7 ms·

I don't know, islamic terror in particular seems to stand out from the rest. I mean, china, or the mexican drug lords are directly defending their interests. Is

by return0 10y ago

I don't know, islamic terror in particular seems to stand out from the rest. I mean, china, or the mexican drug lords are directly defending their interests. Islamic terror is not, it's revenge against a nebulous 'enemy' that they are being forced to tolerate (terrorists are not defending the honor of the peaceful muslims (who wouldnt even read charlie hebdo); instead they are trying to radicalize them). > he could not live “in any country where free speech is allowed” There is something to be said about incompatibility of certain cultures here.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
Is it not defending interest? Most Islamic terrorism in our age can be traced to the hyper-conservative madrasahs all over the world sponsored by (Sunni) Saudi Arabia, which seeks to dominate Islamic discourse and blunt the influence of (Shia) Iran. Also worth noting that the vast majority of global Islamic terrorists (as in not secretarian violence like was seen in Iraq, but rather acts of terrorism in predominantly non-Muslim areas) are Sunni. Yes, there may be compatibility, but there is also a great degree of deliberate cultural programming that we often do not notice or even consider.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  As usual, religion is a smokescreen. The most salient motivation for Saudi and other quasi-state support of "radical" Islam is to focus the populace's dissatisfaction outward toward the West instead of inward toward the horrific authoritarian regimes that rule these areas.
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    Bingo. Any time powerful people advocate for anything on moralistic grounds (like "make the world safe for democracy"), my immediate reaction is to ask "if these people get their way, what else do they get out of it?"
  - acqq 10y ago
    > As usual, religion is a smokescreen. Why do you deny sincere religiosity and direct reading of the texts as the motivation for the acts of religious people? Through the ages the humanity has done a lot of harm to "others" based on much less than what's in the holy texts of "the religion that can't be named." But that particular religion has spread especially based on the idea of fighting the war for religion and benefit of the fighters (both in this world and as the shortcut to heaven), all in the "holy" texts. For Christianity's witch hunting, only one verse in Bible was enough (Exodus 22:18). Luckily, there was at least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar Edit: return0, your "only very few lines have being pursued" signals to me that you don't know the content of the "holy" texts being discussed (that is, of the religion that can't be named). The visual presentation of the extent of hate directed to unbelievers is stunning -- almost every chapter remains heavily marked once we attempt doing this. And the ideas and demands are often, almost hypnotically, repeated. It's easy to prove it, there are enough translations even on-line.
    - return0 10y ago
      There are millions of things that could happen if one follows religious books to the letter. Don't you find it suspicious that only very few (convenient for some interests) lines have being pursued?
    - soundwave106 10y ago
      In Islam, there are "sword verses" and "peace verses". Christianity likewise has verses that are pretty violent (particularly in the Old Testament), and passages that promote peace and tolerance. I do feel that comparing which text is more violent by nature is kind of pointless. Is Sura 9 any "better or worse" than Deuteronomy 20? I don't know, they both seem pretty vanquish-all-your-enemies to me. So what you focus on is "interpretations". And so many times, the "interpretations" have a political bent. That Islam is tied to so much radicalism and terrorism is troubling. But a lot of the root source of this does seem to be the petro-economy, particularly Saudi Arabia. Example: Would Islamic terrorism be so big had Saudi Arabia not pushed Wahhabism so hard, tying it to politics (and thus dominating more mystical forms of Islam like say the Sufis)? Would we have a Taliban had the Wahhabist Saudis not fought against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan (thus radicalizing the Deobandis)? The problem with calling out entire religions is that you often sweep up people who have much different interpretations. A Western equivalent (not in terms of impact perhaps but in ideas) would be to say that Christianity itself is anti-gay. Some Christian churches are anti-gay, and there are a couple passages in the Bible that are anti-homosexual, but there are also Christians that dismiss these verses. Judaism mostly downplays violent passages ala Deuteronomy 20, and likewise, Islam could downplay their violent side if they wanted to (some sects do in fact). Most religious holy books are very multi-faceted. The fact that a side of Islam doesn't has a lot to do, in my opinion, with the politics and military ties of certain kleptocrat petro-economies (Saudi Arabia is a big one) or other external events (the American invasion of Iraq is another as had that not happened, there probably would be no ISIS).
- ajmurmann 10y ago
  This is the most infuriating thing to me. Everyone is aware of this, yet it never comes up in politics and the US keeps pretending that the Saudis are our great allies. I don't understand it one bit.
  - return0 10y ago
    Perhaps because it's more elaborate than it seems, as evidenced by a century of failed nation-building.
  - golergka 10y ago
    House of Saud is the most western-oriented major actor in the country. If US turns back on them, SA will quickly turn into another ISIS.
    - return0 10y ago
      And the US cares for that, as if Divide and Conquer is not a thing? Surely there are ulterior motives at play.
    - ajmurmann 10y ago
      But I keep hearing how they are the ones funding all the madrassas etc.
DanielBMarkham 10y ago
I think the idea of non-state actors using force to ensure they are not offended is a degree or two worse than governments doing the same thing. Governments usually behave in predictable, plodding ways. Ten thousand vehemently angry, violent people do not. So we're agreed on that. What's worse is the fact that it's not just Islamists. I wish that it were. Instead, we're growing a generation of internet-connected anger-junkies. The internet mob scene is well-known and well-documented. It continues to grow. I am afraid that soon we'll not just see Islamists, but multiple groups willing and able to use deadly force at the least offence. It should make things...interesting.
- talmand 10y ago
  >> I think the idea of non-state actors using force... Especially the groups seeking to have the state's legal power of force to be used on their behalf under the guise of fairness. >> ...but multiple groups willing and able to use deadly force at the least offence. I believe we are already there with the US Presidential campaigns this year.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    >> ...but multiple groups willing and able to use deadly force at the least offence. > I believe we are already there with the US Presidential campaigns this year. Do you have any documented examples of deadly force in this year's US Presidential campaigns?
    - talmand 10y ago
      Ah, I see. I misread. I'm speaking of violence and other illegal activities. But, it's early yet. EDIT: this was the definition I was thinking. Deadly force, as defined by the United States Armed Forces, is force that a person uses causing, or that a person knows or should know would create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily harm or injury.
mistermann 10y ago
If you look at it from the perspective that Islamists want to take over the world, it looks more like they too are simply defending their interests as well.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- return0 10y ago
  > want to take over the world The bunch of radicals that believes this can be easily defeated (as shown by the russian intervention), if it weren't for the fragile petrol-fueled balance of alliances in the region. The terrorists inflict terror in an attempt to recruit more "fighters". That is not a defensive act, there is not yet anything to defend..
  - acqq 10y ago
    > there is not yet anything to defend Not anything? "2.9 billon dollars total income" "Their total assets are estimated to be 2 trillion dollars" https://risk.thomsonreuters.com/infographic/islamic-state-how-worlds-richest-terrorist-organization-funds-its-operations https://risk.thomsonreuters.com/infographic/islamic-state-ho...
raverbashing 10y ago
Of course. And the whole world has to remain quiet lest the member of the self called "religion of peace" go on a killing spree
- return0 10y ago
  This has little to do with the religion itself or the koran (e.g. the muslim Ottoman empire was a tolerant empire that lasted for centuries). It's about a certain culture that seems to be gaining ground within this religion. That said, i agree that the silence and reluctance to defend western values has done more harm than good. There is a belief that we can't have a firm discussion about what values we want allow the west to have without killing each other. That's immature and wrong, resulting in shameful incidents such as the coverup of the Cologne rape incidents. State actors from all sides consider the populace "too immature" to handle the truth.
  - zeveb 10y ago
    > e.g. the muslim Ottoman empire was a tolerant empire that lasted for centuries I don't know how tolerant they really were. Look up the janissaries, the jizya and the rest of the details of dhimmitude. It's probably better described as 'sufferance' rather than 'tolerance.' I'll grant that they were probably more tolerant than Western Europe was at the time, given that they let Jews & Christians reside in the empire during centuries when Jews & Moors were expelled from European nations.
  - acqq 10y ago
    > the muslim Ottoman empire was a tolerant empire that lasted for centuries I've never heard something like that. What was that tolerance, can you please specify? They didn't kill all the Christians, but that would be against their religious texts, as long as the "people of the book" (the way the Christians and Jews are referred to) accept to pay the tax that only they have to pay, they can live. Specifically, and certainly not "tolerant" Ottomans also enforced the "tribute in blood," which actually wasn't supported by their religious texts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dev%C5%9Firme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dev%C5%9Firme

by return0 10y ago

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

Is it not defending interest? Most Islamic terrorism in our age can be traced to the hyper-conservative madrasahs all over the world sponsored by (Sunni) Saudi Arabia, which seeks to dominate Islamic discourse and blunt the influence of (Shia) Iran. Also worth noting that the vast majority of global Islamic terrorists (as in not secretarian violence like was seen in Iraq, but rather acts of terrorism in predominantly non-Muslim areas) are Sunni. Yes, there may be compatibility, but there is also a great degree of deliberate cultural programming that we often do not notice or even consider.

jessaustin 10y ago
As usual, religion is a smokescreen. The most salient motivation for Saudi and other quasi-state support of "radical" Islam is to focus the populace's dissatisfaction outward toward the West instead of inward toward the horrific authoritarian regimes that rule these areas.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  Bingo. Any time powerful people advocate for anything on moralistic grounds (like "make the world safe for democracy"), my immediate reaction is to ask "if these people get their way, what else do they get out of it?"
- acqq 10y ago
  > As usual, religion is a smokescreen. Why do you deny sincere religiosity and direct reading of the texts as the motivation for the acts of religious people? Through the ages the humanity has done a lot of harm to "others" based on much less than what's in the holy texts of "the religion that can't be named." But that particular religion has spread especially based on the idea of fighting the war for religion and benefit of the fighters (both in this world and as the shortcut to heaven), all in the "holy" texts. For Christianity's witch hunting, only one verse in Bible was enough (Exodus 22:18). Luckily, there was at least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar Edit: return0, your "only very few lines have being pursued" signals to me that you don't know the content of the "holy" texts being discussed (that is, of the religion that can't be named). The visual presentation of the extent of hate directed to unbelievers is stunning -- almost every chapter remains heavily marked once we attempt doing this. And the ideas and demands are often, almost hypnotically, repeated. It's easy to prove it, there are enough translations even on-line.
  - return0 10y ago
    There are millions of things that could happen if one follows religious books to the letter. Don't you find it suspicious that only very few (convenient for some interests) lines have being pursued?
  - soundwave106 10y ago
    In Islam, there are "sword verses" and "peace verses". Christianity likewise has verses that are pretty violent (particularly in the Old Testament), and passages that promote peace and tolerance. I do feel that comparing which text is more violent by nature is kind of pointless. Is Sura 9 any "better or worse" than Deuteronomy 20? I don't know, they both seem pretty vanquish-all-your-enemies to me. So what you focus on is "interpretations". And so many times, the "interpretations" have a political bent. That Islam is tied to so much radicalism and terrorism is troubling. But a lot of the root source of this does seem to be the petro-economy, particularly Saudi Arabia. Example: Would Islamic terrorism be so big had Saudi Arabia not pushed Wahhabism so hard, tying it to politics (and thus dominating more mystical forms of Islam like say the Sufis)? Would we have a Taliban had the Wahhabist Saudis not fought against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan (thus radicalizing the Deobandis)? The problem with calling out entire religions is that you often sweep up people who have much different interpretations. A Western equivalent (not in terms of impact perhaps but in ideas) would be to say that Christianity itself is anti-gay. Some Christian churches are anti-gay, and there are a couple passages in the Bible that are anti-homosexual, but there are also Christians that dismiss these verses. Judaism mostly downplays violent passages ala Deuteronomy 20, and likewise, Islam could downplay their violent side if they wanted to (some sects do in fact). Most religious holy books are very multi-faceted. The fact that a side of Islam doesn't has a lot to do, in my opinion, with the politics and military ties of certain kleptocrat petro-economies (Saudi Arabia is a big one) or other external events (the American invasion of Iraq is another as had that not happened, there probably would be no ISIS).
ajmurmann 10y ago
This is the most infuriating thing to me. Everyone is aware of this, yet it never comes up in politics and the US keeps pretending that the Saudis are our great allies. I don't understand it one bit.
- return0 10y ago
  Perhaps because it's more elaborate than it seems, as evidenced by a century of failed nation-building.
- golergka 10y ago
  House of Saud is the most western-oriented major actor in the country. If US turns back on them, SA will quickly turn into another ISIS.
  - return0 10y ago
    And the US cares for that, as if Divide and Conquer is not a thing? Surely there are ulterior motives at play.
  - ajmurmann 10y ago
    But I keep hearing how they are the ones funding all the madrassas etc.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago

I think the idea of non-state actors using force to ensure they are not offended is a degree or two worse than governments doing the same thing. Governments usually behave in predictable, plodding ways. Ten thousand vehemently angry, violent people do not. So we're agreed on that. What's worse is the fact that it's not just Islamists. I wish that it were. Instead, we're growing a generation of internet-connected anger-junkies. The internet mob scene is well-known and well-documented. It continues to grow. I am afraid that soon we'll not just see Islamists, but multiple groups willing and able to use deadly force at the least offence. It should make things...interesting.

talmand 10y ago
>> I think the idea of non-state actors using force... Especially the groups seeking to have the state's legal power of force to be used on their behalf under the guise of fairness. >> ...but multiple groups willing and able to use deadly force at the least offence. I believe we are already there with the US Presidential campaigns this year.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  >> ...but multiple groups willing and able to use deadly force at the least offence. > I believe we are already there with the US Presidential campaigns this year. Do you have any documented examples of deadly force in this year's US Presidential campaigns?
  - talmand 10y ago
    Ah, I see. I misread. I'm speaking of violence and other illegal activities. But, it's early yet. EDIT: this was the definition I was thinking. Deadly force, as defined by the United States Armed Forces, is force that a person uses causing, or that a person knows or should know would create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily harm or injury.

mistermann 10y ago

If you look at it from the perspective that Islamists want to take over the world, it looks more like they too are simply defending their interests as well.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
return0 10y ago
> want to take over the world The bunch of radicals that believes this can be easily defeated (as shown by the russian intervention), if it weren't for the fragile petrol-fueled balance of alliances in the region. The terrorists inflict terror in an attempt to recruit more "fighters". That is not a defensive act, there is not yet anything to defend..
- acqq 10y ago
  > there is not yet anything to defend Not anything? "2.9 billon dollars total income" "Their total assets are estimated to be 2 trillion dollars" https://risk.thomsonreuters.com/infographic/islamic-state-how-worlds-richest-terrorist-organization-funds-its-operations https://risk.thomsonreuters.com/infographic/islamic-state-ho...

raverbashing 10y ago

Of course. And the whole world has to remain quiet lest the member of the self called "religion of peace" go on a killing spree

return0 10y ago
This has little to do with the religion itself or the koran (e.g. the muslim Ottoman empire was a tolerant empire that lasted for centuries). It's about a certain culture that seems to be gaining ground within this religion. That said, i agree that the silence and reluctance to defend western values has done more harm than good. There is a belief that we can't have a firm discussion about what values we want allow the west to have without killing each other. That's immature and wrong, resulting in shameful incidents such as the coverup of the Cologne rape incidents. State actors from all sides consider the populace "too immature" to handle the truth.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > e.g. the muslim Ottoman empire was a tolerant empire that lasted for centuries I don't know how tolerant they really were. Look up the janissaries, the jizya and the rest of the details of dhimmitude. It's probably better described as 'sufferance' rather than 'tolerance.' I'll grant that they were probably more tolerant than Western Europe was at the time, given that they let Jews & Christians reside in the empire during centuries when Jews & Moors were expelled from European nations.
- acqq 10y ago
  > the muslim Ottoman empire was a tolerant empire that lasted for centuries I've never heard something like that. What was that tolerance, can you please specify? They didn't kill all the Christians, but that would be against their religious texts, as long as the "people of the book" (the way the Christians and Jews are referred to) accept to pay the tax that only they have to pay, they can live. Specifically, and certainly not "tolerant" Ottomans also enforced the "tribute in blood," which actually wasn't supported by their religious texts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dev%C5%9Firme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dev%C5%9Firme