At least 84 killed in terrorist attack in Nice, France

[V]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I find it ridiculous to distill it down to their religion, when it simply tells them to fight oppression.

I take it you haven't read the book.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by peter12

Which is why we won't.

In 1914, you had the Ottoman Empire. After the First World War, you have

Iraq
Iran
Saudi Arabia
Syria
Kuwait
Turkey
Bahrain
Qatar
North Yemen
Aden
Oman

Add Israel in 1948.

It's not like the people there are incredibly tribal and factional.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

We've lied to them, partitioned their countries, stole their resources or land, backed despots, overthrew their governments, bombed their civilians accidentally or otherwise, starved them out via sanctions. I find it ridiculous to distill it down to their religion, when it simply tells them to fight oppression. This has always been about politics, and religion provides an excellent recruitment tool.

It's the same reason we have all those terrorists from South America and sub Saharan Africa.

[Buster]

Muhammad Syed (PBUM)
‏@MoTheAtheist
Isn't it an inherently racist thing to suggest that our problems couldn't be b/c of our actions, agency belongs ONLY to the white oppressor?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by nik-

It's the same reason we have all those terrorists from South America and sub Saharan Africa.

Deja vu to the last thread about this. Pretty sure you used SE Asia as an example last time. I guess when they murder each other in massive ethnic cleansing campaigns or civil wars who gives a ####, amirite? So long as they don't bring it to our doorstep.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Deja vu to the last thread about this. Pretty sure you used SE Asia as an example last time. I guess when they murder each other in massive ethnic cleansing campaigns or civil wars who gives a ####, amirite? So long as they don't bring it to our doorstep.

I'm not sure how you are deciding to explain anything.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by blankall

All that being said, I really don't see the point in singling out Islam every time there's one of these attacks. We all know that fundamentalist Islam is producing a lot of radicals. However, we also need to take into account that the vast majority of the victims of fundamentalist Islam are Muslims themselves. I'm not sure what people want the average Muslim to do about it? Abandon their religion? Go on a Rambo style crusade to weed out the bad guys? What exactly?

The average Muslim in the world is extremely religiously conservative by Western standards. Most Canadian Muslims are quite secular in comparison, but don't kid yourself that they represent more than a small fraction of Muslims globally. Even in a relatively secular Muslim country like Turkey, the bulk of the population outside an educated minority in the major cities is closer to a rural Spaniard 200 years ago in terms of religiosity and conservatism.

Of course, just because people are extremely religious and conservative doesn't mean they are radicals who want to go around blowing people. But it presents two problems:

1) It's extremely difficult to reconcile your traditions with many realities of the modern world. The scientific method. Capitalism and commerce. The liberation of women from the yoke of husband and family. And most problematically, the primacy of secular law over religious law.

2) The liberal, Western world looks depraved to them. Stinking with sin. Full of people under the influence of devils. Fornicators. Pigs driven by base appetites. It isn't just radicals who think this, but average people in whole swathes of the Muslim world.

The Muslim world is undergoing a traumatic exposure to modernism. It cannot see a way forward, a way to integrate modernity and faith. A way to harness new skills and technologies the way former colonies in Asia have. Instead, it retreats into the past and into the solace of an idealized faith. As others have pointed out, the Muslim world needs an Enlightenment. An opening up of their culture to skepticism and empiricism and innovation. Israel alone files five times the number of patents every year as the entire Arab world.

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

We've lied to them, partitioned their countries, stole their resources or land, backed despots, overthrew their governments, bombed their civilians accidentally or otherwise, starved them out via sanctions. I find it ridiculous to distill it down to their religion, when it simply tells them to fight oppression. This has always been about politics, and religion provides an excellent recruitment tool.

Southeast Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and Latina American also suffered under decades of colonialism, foreign meddling, and civil wars. Look at Vietnam. Oppressed first by France, then by the U.S., then by China. Between Vietname, Cambodia, and Laos, 1.5 million people were killed and many more horrifically injured in proxy wars. Why aren't Vietnamese terrorists going on shooting sprees in American malls and blowing up Cafes in Paris? Why aren't all the people screwed over puppet regimes in Latin America calling for a cleansing war of extermination against the Gringo? Why aren't alienated immigrants from Jamaica cutting off heads in London?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Deja vu to the last thread about this. Pretty sure you used SE Asia as an example last time. I guess when they murder each other in massive ethnic cleansing campaigns or civil wars who gives a ####, amirite? So long as they don't bring it to our doorstep.

Well the colonialism canard comes up in every thread too. I guess this is just a vicious cycle.

And this thread is not about the overall ####tiness of the human race. So yeah, genocides aren't really applicable here.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nik-

It's the same reason we have all those terrorists from South America and sub Saharan Africa.

If only there was an economic element related to a certain natural resource that was widely available in one region compared to the others that would explain why the extremists from said region were well-funded enough to take their extremism abroad.

[BigNumbers]

Originally Posted by rubecube

If only there was an economic element related to a certain natural resource that was widely available in one region compared to the others that would explain why the extremists from said region were well-funded enough to take their extremism abroad.

How do you explain then that we have a similarly large number of immigrants already here from that one group (Muslims), as well as the other (Latino/South American) yet only had one group committing these atrocities? You never hear of an upset, marginalized Columbia 31 year old driving a tractor through Klondike Days.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by rubecube

If only there was an economic element related to a certain natural resource that was widely available in one region compared to the others that would explain why the extremists from said region were well-funded enough to take their extremism abroad.

And what is that exported extremism rooted in?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

If only there was an economic element related to a certain natural resource that was widely available in one region compared to the others that would explain why the extremists from said region were well-funded enough to take their extremism abroad.

Just stop for a minute and think about what you're suggesting here. Do you really think this makes sense? The other people that have been oppressed by colonialism would be doing precisely the same things to their colonial oppressors as jihadists supposedly are, if only oil existed where they are? That's what best explains the difference in behaviour?

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by BigNumbers

How do you explain then that we have a similarly large number of immigrants already here from that one group (Muslims), as well as the other (Latino/South American) yet only had one group committing these atrocities? You never hear of an upset, marginalized Columbia 31 year old driving a tractor through Klondike Days.

Well maybe it has something to do with thats the one place in the world we routinely drop bombs on in the name of terrorism.

It's quite the chicken and egg scenario, we drop bombs on them because "terrorism", anger provokes further extremism which we use to justify dropping more bombs. and round we go.

If you're the average civilian in the middle east walking along a street when all of a sudden the house beside you blows up because there's a Isis target in there, would it feel all that different from terrorism to your family?

IMO these relentless drone strikes and bombing campaigns are not helping the way you think they would.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by BigNumbers

How do you explain then that we have a similarly large number of immigrants already here from that one group (Muslims), as well as the other (Latino/South American) yet only had one group committing these atrocities? You never hear of an upset, marginalized Columbia 31 year old driving a tractor through Klondike Days.

Originally Posted by nik-

And what is that exported extremism rooted in?

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Just stop for a minute and think about what you're suggesting here. Do you really think this makes sense? The other people that have been oppressed by colonialism would be doing precisely the same things to their colonial oppressors as jihadists supposedly are, if only oil existed where they are? That's what best explains the difference in behaviour?

No, obviously not. I'm just saying that even if those types of beliefs were held by sub-Saharan Africans and South Americans, they lack the financial resources to pull off what Islamic extremists pull off.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by rubecube

No, obviously not. I'm just saying that even if those types of beliefs were held by sub-Saharan Africans and South Americans, they lack the financial resources to pull off what Islamic extremists pull off.

If they held the beliefs that the Saudis do they'd export extremism. Given equal financial standing.

That's pretty much the crux of what we're arguing here.

So yes, I agree with you. If they had oil money (Venezuela and Nigeria do) and if they held the same extreme religious beliefs they'd be exporting terror.

Colombia had political terrorism and narco terrorism too. Timothy McVeigh had like $10000. So it's not like they need billions of dollars to become terrorists.

[2Stonedbirds]

Because the US state dept. and CIA have never funded proxy wars.

"Moderate rebel groups" and all that.

[Flash Walken]

I don't think it's insensitive to point out that the 19th and 20th century catholicism of latin america and south east asia's Three Teachings religious climate was preferable for colonial interests than the stone age islam western nations are now dealing with.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Dan02

It's quite the chicken and egg scenario, we drop bombs on them because "terrorism", anger provokes further extremism which we use to justify dropping more bombs. and round we go.

I find this argument silly. Western democracies bombed Germany and Japan too and those places turned out alright.

[ZedMan]

Originally Posted by SebC

I find this argument silly. Western democracies bombed Germany and Japan too and those places turned out alright.

Not so much the first time.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Just stop for a minute and think about what you're suggesting here. Do you really think this makes sense? The other people that have been oppressed by colonialism would be doing precisely the same things to their colonial oppressors as jihadists supposedly are, if only oil existed where they are? That's what best explains the difference in behaviour?

All of those Venezuelan terrorists stand as the obvious counterpoint to your argument.