adapt to the modern world.
And Turkey's backsliding cannot be blamed on the bogeyman of oil or imperialism. The Ottoman's ran much of the Middle East for centuries, and were never colonized. They produced their own secular reformers who looked to the West, and for a while looked as though they were an examplar that the rest of the countries in the region might hope to follow. That's finished. Now Turkey is another country turning its back on the 20th and 21st centuries, trying to wind back the clock, and looking to their faith to guide them in all matters of public policy.
So what is going on?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
You concede that there are #### parts in Islamic texts. Do you agree or disagree that these parts should be totally open to public criticism?
Yes.
I think it's a fools errand, just as picking apart Bible quotes is for the most part pointless. I mean, would you suggest that a critical reading of the Bible would be helpful in fighting modern Christian radicalism and terrorism?
But I don't think you need to care what I think
Quote:
Can you repoint me to this?
Note that it's a summary of what is considered consensus by one academic, not a study in itself. There are very few citations unfortunately, so you're going to have to just trust that the guy who did the summary has done his homework. (It matches pretty well with my understanding of what the consensus is, but I'm not a scientist myself). I'm not saying it's the holy gospel. But it's something more than opinion.
I originally looked it up for a somewhat different argument, but at worst it's a worthwhile read if you don't already know this stuff.
With the abandonment of modern secularism by Turkey - until recently the great hope that a Muslim nation could be compatible with liberal secular democracy - I don't know how anyone could fail to acknowledge that Islamic societies are experiencing agonizing trauma trying to adapt to the modern world.
And Turkey's backsliding cannot be blamed on the bogeyman of oil or imperialism. The Ottoman's ran much of the Middle East for centuries, and were never colonized. They produced their own secular reformers who looked to the West, and for a while looked as though they were an examplar that the rest of the countries in the region might hope to follow. That's finished. Now Turkey is another country turning its back on the 20th and 21st centuries, trying to wind back the clock, and looking to their faith to guide them in all matters of public policy.
So what is going on?
Actually the change in Turkey is directly linked to imperialism. Ataturk was offered the world by the Brits and they used his egoism and love for his Turk tribe and turned that into nationalism. The country we call Turkey wouldnt even exist today if it werent for imperialism. You clearly have no idea of the history of Turkey and that it was an founded through an imperial effort to disband the Ottoman empire. Ataturk and his Turk tribe were to the Ottoman empire what the tribe and house of Saud were to Arabia.
Anybody who uses terms like 'imperial/oil bogeyman' to dismiss any talk of foreign influence in the middle east is an idiot to begin with. That imperial bogeyman is the reason you live in North America and the same reason British Palestina was turned into Israel (just ask Nage Waza). The same reason Africa has been recklessly sliced into 54 countries. The same reason a colony of British prisoners took over and brutalized the aboriginals of a small continent. That imperial 'bogeyman' is basically at the heart of the many political issues across the globe, including oil/currency conflicts.
You are not qualified to even comment on Turkish politics. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You are trying to isolate things that just happened without acknowledging the historical foundations and events leading up to. Just like Zionists talking about the whole Palestine issue as if it is simply an issue of rockets being lobbed into their cities. Nothing led up to it. You cant understand why these things are the way they are because you refuse to delve into the causes. The reason you dont want to get into the cause of any of these issues is because it would put an irreparable hole in your silly 'muslims and islam are more dangerous than nuclear war and climate change combined' narrative. Maybe we should talk about US foreign policy and real threats to world peace like NATOs posturing in the Caucasus or the gold/currency war between China and America, maybe even tensions in the east China sea. Instead these bigots posing as freedom fighters want to focus on Islamic extremism like its happening in a vacuum.
Last edited by Crumpy-Gunt; 08-20-2016 at 05:51 PM.
I think it's a fools errand, just as picking apart Bible quotes is for the most part pointless. I mean, would you suggest that a critical reading of the Bible would be helpful in fighting modern Christian radicalism and terrorism?
But I don't think you need to care what I think
I don't think you'll get much argument from me that there are large swaths of the Bible that are garbage, particularly the Old Testament. There is a difference however as it's not just picking quotes to suit a case. The practice of the prophet himself puts Islam in a different realm than Christianity. When Wahhabists strive to live in the style of the Prophet, his example is going to lead to a pretty violent society.
The belief that this it is the final word of god is a problem in that it acts as a block to any sort of enlightenment like Christianity went through. Jihad is a problem because it's not clearly defined. Jesus wasn't a general.
Additionally, if the Quran had a version of "render under caesar what is caesars and render unto god which is god" a lot of the secularism that occurred in western societies wouldn't be a conflict to Islamists.
Quote:
Note that it's a summary of what is considered consensus by one academic, not a study in itself. There are very few citations unfortunately, so you're going to have to just trust that the guy who did the summary has done his homework. (It matches pretty well with my understanding of what the consensus is, but I'm not a scientist myself). I'm not saying it's the holy gospel. But it's something more than opinion.
I originally looked it up for a somewhat different argument, but at worst it's a worthwhile read if you don't already know this stuff.
Yeah, that article doesn't really do much for your claim of equality amongst religions when it comes to the creation of terrorists. It just lists different causes.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
I don't think you'll get much argument from me that there are large swaths of the Bible that are garbage, particularly the Old Testament.
I'd be a little freaked out if it did
Quote:
The practice of the prophet himself puts Islam in a different realm than Christianity. When Wahhabists strive to live in the style of the Prophet, his example is going to lead to a pretty violent society.
This claim I think holds the most water here. Of course "in the style of the prophet" is pretty much a randomly cherrypicked collection of ideas, but there isn't a clear Christian equivalent of Wahhabists... That I can think of at least. (I'm sure there's some small cult somewhere.)
However, my view is that it's mostly coincidental. If you look for this kind of proof, you're going to find something that fits your case. In the big picture I don't think it's evidence enough.
In general my view isthat the impact of scripture on religions is mostly historical and that they are as much or more shaped by completely unrelated phenomenons, such as pre-existing traditions, surrounding cultures, social and enviromental conditions etc etc.
Essentially, if you gave aliens a Quran and a Bible and asked them to project what kind of religious practices and societies they'd produce, you probably couldn't tell which example was produced by which book.
Quote:
The belief that this it is the final word of god is a problem in that it acts as a block to any sort of enlightenment like Christianity went through.
The existence of millions of modern peaceful secular Muslims all over the western hemisphere I think pretty much counters this claim. Peoples ability cherry pick and re-interpret holy scriptures is endless.
Quote:
Additionally, if the Quran had a version of "render under caesar what is caesars and render unto god which is god" a lot of the secularism that occurred in western societies wouldn't be a conflict to Islamists.
Millions of Christian fundamentalists feel that secularism is in direct conflict with their values. And other millions feel that it doesn't. So whether or not this passage exists or not doesn't seem to matter much.
Quote:
Yeah, that article doesn't really do much for your claim of equality amongst religions when it comes to the creation of terrorists. It just lists different causes.
Yeah it's just mentioned in passing, as in the big picture it's kind of a sidetrack. Here's the bit:
Quote:
These considerations are equally applicable to secular as they are to religious ideologies. Assumptions that there is something unique about religion (and particular religions) that causes violence are misleading and my own research (Francis and Knott, 2011) has demonstrated how linkages can be found between secular and religious ideological responses to conflict and difference.
I have read more about that, but honestly just can't remember where or how the argument went exactly. I'll post it somewhere if I run into it again.
Btw, I didn't comment on "Wahhabism isn't new". I guess it's very relative, on the scale of religions I'd say it's pretty new. It started in the 18th century (by a guy named Something-Something-Wahhab.) It became the official Saudi religion in the 1930's, but has really only started to grow significantly in the 1970's. (It merged with Salafism in the 1960's, and Salafism started sometime in the 19th century.)
The spread of Wahhabism/Salafism is quite often considered to be a part of the 1970's Islamic revival.
This claim I think holds the most water here. Of course "in the style of the prophet" is pretty much a randomly cherrypicked collection of ideas, but there isn't a clear Christian equivalent of Wahhabists... That I can think of at least. (I'm sure there's some small cult somewhere.)
However, my view is that it's mostly coincidental. If you look for this kind of proof, you're going to find something that fits your case. In the big picture I don't think it's evidence enough.
In general my view isthat the impact of scripture on religions is mostly historical and that they are as much or more shaped by completely unrelated phenomenons, such as pre-existing traditions, surrounding cultures, social and enviromental conditions etc etc.
Sorry, but how is this cherry picking? The central prophetic figure in Islam was a warlord. Attack the pagan Meccans. Smash the idols of other gods. This is a core component of his history, hardly cherry picking and hardly dug out of some obscure book I happened to find while searching for negative facts. Emulating his lifestyle inevitably leads to violence because he was violent. It's not coincidental, it's critical.
Quote:
Essentially, if you gave aliens a Quran and a Bible and asked them to project what kind of religious practices and societies they'd produce, you probably couldn't tell which example was produced by which book.
No argument there. A being without the context of history, or knowledge of how both fit into modern life, and assuming a literal and complete interpretation of, both books would be considered problematic.
Quote:
The existence of millions of modern peaceful secular Muslims all over the western hemisphere I think pretty much counters this claim. Peoples ability cherry pick and re-interpret holy scriptures is endless.
Lets hope the dropping of tenets that conflict with modern secular life continues in a mass scale.
Quote:
Millions of Christian fundamentalists feel that secularism is in direct conflict with their values. And other millions feel that it doesn't. So whether or not this passage exists or not doesn't seem to matter much.
That's too bad for them. Separation of church and state comes right from the words of the central prophet himself in the Bible.
Quote:
Yeah it's just mentioned in passing, as in the big picture it's kind of a sidetrack. Here's the bit:
That's not saying anything about your claim. It only says that the list of causes can be applicable across religions or in the secular realm
Sorry, I was apparently unclear. I wasn't referring to you cherry picking, I meant the wahhabists are doing a lot of cherry picking on what "living as the prophet" means. You know, soccer is forbidden but internet is okay?
Quote:
Lets hope the dropping of tenets that conflict with modern secular life continues in a mass scale.
Yup. And I think it probably will. I think it's inevitable that there will be a major backlash against fundamentalist movements and thinking. Plus just a lot of people clearly wanting to identify as "not THOSE people" for various reasons.
Quote:
That's too bad for them. Separation of church and state comes right from the words of the central prophet himself in the Bible.
This is kind of my point. Religious people don't often think of religion like atheists do They're much less logical about it.
Quote:
That's not saying anything about your claim. It only says that the list of causes can be applicable across religions or in the secular realm
Okay, I'll take that and not argue it further. It's a throwaway line in a text which is ultimately about something else. Clearly I can't back my view as well as I thought I could. (I'm pretty sure the research exists, but it's on me to dig it up... Which I'm not going to actively do. But if I run into it etc.)
For the record, that does not mean that I accept the opposite to be any more true. At best I'll take "debatable".
Actually the change in Turkey is directly linked to imperialism. Ataturk was offered the world by the Brits and they used his egoism and love for his Turk tribe and turned that into nationalism. The country we call Turkey wouldnt even exist today if it werent for imperialism. You clearly have no idea of the history of Turkey and that it was an founded through an imperial effort to disband the Ottoman empire. Ataturk and his Turk tribe were to the Ottoman empire what the tribe and house of Saud were to Arabia.
Anybody who uses terms like 'imperial/oil bogeyman' to dismiss any talk of foreign influence in the middle east is an idiot to begin with. That imperial bogeyman is the reason you live in North America and the same reason British Palestina was turned into Israel (just ask Nage Waza). The same reason Africa has been recklessly sliced into 54 countries. The same reason a colony of British prisoners took over and brutalized the aboriginals of a small continent. That imperial 'bogeyman' is basically at the heart of the many political issues across the globe, including oil/currency conflicts.
You are not qualified to even comment on Turkish politics. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You are trying to isolate things that just happened without acknowledging the historical foundations and events leading up to. Just like Zionists talking about the whole Palestine issue as if it is simply an issue of rockets being lobbed into their cities. Nothing led up to it. You cant understand why these things are the way they are because you refuse to delve into the causes. The reason you dont want to get into the cause of any of these issues is because it would put an irreparable hole in your silly 'muslims and islam are more dangerous than nuclear war and climate change combined' narrative. Maybe we should talk about US foreign policy and real threats to world peace like NATOs posturing in the Caucasus or the gold/currency war between China and America, maybe even tensions in the east China sea. Instead these bigots posing as freedom fighters want to focus on Islamic extremism like its happening in a vacuum.
You are delusional to blame imperialism on Turkey's abrupt move from secularism to Islamism.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
Just like Zionists talking about the whole Palestine issue as if it is simply an issue of rockets being lobbed into their cities. Nothing led up to it.
Thanks for reminding me that when people like you say Zionist they actually meant Jew.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Nage Waza For This Useful Post:
Thanks for reminding me that when people like you say Zionist they actually meant Jew.
LOL
Love how easy you are to troll.
Not every Zionist is a Jew. Not every Jew is a Zionist. I said Zionist. I meant Zionist. A lot of Jews actually sympathize with Palestinians. Unless you mean anti-Semite when you say people like me, that would be pretty idiotic as I am technically a Semite.. and I love Jewish people like I love all people. You just played the oldest card in the book. He's talking about Zionists so he must hate Jews. Nobody can mention Zionism unless they are a total Jew-hater.For the record I love Jews and Israel. You think everyone who criticizes Zionism is an anti-semite. That's silly.
Last edited by Crumpy-Gunt; 08-21-2016 at 04:27 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Crumpy-Gunt For This Useful Post:
You are delusional to blame imperialism on Turkey's abrupt move from secularism to Islamism.
You are delusional if you think I was blaming the recent events on imperialism. I was simply stating there would be no Turkey if there wasn't imperialism and also that Turkey is under a lot of foreign influence as is the region of the world in which Turkey is situated.
What would you blame it on? ISIS? Jihad? Obama? I'm curious to know what you think is the cause. I never actually stated a cause for Turkeys switch just some context to understand the history of the middle east.
Last edited by Crumpy-Gunt; 08-21-2016 at 04:25 AM.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trumpy-Gunt
I love Jewish people like I love all people.
Judging from your disdain for everyone you've interacted with here, this can only be read as saying you hate Jewish people.
It's probably because you're a privileged right-wing stooge who mistakes his personal experiences and prejudices for unique insight. Don't think you're fooling anyone by calling out everyone else as crypto-fascists, your own lack of empathy for all that dare to disagree with your fatuous boogeyman theories reveals the true xenophobe here.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
Last edited by jammies; 08-21-2016 at 07:30 AM.
Reason: Y
The Following User Says Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
When people reference the polls showing support for sharia law, I wonder if something similar would be shown for Christians and the ten commandments. When I grew up in the church most people I new would've been in board with blasphemy laws and the like I'd bet. I don't think they view it the same as we do (again not logically anyways). Same goes for killing for religious reasons (ie death penalty) doesn't sound as severe in that context (though it is in practice of course)
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
You are delusional if you think I was blaming the recent events on imperialism. I was simply stating there would be no Turkey if there wasn't imperialism and also that Turkey is under a lot of foreign influence as is the region of the world in which Turkey is situated.
What would you blame it on? ISIS? Jihad? Obama? I'm curious to know what you think is the cause. I never actually stated a cause for Turkeys switch just some context to understand the history of the middle east.
I'm trying to understand the core of your message but it's really hard when in just about every post you are calling people that don't agree with you idiots.
Some friendly advice: people may listen to your argument if you make it less argumentative.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
Actually the change in Turkey is directly linked to imperialism. Ataturk was offered the world by the Brits and they used his egoism and love for his Turk tribe and turned that into nationalism. The country we call Turkey wouldnt even exist today if it werent for imperialism. You clearly have no idea of the history of Turkey and that it was an founded through an imperial effort to disband the Ottoman empire. Ataturk and his Turk tribe were to the Ottoman empire what the tribe and house of Saud were to Arabia.
LOL! You're the one who doesn't have a clue, pal. At the end of WW1, when the Ottoman Empire collapsed, Britain, France, and Greece tried to carve up the Anatolian heartland. Ataturk lead the armies that fought them off and drove the Greeks back into the sea. He wasn't part of any tribe, he wasn't 'offered' anything by the British, and he didn't become their stooge. Turkey remained neutral during WW2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt
Anybody who uses terms like 'imperial/oil bogeyman' to dismiss any talk of foreign influence in the middle east is an idiot to begin with. That imperial bogeyman is the reason you live in North America and the same reason British Palestina was turned into Israel (just ask Nage Waza). The same reason Africa has been recklessly sliced into 54 countries. The same reason a colony of British prisoners took over and brutalized the aboriginals of a small continent. That imperial 'bogeyman' is basically at the heart of the many political issues across the globe, including oil/currency conflicts.
First there was Eden. All was harmony in the world. The lion lay down with the lamb and imperialism was unknown. And lo, the serpent of the West slithered into Eden and spread evil. Now, all that is bad in the heart of man, every conflict and iniquity, can be traced back to the Great Satan.
And behold, a prophet came, and his name was Chomsky, and the scales fell from his eyes, and he spake the words that were true, and all who had good hearts knew this truth, though others were yet blinded by Satan and knew not of what they said.
So explain why a former colony like Vietnam, that in the last century alone was fought over by France, Japan, the U.S., and China, and where middle-aged adults today can recall being napalmed by U.S. planes as children, has moved on and is rapidly modernizing. Why Vietnam today has a booming economy, and French, Chinese, and American citizens can travel and live there without fear of violence or even resentment.
Or why Angola hasn't declared a jihad against Portugal. Why Hindi Indians aren't blowing up shopping malls in the UK.
And why we have a host of Islamic terrorist organizations where Islam borders the rest of the world, in an arc of conflict from Boko Haram in Nigeria to Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 08-21-2016 at 09:02 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Not every Zionist is a Jew. Not every Jew is a Zionist. I said Zionist. I meant Zionist. A lot of Jews actually sympathize with Palestinians. Unless you mean anti-Semite when you say people like me, that would be pretty idiotic as I am technically a Semite.. and I love Jewish people like I love all people. You just played the oldest card in the book. He's talking about Zionists so he must hate Jews. Nobody can mention Zionism unless they are a total Jew-hater.For the record I love Jews and Israel. You think everyone who criticizes Zionism is an anti-semite. That's silly.
Nah, you meant Jew, and you used the word Zionist as a derogatory term. Don't worry, we know already, your numerous posts make it clear your disdain for a good portion of everyone.
Unfortunately, much of the left likes to use the term Zionist as a smear, unfortunately on this site you see many posters making the same mistake.
