5 ms·

Because it's not like attacks like this weren't committed by muslims before ? In reality they've been at it since the early middle ages.

by iofj 11y ago

pan69 11y ago
You mean those middle ages where a bunch of Christians went over to the middle east to kill a bunch of Muslims? You mean those middle ages?
- iofj 11y ago
  First crusade: 1096 AD Muslim expansion wars: 736 AD In a way you're right, you've just got the agressor wrong. In fact the crusades were started because of muslim agression. Because, and I'm quoting muslim historical sources here "the blood of Christians was standing above our knees in Jerusalem".
  - pan69 11y ago
    Attention people! We found the problem! Apparently the Muslims did a big land grab about 1500 years ago or so (just like the Romans did before them) and that's, apparently, where it all started. Turns out it has nothing to do with the US foreign policy of the past 60 or so years, the creation of the state of Israel (and the Israelis being a bunch of dicks about it, and for the record, I'm most certainly NOT an anti Semite, though I'm allergic to assholes) and the British hopelessly trying to colonize Afghanistan throughout 1800's and a whole bunch of other dickhead moves by the west and their buddies. Apologies. I'm not trying to insult your (or anyone's) intelligence. I just couldn't resist... /sarcasm PS: I'm very much a westerner, white male, atheist, born and raised in the Netherlands and currently living in Australia, for what ever it's worth.
    - iofj 11y ago
      Not sure how you can say this after claiming something so completely stupid as claiming muslims were provoked in the early middle ages into starting their expansion wars. History is not on your side, so you're now making the claim that history itself is ridiculous and worthless ? And even on those terms you cannot stop making the moronic claim. Whatever happened in 1800 did not provoke muslims into expanding, as muslim expansion wars and genocides predate the very nation you're talking about. But that's not what you're doing at all isn't it ? You're just so terrified by the simple explanation that it must be wrong. And damn causality, damn rational thought, fuck sanity, we can't be in this situation ! Any explanation is good enough just to think it's not true, any at all. You must make a great atheist. My claim is simple: it would be that the ideology itself is aggressive, and that friday's attacks and the original expansion wars, and all the wars and genocides committed by these people in between are all the result of this. This is the claim all of these terrorists make themselves, it is a claim you will find in plenty of history books, and it is what everybody would think if you merely erased the word "religion" from the question. Nobody would find this claim the least bit controversial if it were about a dozen political ideologies, but somehow this one ideology needs to be exempt, because it "hurts people's feelings". Like all terrorist organisations, the military arm of isis is tiny relative to the total organisation. Attacking that is useless, it's like attacking one of Goldman Sach's cleaning staff hoping it'll bring down the organization. In reality, of course that person will be replaced before you can blink. 99% of ISIS is in the west, in mosques in Holland and in Australia. Those need to be attacked if we're to stop this.
      - Natanael_L 11y ago
        Calm happy people usually don't adopt violent ideologies. We pretty much caused a whole region to become very much not calm happy people. If we hadn't, chances are far fewer people would have supported these ideologies. THAT is my entire point.
        iofj 11y ago
        I think you need to read up on some more history.
        Natanael_L 11y ago
        Examples? Typically it only happens if some strong leader portrays another group as the enemy and manages to build up wide support. Manufacturing fear.
        iofj 11y ago
        How about we take as a first one: do you seriously think WWII happened because Hitler portrayed the Jews as the enemy ? Do you think Iraq happened (first time OR second time) because Bush (first one, then the other) portrayed Iraqi's as terrorists ?Or let's take non-western conflicts. Say, Iran-Iraq war. Who demonized who exactly (as a cause of war) ? Do you think the Falklands war was about demonized Argentinians ? I'm not trying to belittle or avoid the fact that people were demonized during these conflicts, in some cases with very unpleasant consequences. However, that had little to do with the conflicts themselves.
        Natanael_L 11y ago
        You think the people didn't feel the need for a strong leader because of a threat? Their economy was crap, and Hitler have them a scapegoat and scared them by talking about how dangerous they were and the need to become pure, etc... Iraq for invaded because oil most certainly, using the fear of WMDs as the excuse. You're also conflating the original source of each conflict with the reason for WHY the large masses joined in and took sides, the reason for why the conflicts COULD become large and dangerous.

Because it's not like attacks like this weren't committed by muslims before ? In reality they've been at it since the early middle ages.

by iofj 11y ago

Because it's not like attacks like this weren't committed by muslims before ? In reality they've been at it since the early middle ages.

pan69 11y ago

You mean those middle ages where a bunch of Christians went over to the middle east to kill a bunch of Muslims? You mean those middle ages?

iofj 11y ago
First crusade: 1096 AD Muslim expansion wars: 736 AD In a way you're right, you've just got the agressor wrong. In fact the crusades were started because of muslim agression. Because, and I'm quoting muslim historical sources here "the blood of Christians was standing above our knees in Jerusalem".
- pan69 11y ago
  Attention people! We found the problem! Apparently the Muslims did a big land grab about 1500 years ago or so (just like the Romans did before them) and that's, apparently, where it all started. Turns out it has nothing to do with the US foreign policy of the past 60 or so years, the creation of the state of Israel (and the Israelis being a bunch of dicks about it, and for the record, I'm most certainly NOT an anti Semite, though I'm allergic to assholes) and the British hopelessly trying to colonize Afghanistan throughout 1800's and a whole bunch of other dickhead moves by the west and their buddies. Apologies. I'm not trying to insult your (or anyone's) intelligence. I just couldn't resist... /sarcasm PS: I'm very much a westerner, white male, atheist, born and raised in the Netherlands and currently living in Australia, for what ever it's worth.
  - iofj 11y ago
    Not sure how you can say this after claiming something so completely stupid as claiming muslims were provoked in the early middle ages into starting their expansion wars. History is not on your side, so you're now making the claim that history itself is ridiculous and worthless ? And even on those terms you cannot stop making the moronic claim. Whatever happened in 1800 did not provoke muslims into expanding, as muslim expansion wars and genocides predate the very nation you're talking about. But that's not what you're doing at all isn't it ? You're just so terrified by the simple explanation that it must be wrong. And damn causality, damn rational thought, fuck sanity, we can't be in this situation ! Any explanation is good enough just to think it's not true, any at all. You must make a great atheist. My claim is simple: it would be that the ideology itself is aggressive, and that friday's attacks and the original expansion wars, and all the wars and genocides committed by these people in between are all the result of this. This is the claim all of these terrorists make themselves, it is a claim you will find in plenty of history books, and it is what everybody would think if you merely erased the word "religion" from the question. Nobody would find this claim the least bit controversial if it were about a dozen political ideologies, but somehow this one ideology needs to be exempt, because it "hurts people's feelings". Like all terrorist organisations, the military arm of isis is tiny relative to the total organisation. Attacking that is useless, it's like attacking one of Goldman Sach's cleaning staff hoping it'll bring down the organization. In reality, of course that person will be replaced before you can blink. 99% of ISIS is in the west, in mosques in Holland and in Australia. Those need to be attacked if we're to stop this.
    - Natanael_L 11y ago
      Calm happy people usually don't adopt violent ideologies. We pretty much caused a whole region to become very much not calm happy people. If we hadn't, chances are far fewer people would have supported these ideologies. THAT is my entire point.
      - iofj 11y ago
        I think you need to read up on some more history.
        Natanael_L 11y ago
        Examples? Typically it only happens if some strong leader portrays another group as the enemy and manages to build up wide support. Manufacturing fear.
        iofj 11y ago
        How about we take as a first one: do you seriously think WWII happened because Hitler portrayed the Jews as the enemy ? Do you think Iraq happened (first time OR second time) because Bush (first one, then the other) portrayed Iraqi's as terrorists ?Or let's take non-western conflicts. Say, Iran-Iraq war. Who demonized who exactly (as a cause of war) ? Do you think the Falklands war was about demonized Argentinians ? I'm not trying to belittle or avoid the fact that people were demonized during these conflicts, in some cases with very unpleasant consequences. However, that had little to do with the conflicts themselves.
        Natanael_L 11y ago
        You think the people didn't feel the need for a strong leader because of a threat? Their economy was crap, and Hitler have them a scapegoat and scared them by talking about how dangerous they were and the need to become pure, etc... Iraq for invaded because oil most certainly, using the fear of WMDs as the excuse. You're also conflating the original source of each conflict with the reason for WHY the large masses joined in and took sides, the reason for why the conflicts COULD become large and dangerous.