Ongoing Terrorism/ISIS/al Qaeda Thread

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nik-

Well Paris and San Bernadino just happened, what can you really expect?

And Planned Parenthood happened in between them but it's curiously dropped off the radar.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by rubecube

And Planned Parenthood happened in between them but it's curiously dropped off the radar.

You're just an ultra-leftie. Don't you know that the whole solution is to herd all Muslims together in the deserts of the middle east and nuke them from space?



This NYTimes article talks about the issue and expands upon my point.

"But the breakdown of extremist ideologies behind those attacks may come as a surprise. Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists..."

"Non-Muslim extremists have carried out 19 such attacks since Sept. 11, according to the latest count, compiled by David Sterman, a New America program associate, and overseen by Peter Bergen, a terrorism expert. By comparison, seven lethal attacks by Islamic militants have taken place in the same period."

“Law enforcement agencies around the country have told us the threat from Muslim extremists is not as great as the threat from right-wing extremists,”

“There’s an acceptance now of the idea that the threat from jihadi terrorism in the United States has been overblown,” Dr. Horgan said. “And there’s a belief that the threat of right-wing, antigovernment violence has been underestimated.”

Then the real issue of these studies is discussed.

"If terrorism is defined as ideological violence, for instance, should an attacker who has merely ranted about religion, politics or race be considered a terrorist? A man in Chapel Hill, N.C., who was charged with fatally shooting three young Muslim neighbors had posted angry critiques of religion, but he also had a history of outbursts over parking issues. (New America does not include this attack in its count.)"

"Some Muslim advocates complain that when the perpetrator of an attack is not Muslim, news media commentators quickly focus on the question of mental illness. “With non-Muslims, the media bends over backward to identify some psychological traits that may have pushed them over the edge,” said Abdul Cader Asmal, a retired physician and a longtime spokesman for Muslims in Boston. “Whereas if it’s a Muslim, the assumption is that they must have done it because of their religion.”"

And the real issue here, in my opinion. We don't have the sack to look at the issue objectively. It is much easier to believe that brown people with different religious views than us are going to cause violence against us, than acknowledging there is just as many deranged people from within our own culture that would do harm to us to further their ideological goals.

"A 2009 report by the Department of Homeland Security, which warned that an ailing economy and the election of the first black president might prompt a violent reaction from white supremacists, was withdrawn in the face of conservative criticism. Its main author, Daryl Johnson, later accused the department of “gutting” its staffing for such research."

We can't even listen to a report that forewarns of this exact problem, because it is not politically expedient to do so. Much easier to get people worked up about an almost non-existent threat to our national security.

The money quote.

“If there’s one lesson we seem to have forgotten 20 years after Oklahoma City, it’s that extremist violence comes in all shapes and sizes,” said Dr. Horgan, the University of Massachusetts scholar. “And very often, it comes from someplace you’re least suspecting.”

Radicalism and extremism affects all religions and all ideologies. Terrorism is tactic for those without the social or economic means to get their views adopted. That is the basic issue boiled down into bite size pieces that anyone should be able to understand. The Middle East and Muslims do not have an edge on anyone when it comes to extremism or the willingness to do something extreme to make their point. The difference is how the media frames it and sets the agenda for us to focus on and understand the issue.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by New Era

You're just an ultra-leftie. Don't you know that the whole solution is to herd all Muslims together in the deserts of the middle east and nuke them from space?



This NYTimes article talks about the issue and expands upon my point.

"But the breakdown of extremist ideologies behind those attacks may come as a surprise. Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists..."

"Non-Muslim extremists have carried out 19 such attacks since Sept. 11, according to the latest count, compiled by David Sterman, a New America program associate, and overseen by Peter Bergen, a terrorism expert. By comparison, seven lethal attacks by Islamic militants have taken place in the same period."

“Law enforcement agencies around the country have told us the threat from Muslim extremists is not as great as the threat from right-wing extremists,”

“There’s an acceptance now of the idea that the threat from jihadi terrorism in the United States has been overblown,” Dr. Horgan said. “And there’s a belief that the threat of right-wing, antigovernment violence has been underestimated.”

Then the real issue of these studies is discussed.

"If terrorism is defined as ideological violence, for instance, should an attacker who has merely ranted about religion, politics or race be considered a terrorist? A man in Chapel Hill, N.C., who was charged with fatally shooting three young Muslim neighbors had posted angry critiques of religion, but he also had a history of outbursts over parking issues. (New America does not include this attack in its count.)"

"Some Muslim advocates complain that when the perpetrator of an attack is not Muslim, news media commentators quickly focus on the question of mental illness. “With non-Muslims, the media bends over backward to identify some psychological traits that may have pushed them over the edge,” said Abdul Cader Asmal, a retired physician and a longtime spokesman for Muslims in Boston. “Whereas if it’s a Muslim, the assumption is that they must have done it because of their religion.”"

And the real issue here, in my opinion. We don't have the sack to look at the issue objectively. It is much easier to believe that brown people with different religious views than us are going to cause violence against us, than acknowledging there is just as many deranged people from within our own culture that would do harm to us to further their ideological goals.

"A 2009 report by the Department of Homeland Security, which warned that an ailing economy and the election of the first black president might prompt a violent reaction from white supremacists, was withdrawn in the face of conservative criticism. Its main author, Daryl Johnson, later accused the department of “gutting” its staffing for such research."

We can't even listen to a report that forewarns of this exact problem, because it is not politically expedient to do so. Much easier to get people worked up about an almost non-existent threat to our national security.

The money quote.

“If there’s one lesson we seem to have forgotten 20 years after Oklahoma City, it’s that extremist violence comes in all shapes and sizes,” said Dr. Horgan, the University of Massachusetts scholar. “And very often, it comes from someplace you’re least suspecting.”

Radicalism and extremism affects all religions and all ideologies. Terrorism is tactic for those without the social or economic means to get their views adopted. That is the basic issue boiled down into bite size pieces that anyone should be able to understand. The Middle East and Muslims do not have an edge on anyone when it comes to extremism or the willingness to do something extreme to make their point. The difference is how the media frames it and sets the agenda for us to focus on and understand the issue.

Good post, but frankly those statistics would likely support isolationist policy. Why? Because when you look at the number of attacks purported by Islamic extremists outside of the U.S., the figures would look much different. Based on the dialogue, it would appear that Americans want their terrorists to be of the ####oo white variety, not the Virgin aeekinbrg brown variety. What a joke!

But let's not kid ourselves that jihadism is not an issue. The conflicts that are eradicating any sort of economic opportunity, any sort of cultural stability, and creating mass killing and mass migration crises ... It has to be addressed.

Sam Harris and Douglas Murray had an interesting conversation on this recently, a worthwhile listen: http://www.samharris.org/podcast/ite...f-civilization

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

Good post, but frankly those statistics would likely support isolationist policy. Why? Because when you look at the number of attacks purported by Islamic extremists outside of the U.S., the figures would look much different. Based on the dialogue, it would appear that Americans want their terrorists to be of the ####oo white variety, not the Virgin aeekinbrg brown variety. What a joke!

Actually, that would be just the opposite. The greater threat is domestic, still from radical extremists, but domestic. The fact they are white is irrelevant, the fact they are extremist in nature is relevant. This extremism is going to exist in every country so your argument of including Mulsim acts of terror and not others is specious. Radicalism in the general culture exists across Europe and violence is pervasive there as well.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...ing_extremism/
http://www.dw.com/en/right-wing-extr...ort/a-18554812
http://sciencenordic.com/more-extrem...en-and-finland

I think you need to look at the root cause of radicalism itself, but for the most part the media does not present the details to allow people to develop a comprehensive understanding of the issue. This article presents some of those back stories and why radicalization continues to gain traction.

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/14/our_..._at_ourselves/

But let's not kid ourselves that jihadism is not an issue. The conflicts that are eradicating any sort of economic opportunity, any sort of cultural stability, and creating mass killing and mass migration crises ... It has to be addressed.

Jihadism is a symptom, not the disease. Radicalism is the disease and the only thing that will change radicalism is education and that opportunity you speak of. Sadly, opportunity will never present itself without proper education.

Sam Harris and Douglas Murray had an interesting conversation on this recently, a worthwhile listen: http://www.samharris.org/podcast/ite...f-civilization

I love Harris, who is a great thinker, but the cold hard reality about thinkers like this is they are too rational. They think people are prudent, intelligent and rational. This is grossly false. The vast majority of people are thoughtless, ignorant and irrational. Most importantly, people are emotional. The only way you can achieve the state of zen that Harris scribes to is to become extremely well educated, well read, and well traveled. That doesn't happen in the "egalitarian West" let alone the Middle or Far East where education opportunities are not available to the masses. Harris knows this! He's a neuroscientist! He knows how and why we are wired they way we are! So his rationalism gets old at times, especially when he knows we're dealing with the uneducated and people who have only read one book, if they can read at all. Sam needs to get down to the basics of what causes extremism and fundamentalism. That is where we find the root problem, both in the Middle East and in the church just down the street here in North America.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Honestly, I thought that Harris / Murray conversation took a few trips off the deep end where I wouldn't follow. Obviously correct on a lot of points, but unfortunately lax in reasoning on some.

The unfair thing is that Harris is now relied on, along with only a few others, for clear thinking on this issue 100% of the time - he can't say anything remotely regrettable or he'll have a pack of gotcha-seeking morons piling on any questionable position immediately. But there aren't enough public intellectuals thinking clearly on this topic, so a lot of weight inevitably falls squarely on his shoulders.

And New Era, the jihadist problem is distinct because of the underlying motivations being religious... the solution is distinct from other forms of extremism as a result. This should be readily apparent.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

And New Era, the jihadist problem is distinct because of the underlying motivations being religious... the solution is distinct from other forms of extremism as a result. This should be readily apparent.

I have to disagree with that. The difference between Christian Fundamentalist violence and Muslim Fundamentalist violence is a one having a better publicist. When some Muslim goes off, the problem is their religion. No further exploration into the issues that conflict with that religion, just the Muslim religion. When a Christian goes off, there is always some sub-context, some other reason, and not their bat#### crazy belief in some insane interpretation of a religious text. The Christian has some mental deficiency, not brainwashed into believing a whole bunch of #### from their fairy tale book. But the Muslim is broken and the problem is their belief in their religion. Never an exploration into other possible issues, which I think its the greatest tragedy. I just wish the same critical inquiry were applied to all violent acts. If it were, we would likely have a much better understanding of the issues and be able to expect better things from our leaders.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by New Era

I have to disagree with that. The difference between Christian Fundamentalist violence and Muslim Fundamentalist violence is a one having a better publicist. When some Muslim goes off, the problem is their religion. No further exploration into the issues that conflict with that religion, just the Muslim religion. When a Christian goes off, there is always some sub-context, some other reason, and not their bat#### crazy belief in some insane interpretation of a religious text. The Christian has some mental deficiency, not brainwashed into believing a whole bunch of #### from their fairy tale book. But the Muslim is broken and the problem is their belief in their religion. Never an exploration into other possible issues, which I think its the greatest tragedy. I just wish the same critical inquiry were applied to all violent acts. If it were, we would likely have a much better understanding of the issues and be able to expect better things from our leaders.

Which Christian fundamentalist violence are you talking about?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

There are significant differences in between Muslim scripture and Christian scripture that also account for those behaviours. The difference is not having a better publicist, it's a number of historical and social factors that have gone into tempering the application of Christian doctrine, in combination with different fundamentals of that religion.

There's a reason there are no Jain suicide bombers, there is a reason that Tibetan Bhuddists react to occupation by immolating themselves instead of blowing themselves up. These differences are sourced in religious precepts like martyrdom and jihad. Failing to recognize those differences, you can't even begin to have a conversation on how to solve the problem.

I'm not sure how you can claim to have listened to Harris and still hold the position you just expressed, given how well and how frequently he's argued against it. Unless you have some reasons for disagreeing with him that you haven't expressed there. This would be worth your time: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/no-ordinary-violence

As to the differing reactions, look at the evidence for the rationale underlying any particular attack and you can reasonably categorize it as motivated by racism, by some non-religious ideology (political grievance), by religious ideology, or by mental illness, or some other motivation, and often some combination of these things (I'd say abortion clinic bombings have some flavour of both religion and politics, for example). In any given case, you can argue that the media or public reaction is wrong - eg "I don't think this is a case of mental illness, I think that person knew precisely what they were doing and had political grievances they felt were legitimate". But in the case of much jihadi terror, the motivations are largely religious; again, with some flavour of politics mixed in.

[T@T]

Until Muslims learn freedom of speech is a right and can laugh at a cartoon of Mohammad hugging a pig the muslim religion will always be full of crazy jihads.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

There are significant differences in between Muslim scripture and Christian scripture that also account for those behaviours.

Yeah, try and argue that with someone who is Opus Dei. Or anyone who is any of a number of bat#### crazy Evangelical sects of Christianity. The problem here is that we refuse to acknowledge the craziness of Christian identity, like Muslims refuse to acknowledge the craziness of Islamists.

The difference is not having a better publicist, it's a number of historical and social factors that have gone into tempering the application of Christian doctrine, in combination with different fundamentals of that religion.

Riiiiiiiight! Like Christianity did not go through a period of sever hundred years of oppressing people or anything.

There's a reason there are no Jain suicide bombers, there is a reason that Tibetan Bhuddists react to occupation by immolating themselves instead of blowing themselves up. These differences are sourced in religious precepts like martyrdom and jihad. Failing to recognize those differences, you can't even begin to have a conversation on how to solve the problem.

Yeah, that might have something to do with doctrine. You know, Jain having a doctrine based on non-violence and all. But that still doesn't acknowledge that there are radicals in all religions that lash out using terror as a means as well. Even Jainism can use terrorism as a means.

http://devdutt.com/articles/indian-m...terrorism.html

I'm not sure how you can claim to have listened to Harris and still hold the position you just expressed, given how well and how frequently he's argued against it.

I expressed my problem with Harris. I thought it was very straight forward. Harris is too cerebral; too rational. Humans are NOT rational animals, something a neurologist will readily admit. Harris' position that people with little to no education should behave in rational ways in specious, and Harris knows this too well based on his own research.

Unless you have some reasons for disagreeing with him that you haven't expressed there. This would be worth your time:

Thanks, I've been following Harris, amongst other neurologists for years. I actually have been involved in some peer reviews of some fMRI research that invalidates some of the claims made in the Harris discussion. This is what makes his discussion so difficult to support. It flies in the face of research on the subject.

As to the differing reactions, look at the evidence for the rationale underlying any particular attack and you can reasonably categorize it as motivated by racism, by some non-religious ideology (political grievance), by religious ideology, or by mental illness, or some other motivation, and often some combination of these things (I'd say abortion clinic bombings have some flavour of both religion and politics, for example). In any given case, you can argue that the media or public reaction is wrong - eg "I don't think this is a case of mental illness, I think that person knew precisely what they were doing and had political grievances they felt were legitimate". But in the case of much jihadi terror, the motivations are largely religious; again, with some flavour of politics mixed in.

Actually you can't. You, or someone else, is making an interpretation of that which may, or may not, be complete. The Ft. Hood shooter is a good example. A lot of conclusions were reached without considering the research and findings of the military tribunal. Nadal Hasan was never changed by the military for terrorist actions, let alone convicted. The military actually refused to charge Hasan with a terror related charge, much to the chagrin to the relatives of the victims. They refused to make this aspect of their investigation public, even thought the media had already convicted him of being a terrorist without knowing the full story. But that is our mass media in action. More than willing to jump on the salacious, but refusing to follow up after the headline. Again, here is yet another example.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...terrorist.html

It really is sad how one religion gets the free pass and the other gets crucified no matter what it does. You know, it annoys me that I have to defend any religion, because I find all of them ridiculous. But the fact of the matter is that they are all full of ####, and the only thing worse is when one person claims their flavor of theological stupidity is superior to others. Ironically, this is exactly the position Sam Harris would take when discussing religions themselves.

[nik-]

We'll probably start talking about Opus Dei when they drive a car full of explosives into a market on a monthly basis.

And no one is suggesting that Christianity is perfect or never had issues. So you acting like this is some revolutionary, mind blowing counter, is odd.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by nik-

We'll probably start talking about Opus Dei when they drive a car full of explosives into a market on a monthly basis.

And no one is suggesting that Christianity is perfect or never had issues. So you acting like this is some revolutionary, mind blowing counter, is odd.

Opus Dei are still Catholics/Christians so crazy suicide bombings aren't likely but if there's more jihad attacks on western soils they might be crazy enough to start a secret holy war.

I would bet they would be able to recruit more members than ISIS as well.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

That is hilarious. I thought you were saying that the rationality of Harris and others like him makes their solutions ineffective because they depend on people acting rationally, not that the arguments themselves were wrong. I honestly think that's the first time I've ever seen someone suggest that another person's position is wrong because it's "too rational." That's an inherently ridiculous thing to say.

As nik says, there's no argument that some Christian sects have and will continue to do horrible things. However, as I pointed out, much of the barbarism perpetrated by Christians has been weeded out through reformations and cultural tempering over the course of centuries to a point where the religion has ceded certain ground either to reformists or secularists. That hasn't happened in the case of Islam yet, though people are currently trying to do just that. Your obscurantism isn't just wrong, it makes their job more difficult by refusing to acknowlege the specific doctrines they have to work through to moderate the faith.

I'm not sure what irony you're talking about in your closing statement - Harris explicitly takes the position that some flavours of religion are dumber than others. And this is undeniably true. One of his pet arguments is that Mormonism is essentially Christianity, plus some very improbable additional beliefs. So whatever probability you assign to Jesus returning, you have to assign a lesser probability to him returning specifically to Jackson County, Mississippi. One religion is therefore less likely to be true than another.

And you've effectively admitted this by conceding that Jainism preaches non-violence and thus Jains do not engage in violent terrorist activities. To do so would be antithetical to what being a Jain means. It's not antithetical to being a Muslim, because the underlying fundamentals of the religion are different. They preach different things. Those different preachings provoke different behaviours by people who believe in the religion. Your article about Jains being terrorists somehow by passing legilsation is of course nonsense; there's no equivalence between passing legislation that oppresses a minority and blowing up buses full of kids.

As for your criticisms of media coverage, I think I explained why they're irrelevant to what we're talking about here. If in a particular case you think we got someone's motivations wrong, fine - a Muslim can kill a bunch of people for non-religious reasons just like anyone else. But an anecdote isn't in any way generalizable, and we have lots of evidence of people explicitly killing or doing other horrible things specifically because they think it's the will of Allah. Just, as you say, Christians during the Inquisition used to do in the name of God.

[Lanny_McDonald]

First off, thanks for the thoughtful debate!

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That is hilarious. I thought you were saying that the rationality of Harris and others like him makes their solutions ineffective because they depend on people acting rationally, not that the arguments themselves were wrong. I honestly think that's the first time I've ever seen someone suggest that another person's position is wrong because it's "too rational." That's an inherently ridiculous thing to say.

Actually, it isn't. Human beings are emotional animals. That is what drives us, not our intellect. Again, there is a ton of research in this area. See Lakoff, Tonegawa, Westin, etc. The results of this work is used in advertising, political communications, in propaganda campaigns, and so on. We see it in mass media all day long. Emotional appeals are vastly more effective than logical ones. You can move nations to do incredibly irrational things by using emotions, like fear or anger. That is where Harris runs into problems. He expects people to behave rationally when they are driven by their emotions and are easily manipulated by using those emotions.

As nik says, there's no argument that some Christian sects have and will continue to do horrible things. However, as I pointed out, much of the barbarism perpetrated by Christians has been weeded out through reformations and cultural tempering over the course of centuries to a point where the religion has ceded certain ground either to reformists or secularists. That hasn't happened in the case of Islam yet, though people are currently trying to do just that. Your obscurantism isn't just wrong, it makes their job more difficult by refusing to acknowlege the specific doctrines they have to work through to moderate the faith.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. Islam must go through a reformation. I think we agree on that. The problem is that Christianity didn't go through those reformations until people started to get educated. Without education the reformation does not take place. Therein lies the rub. Until Islamic countries develop education systems that open the eyes of every man, woman, and child, the potential for a reformation of Islam is nil. How we get Islam to adopt a period of enlightenment is open for debate. One thing that is for certain, you can't do it at the end of a gun or from 30,000 feet in the belly of a bomber (which is terrorism in its own right).

I'm not sure what irony you're talking about in your closing statement - Harris explicitly takes the position that some flavours of religion are dumber than others. And this is undeniably true. One of his pet arguments is that Mormonism is essentially Christianity, plus some very improbable additional beliefs. So whatever probability you assign to Jesus returning, you have to assign a lesser probability to him returning specifically to Jackson County, Mississippi. One religion is therefore less likely to be true than another.

The irony is arguing that one religion is dumber than others is a dumb argument. They are all dumb, and he should leave it at that. Quantifying the stupidity of faith is a worthless exercise. But so is making a rational argument against someone's faith and believing you convince them of the error in their ways. The only way you can move someone off of an entrenched belief is allow the person to discover the counter belief themselves. You can try and argue the stupidity of believing that Jesus Christ is returning to Independence, Missouri, attempting to make a rational argument in doing so, but faith will not allow that argument to take root, because faith is based in so much emotion. The only way you can get someone to change their faith is to expose them to other ways of thinking and allow them to discover the silliness of their belief system. The only way for logic to overcome emotion is to allow an individual to come to the logical conclusion themselves.

And you've effectively admitted this by conceding that Jainism preaches non-violence and thus Jains do not engage in violent terrorist activities. To do so would be antithetical to what being a Jain means. It's not antithetical to being a Muslim, because the underlying fundamentals of the religion are different. They preach different things. Those different preachings provoke different behaviours by people who believe in the religion. Your article about Jains being terrorists somehow by passing legilsation is of course nonsense; there's no equivalence between passing legislation that oppresses a minority and blowing up buses full of kids.

Tell that to all the Mexican Americans impacted by SB-1070 in Arizona. Tell that to Palestinians who are legislated non-entities in their own communities. That is legislated terrorism and it has horrible impacts on families, just like acts of violence.

As for your criticisms of media coverage, I think I explained why they're irrelevant to what we're talking about here. If in a particular case you think we got someone's motivations wrong, fine - a Muslim can kill a bunch of people for non-religious reasons just like anyone else. But an anecdote isn't in any way generalizable, and we have lots of evidence of people explicitly killing or doing other horrible things specifically because they think it's the will of Allah. Just, as you say, Christians during the Inquisition used to do in the name of God.

Anecdotal evidence can't be used to draw conclusions and make generalizations? Oh boy, I guess schools can close up shop on several sciences that use that exact method to inform their research!



The media coverage is an important thing to discuss and understand. They set the agenda for consumers. The mass media tells people what is important and, more importantly, how to think about it. The framing and metaphors the media uses prime consumers to think certain ways. That is the problem here. Anything done by Muslims is immediately considered bad and evil. A similar action done by a Christian is justified in some way and considered the act of lone lunatic. Even when a guy admits he shot and killed people at an abortion clinic because of his religious beliefs, a clear act of terrorism, he gets a free pass on the terror link. I don't know how you can't see the negative consequences of this coverage.

http://usuncut.com/news/islamophobia...-run-off-road/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ef3_story.html
http://www.ibtimes.com/muslim-hate-c...-young-2196363
http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articl...-paris-attacks
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ca...0TW00B20151214
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/an...san-bernardino

Islamaphobia is a direct result of this media coverage. So yes, media coverage and understanding it is very important.

[afc wimbledon]

The real difference between Christian fundies and Moslem ones is that our religious wackos don't really believe as much as theirs, which is a good thing mind you, even our most extreme fundies don't take the bible literally even though they think they do, they eat pork or shellfish, they wear different blends of fabric and none of them marry their brothers widow or any of the other myriad insanely out dated rules in the bible.
Over the years, especially due to the reformation and increased education we have learnt to ignore vast chunks of the bible, even the most profoundly religious, where as Islam hasn't.

[sureLoss]

Munich police warning people to avoid crowds for New Year's Eve as they have intelligence of an imminent terror attack.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-w...ack-in-munich/

Polizei München ✔ @PolizeiMuenchen
There is the danger of an attack in the area of munich, please keep away from crowds, avoid the central station and the rail station pasing.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by New Era

First off, thanks for the thoughtful debate!

Indeed. I missed this when you posted it so I'll respond but apologize for the necrobump.

Actually, it isn't. Human beings are emotional animals. That is what drives us, not our intellect. Again, there is a ton of research in this area. See Lakoff, Tonegawa, Westin, etc. The results of this work is used in advertising, political communications, in propaganda campaigns, and so on. We see it in mass media all day long. Emotional appeals are vastly more effective than logical ones. You can move nations to do incredibly irrational things by using emotions, like fear or anger. That is where Harris runs into problems. He expects people to behave rationally when they are driven by their emotions and are easily manipulated by using those emotions.

Actually, it is (this is fun!)

You're conflating two things: the quality of an argument, and its reliance on appeals to rationality to achieve the goals of the person putting it forward. This is a clear error of reasoning. Arguments cannot be "too rational", and it matters not at all whether human beings are emotional animals, or animals at all. B either follows from A, or it doesn't. Two plus two equals four, it equaled four before there were any humans and if the sun blows up tomorrow and wipes out our species, two plus two will still equal four.

What your problem seems to be, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, is that while Sam's arguments are logically consistent (in other words, he's clearly correct), those arguments cannot persuade people who are not inclined to behave rationally. Appeals to think logically won't work, emotional appeals might, but Harris doesn't deal in emotional appeals and is poorly situated to engage in that sort of thing as. Hence, he does not offer any real solutions. I don't think you're doing him justice if this is your perspective. The recent book he wrote is essentially aimed right at practical solutions. The concession is that he's not going to convince people to all become atheists, so what's the best path forward? It's probably religious moderation and a discussion within the faith about how it should be practiced. Contrast this with Dawkins, whose entire MO is "abandon your faith or you're a moron for the following reasons, and I'll be as ascerbic as possible in expressing this to you". If the response to that is "this isn't helpful", I see where that response is coming from - though I do think there's a place for that style too. Ali Rizvi was recently quoted as saying that the sort of Maher-style bluntness resonates with apostates in Islam-dominated countries who are frustrated with their societal situation.

The other possibility, I guess, is that you're saying his arguments are not rational because they fail to fully account for irrational behaviour. If so, I think you're utterly wrong as they're predicated on expectations of irrational behaviour, but in any event if this is what you're saying you haven't expressed it clearly enough to respond fully.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. Islam must go through a reformation. I think we agree on that. The problem is that Christianity didn't go through those reformations until people started to get educated. Without education the reformation does not take place. Therein lies the rub. Until Islamic countries develop education systems that open the eyes of every man, woman, and child, the potential for a reformation of Islam is nil. How we get Islam to adopt a period of enlightenment is open for debate. One thing that is for certain, you can't do it at the end of a gun or from 30,000 feet in the belly of a bomber (which is terrorism in its own right).

I think we're on the same page here. There are a number of things that would speed this along, one being an educational revolution and another crucially being some sort of muslim women's emancipation and empowerment movement. I don't know that these things have to happen for the conversation to start, though. These things have already occurred to varying degrees in various places - the status of education and women's rights differs in West Africa, Iran, Pakistan and Indonesia. And a large part of the conversation can happen outside the muslim world anyway.

The irony is arguing that one religion is dumber than others is a dumb argument. They are all dumb, and he should leave it at that. Quantifying the stupidity of faith is a worthless exercise.

I completely disagree in the strongest possible terms. You can't engage a set of doctrines as a monolith. Hell, we're constantly being told, correctly, by moderate Muslims that Islam is not a monolith. There's no one "true" version of Islam. There are differences and those differences yield different results. As stated, you've already conceded this: Jainism is different from Christianity leading devout Jains to behave differently from devout Christians. A fundamentalist Muslim has no scriptural basis for blowing up an abortion clinic, but he does have a scriptural basis for stoning someone to death for adultery. We (well, more accurately, probably Muslims) have to recognize and parse these specific beliefs to figure out what should be strictly adhered to and what shouldn't. No one's attacked for working on the sabbath anymore. Progress can be made on these issues.

The only way you can move someone off of an entrenched belief is allow the person to discover the counter belief themselves.

This, I think, is utter nonsense. I've heard a lot of it recently, in one form or another, usually expressed as "you can't reason people out of unreasonable positions". Bull####. People are reasoned out of unreasonable positions all the time. Talking about things does in fact alter people's perspectives. This can be difficult because of the way we're wired in terms of biases - I certainly hear you there - but these biases are obviously not impossible to overcome. Otherwise, your earlier point about education would be moot.

Moreover, what does your suggestion here prescribe? Abandoning millions of women and countless gays, apostates and other innocent groups of people to living under theocratic systems of oppression that want them subjugated or in many cases dead until their societies wise up and come to the conclusion that their beliefs are wrong? These people need support, and the left-wing, which they ought to be able to reliably look to for support, is failing them completely.

Worse, a lot of the left seems content to side with their oppressors, for fear of offending anyone or being seen to be on the same side of an issue with political conservatives. Given that people are being tortured, raped and murdered on religious grounds, this is farcical.

Tell that to all the Mexican Americans impacted by SB-1070 in Arizona. Tell that to Palestinians who are legislated non-entities in their own communities. That is legislated terrorism and it has horrible impacts on families, just like acts of violence.

Well, you've certainly followed your own advice with your appeal to emotion, here, in particularly soapboxy language. But I'd be happy to tell those people that those items of legislation are not terrorism or anything like it.

I'm certainly be willing to be convinced (and may not need to be) that all of those pieces of legislation are bad, and shouldn't be law. I'm even willing to concede that they have horrible impacts on families. But they're not "terrorism" any more than they are "genocide". Words have specific meanings. You don't get to pick a loaded term with a negative connotation and just apply it to anything you don't like. Why, that would be terrorism against the English language!

Anecdotal evidence can't be used to draw conclusions and make generalizations? Oh boy, I guess schools can close up shop on several sciences that use that exact method to inform their research!

In light of my earlier long-form attempt not to put words in your mouth, I'll invite you to point to where I said anecdotal evidence can't be used to draw conclusions. However, I will maintain that an anecdote isn't generalizable - it's an example of something happening. Great, fantastic, it stands on its own - we're talking about broad issues here, not instances. Consequently, anecdotes are unhelpful and often misleading.

Anything done by Muslims is immediately considered bad and evil. A similar action done by a Christian is justified in some way and considered the act of lone lunatic. Even when a guy admits he shot and killed people at an abortion clinic because of his religious beliefs, a clear act of terrorism, he gets a free pass on the terror link. I don't know how you can't see the negative consequences of this coverage.

I don't think we're really disagreeing here. To the extent media coverage misrepresents an event, I'm obviously against that. Particularly when a "guy admits he shot people at an abortion clinic because of his religious beliefs", I absolutely think the link between belief and behaviour should be stressed and established. I think it's more complicated than you're making it out to be, because in my view when one of those instances occurs, the Christian religious motivation behind it isn't denied by anyone. If anything, it's used by some total dickheads as some sort of egalitarian measure to say, "see, stop bashing Islam; every religion has people like this". Um, no, I'll bash the bad ideas in Christian doctrine that led this guy to kill people, just as I will every other religion. No set of ideas gets a "pass".

Islamaphobia is a direct result of this media coverage. So yes, media coverage and understanding it is very important.

That's anti-Muslim bigotry, it's terrible, and I don't think you have any argument from me on this point.

However, if your suggestion is that no one should talk about problems with Islam because some #######s may respond to such discussions taking place by illegally assaulting people - and I am not saying that this IS what you're suggesting, only that it seems implicit - you're wholly wrong. Shutting down discussions increases hysteria. People assume if you won't let an issue be heard, you're probably hiding something from them.

The more these issues are calmly and rationally discussed, the less fear there will be. Right now, ignorant jerks seem to think there's no difference among Muslims, and that the benign, not-particularly-devout believer who lives down the street from him holds the same set of beliefs as ISIS. If we can just f***ing talk about this stuff without being irrationally accused of bigotry or islamophobia or whatever the hell else, we might be able to get people's basic impressions to change somewhat.

[chemgear]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/istanbu...tion-1.3401387

An ISIS suicide bomber who killed 10 German tourists in Istanbul entered Turkey as a refugee and his movements were not monitored as he was not on any watch lists, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said on Wednesday.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Yep, I've pretty much done a 180 on my stance on refugees. Terrorism threat not withstanding, I have no desire to see the violence against women that's going on in Germany happen here in Canada. Any refugees we admit should be children and women primarily, the only men I would allow in would be as part of a whole family. I would simply flat out deny all single males entry

[CliffFletcher]

Chilling to see a terrorist bombing somewhere you've been. The Sultanhamet in Istanbul is the heart of the ancient city, and a major, major tourist site. Think Times Square or the Champs-Elysees. Located between two of the architectural masterpieces of humankind - the Blue Mosque and the Hagia Sofia - and thronged day and night with families and tourists. The people who did this really are wanton nihilists.