10 ms·

As interesting as this would be on another occasion, the fact is, its not poverty which leads people to commit terrorism. The problem of les banlieues is a soc

by Mikeb85 11y ago

As interesting as this would be on another occasion, the fact is, its not poverty which leads people to commit terrorism. The problem of les banlieues is a social problem for France, but ghetto youth are more interested in girls, drugs, and otherwise acting out than in terrorism. As Osama Bin Laden and others show, you can be given every opportunity in life and still choose terrorism. You can be well educated (many Daesh members are) and choose terrorism. The elephant in the room that many refuse to address is that terrorism exists anywhere Islam does, there are insurgencies in nearly every country where Muslims are a sizeable minority. A little anecdote - my wife comes from a very poor country, from a Muslim region. The poor kids aren't the ones growing up wearing hijabs, aren't the ones committing terrorism. Terrorists have been apprehended from her village trying to get into the west - the one thing they had in common - they went to a local madrassa funded by a Gulf state. A similar comparison can be made in the US. Ghetto youth don't go around committing mass shootings. They don't join Daesh. It's the middle class, outcast white kids that are doing mass shootings, or newly converted/radicalized middle class youth that join Daesh. Anyhow, it is a brilliantly written piece, but on this occasion I'm not sure its particularly relevant.

tomohawk 11y ago
There appears to be a not-insignificant minority in Islamic countries who favor violence as a means of achieving goals. http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-concerns-about-extremist-groups/ http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-con... Having 20% of the populace believe that suicide bombings are justifiable is a real problem.
- mercurial 11y ago
  It's not suicide bombing the problem. That's just the delivery method. The problem is suicide bombings targeting civilians. Now, it would be interesting to have the answer to the percentage of people in the western world thinking that "attacks on civilians can be justified to defend democracy". If the previous question was "Do you think the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified?", you probably won't like the numbers you get for the second question.
  - ojbyrne 11y ago
    I think even if you ask "should the US use nuclear weapons in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan," a large number of americans would say yes.
- hackuser 11y ago
  If you click the link, the parent has an entirely different analysis than the researchers, Pew. They say: Muslim Publics Share Concerns about Extremist Groups Much Diminished Support for Suicide Bombing 20% of Americans believe in a lot of things, from UFOs to a lot of nasty things. I invite you to do a quick search.
bjelkeman-again 11y ago
Terrorism also exist in probably every country, so pointing out countries based on religion doesn't really help. Right wing terrorism exist in places like Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands, and it wasn't because of religion.
arnsholt 11y ago
Terrorism is not the sole property of Muslims. There is terrorism motivated by religion, including Islamic terrorism, but also Christian (the Ku Klux Klan, people blowing up abortion clinics in the US), Hindu (Indian Hindutva nationalists killing Muslims), Jewish (attacks by fundamentalists on Arabs in modern-day Israel), Sikh (the assassination of Indira Gandhi), and so on. Or you have non-religious terrorism such as the nationalism of Anders Behring Breivik, or eco-terrorism. The reason for terrorism is extremism in all its forms, not Islam.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Best comment on this subject so far, thank you.
- tomohawk 11y ago
  I think you have to be careful when attributing violent action to a religion. Religions are often used to provide a sheen of respectability to otherwise disreputable organizations, such as the KKK. How to know if a religion is the source of an action or not? One way is to look at the founder of the religion. Would the founder perform the action? Did the founder use violence and coercion to achieve goals? Did the founder encourage their followers to do such things? If not, then it is likely that the claim is not valid. If we look at the founder of Christianity, there is no advocacy of using violence to achieve ends. So, the claim of that KKK and other violent groups are Christian doesn't hold much water. This is not to say that an individual who espouses a certain belief will not be violent, just that the religion is not the source of it. If we look at the founder of Islam, we see something else. We see violence and coercion used and advocated by the founder.
  - Kristine1975 11y ago
    Matthew 10:34: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
    - manmal 11y ago
      That quote seems to be taken out of context: http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-sword.html http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-sword.html
ant6n 11y ago
Since 9/11, In the US, right-wing terrorism has killed more people than muslim terrorism: http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks...
- nightspirit 11y ago
  Starting counting one year earlier and see whose "score" now is higher and how much higher.
chr15p 11y ago
> The elephant in the room that many refuse to address is that terrorism exists anywhere Islam does, there are insurgencies in nearly every country where Muslims are a sizeable minority. I think there's a significant danger of seeing correlation and assuming causation, groups like FARC, the IRA, or the Tamil Tigers (inventors of the suicide bomber vest) are terrorist groups that existed in places that Islam didn't. If we take the longer view many (most?) terrorist organizations have been based around nationalism often coupled with anti-colonialism, or on a marginalised group taking up arms against their (perceived) oppressors often coupled with some strain of communist ideology. Its only recently terrorism based on Islam has become a thing. I agree that its not poverty which leads people to commit terrorism though. At least not just poverty. Its a complicated mixture of feeling marginalised from a society (which can be poverty or can be a bunch of other things), believing they have a grievance against it, plus an ideology that focuses that into violence.
- curun1r 11y ago
  The causation argument is much more complicated, but still quite reasonable. The Atlantic [1] has the best one I've seen so far. The TL;DR of it is that Islam was born out of a time of war and the literal reading of its teachings advocates violence against non-Muslims who do not submit. If we continue with the narrative that the violent Muslims are a radical faction that's perverting the true nature of Islam, we're denying the true nature of Islam. It's more accurate to say that the non-violent Muslims are the ones that have perverted their religion into one that can live in peacefully with non-Muslims. [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi...
  - hackuser 11y ago
    To speak of the true nature of Islam is really to slur an entire religion and over a billion individuals. Such things are just ignorance and hate. You can't possibly describe the "true nature" of anything in such terms, an absurd concept on its face; what does it even mean? What would be the 'true nature' of Christianity - I can't even imagine. I'm sorry to see this on Hacker News.
mercurial 11y ago
I think, to a large extent, it's a question of a missing sense of identity, of belonging and a general failure of our society to offer a meaning for one's existence beyond buying the next iThing. The great clash of ideologies in the XXth century, combined with the decline of religion in the West, has left a great void. We are spiritually exhausted.
hackuser 11y ago
The elephant in this room is the confirmation bias of hate, and the willingness of people to spread hate via loose speculation. Terrorism exists everywhere, in every society, including in the most advanced nations. So if you look for confirmation that Islam causes terrorism, you will find it. Demonizing entire religions, over a billion people, is very dangerous. It probably should be avoided, but especially if you don't have more to offer than ignorant speculation. Such words have a history of causing great harm.

by Mikeb85 11y ago

tomohawk 11y ago

There appears to be a not-insignificant minority in Islamic countries who favor violence as a means of achieving goals. http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-concerns-about-extremist-groups/ http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-con... Having 20% of the populace believe that suicide bombings are justifiable is a real problem.

mercurial 11y ago
It's not suicide bombing the problem. That's just the delivery method. The problem is suicide bombings targeting civilians. Now, it would be interesting to have the answer to the percentage of people in the western world thinking that "attacks on civilians can be justified to defend democracy". If the previous question was "Do you think the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified?", you probably won't like the numbers you get for the second question.
- ojbyrne 11y ago
  I think even if you ask "should the US use nuclear weapons in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan," a large number of americans would say yes.
hackuser 11y ago
If you click the link, the parent has an entirely different analysis than the researchers, Pew. They say: Muslim Publics Share Concerns about Extremist Groups Much Diminished Support for Suicide Bombing 20% of Americans believe in a lot of things, from UFOs to a lot of nasty things. I invite you to do a quick search.

bjelkeman-again 11y ago

Terrorism also exist in probably every country, so pointing out countries based on religion doesn't really help. Right wing terrorism exist in places like Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands, and it wasn't because of religion.

arnsholt 11y ago

Terrorism is not the sole property of Muslims. There is terrorism motivated by religion, including Islamic terrorism, but also Christian (the Ku Klux Klan, people blowing up abortion clinics in the US), Hindu (Indian Hindutva nationalists killing Muslims), Jewish (attacks by fundamentalists on Arabs in modern-day Israel), Sikh (the assassination of Indira Gandhi), and so on. Or you have non-religious terrorism such as the nationalism of Anders Behring Breivik, or eco-terrorism. The reason for terrorism is extremism in all its forms, not Islam.

jacquesm 11y ago
Best comment on this subject so far, thank you.
tomohawk 11y ago
I think you have to be careful when attributing violent action to a religion. Religions are often used to provide a sheen of respectability to otherwise disreputable organizations, such as the KKK. How to know if a religion is the source of an action or not? One way is to look at the founder of the religion. Would the founder perform the action? Did the founder use violence and coercion to achieve goals? Did the founder encourage their followers to do such things? If not, then it is likely that the claim is not valid. If we look at the founder of Christianity, there is no advocacy of using violence to achieve ends. So, the claim of that KKK and other violent groups are Christian doesn't hold much water. This is not to say that an individual who espouses a certain belief will not be violent, just that the religion is not the source of it. If we look at the founder of Islam, we see something else. We see violence and coercion used and advocated by the founder.
- Kristine1975 11y ago
  Matthew 10:34: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
  - manmal 11y ago
    That quote seems to be taken out of context: http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-sword.html http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-sword.html

ant6n 11y ago

Since 9/11, In the US, right-wing terrorism has killed more people than muslim terrorism: http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks...

nightspirit 11y ago
Starting counting one year earlier and see whose "score" now is higher and how much higher.

chr15p 11y ago

> The elephant in the room that many refuse to address is that terrorism exists anywhere Islam does, there are insurgencies in nearly every country where Muslims are a sizeable minority. I think there's a significant danger of seeing correlation and assuming causation, groups like FARC, the IRA, or the Tamil Tigers (inventors of the suicide bomber vest) are terrorist groups that existed in places that Islam didn't. If we take the longer view many (most?) terrorist organizations have been based around nationalism often coupled with anti-colonialism, or on a marginalised group taking up arms against their (perceived) oppressors often coupled with some strain of communist ideology. Its only recently terrorism based on Islam has become a thing. I agree that its not poverty which leads people to commit terrorism though. At least not just poverty. Its a complicated mixture of feeling marginalised from a society (which can be poverty or can be a bunch of other things), believing they have a grievance against it, plus an ideology that focuses that into violence.

curun1r 11y ago
The causation argument is much more complicated, but still quite reasonable. The Atlantic [1] has the best one I've seen so far. The TL;DR of it is that Islam was born out of a time of war and the literal reading of its teachings advocates violence against non-Muslims who do not submit. If we continue with the narrative that the violent Muslims are a radical faction that's perverting the true nature of Islam, we're denying the true nature of Islam. It's more accurate to say that the non-violent Muslims are the ones that have perverted their religion into one that can live in peacefully with non-Muslims. [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi...
- hackuser 11y ago
  To speak of the true nature of Islam is really to slur an entire religion and over a billion individuals. Such things are just ignorance and hate. You can't possibly describe the "true nature" of anything in such terms, an absurd concept on its face; what does it even mean? What would be the 'true nature' of Christianity - I can't even imagine. I'm sorry to see this on Hacker News.

mercurial 11y ago

I think, to a large extent, it's a question of a missing sense of identity, of belonging and a general failure of our society to offer a meaning for one's existence beyond buying the next iThing. The great clash of ideologies in the XXth century, combined with the decline of religion in the West, has left a great void. We are spiritually exhausted.

hackuser 11y ago

The elephant in this room is the confirmation bias of hate, and the willingness of people to spread hate via loose speculation. Terrorism exists everywhere, in every society, including in the most advanced nations. So if you look for confirmation that Islam causes terrorism, you will find it. Demonizing entire religions, over a billion people, is very dangerous. It probably should be avoided, but especially if you don't have more to offer than ignorant speculation. Such words have a history of causing great harm.