There are a lot of poor countries in this world and there are many dictators out there, but I have yet to see an Atheist/Buddhist/Christian and other infidel terror group that operates on the same global scale as that of ISIS, the Taliban, or Al Qaeda. And these Islamic terrorists are not fighting for equality, they want people to convert to their own brand of evil Islam.
Wahhabism, to be specific.
Although, if you want powerful terror organizations that are non-Muslim, I'd name FARC and the IRA, who are both right up there with the best of them in terms of reach and willingness to murder.
Doesn't change the fact it is one of the most secular Muslim countries out there (aside from Turkey), and yet biased laws that favor Muslims over non-Muslims exist.
About half of the world's Muslims live in Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. With the exception of Pakistan, they're all extremely secular.
What you're talking about are a lot of smaller countries who would likely have oppressive regimes anyway. I don't like them, and I think they should change, just like I think there is a lot that could change about a lot of non-Muslim countries. Many of the places you're talking about are in South Asia, where if you look at these Muslim's countries non-Muslim neighbors, they largely have the same problems.
And now that law is being challenged in those 7 states, and just like Same Sex Marriage -before it- will soon be abolished. Anyone who tries to argue for the abolition of anti-atheist and anti-apostasy laws in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and others would likely be meet with death. Treatment of minority views in Islamic nations are among the worst in the world.
This is hyperbole. First of all, both the Saudis and Pakistan have people who actively challenge those anti-apostasy laws. Second of all, there are plenty of other countries where minority voices are treated harshly. As these countries continue to develop, we'll see these rates drop significantly.
My point about the Atheists in the US is that we are not that far removed from a lot of the countries you're talking about. It's easy for forget that those cultural practices that we view as problematic in other countries were fairly common in the US in many American's lifetimes (treatment of women/minorities/political ideologies).
Now, the death penalty for apostasy is abhorrent and I'm completely against it. What I was trying to say is that it's a relatively recent development.
The big difference is, in the western world, if a show tried to paint Jews/Blacks/Asians/Latinos in a bad light, the people involve (producers/hosts/actors/directors) would meet public backlash/outrage and the consequences are in the form of suspension, public apology, resignation, and even cancellation. Middle Eastern TV paints Jews as evil/greedy folks and Europeans/Americans as modern day equivalent of the crusaders in the past, and this is supported by the government themselves. Hate preachers in the Islamic world are very common that they even find their opinions and views broadcasted on TV. And people asks why do these Islamic terrorists hate the western world so much? The answer is they've been exposed to that type of propaganda in their childhood.
See, this is too easy. First of all, in the US this kind of thing wasn't just accepted, but common, less than 50 years ago. Second of all, the 'raised on propaganda' is a lazy argument. It still doesn't explain why that propaganda exists, or to what extent it really affects people's decisions. You want to know why a lot of people in the Middle East hate the west? Colonialism, propping up of totalitarian but western friendly governments, drone strikes and ongoing support of Israel. Each of which are understandable reasons for anti-western sentiment, although not a justification for the murder of innocent people.
The Taliban, Isis, and Al Qaeda are among the world's largest traffickers of opium, heroin, and other ingredients that make drugs. A huge chunk of their income comes from drugs. So yeah, they are the worst.
Combined, they kill less than a tenth of the people Narcos do annually. Narcos are far scarier.
At least we agree on something although the 1% figure you provided is not really accurate. No one really knows what fraction of the Muslim community supports these terror attacks (could be lower or could be higher).
cut to save space
Glad to see that majority are against it but there are still a "significant" number who thinks it can be justified. Suicide bombing that targets innocent civilians should never ever be justified.
Yeah, except that doesn't include data on what their contemporaries believe. Taking a look at polls of westerners, like this or thisfrom Pew tells the real story here. There is a frightening number of non-Muslim Americans who believe violence against civilians is justified.
The thing that you are missing from my post is that I indicated that these terrorist attack is mainly a product of the untolerance, prejudices, and religious politics that exist in Islamic countries. Blaming the west and the Jews is common in their media. When a Danish cartoonist draw a harmless picture of their prophet, many Muslims threatened him with death.
Let's put death threats into perspective, here. When Anita Sarkeesian said video games are sexist, she also received death threats.
When a Mauritanian essay writer, wrote about his observations of his religion Islam and what he thinks need to be changed, he was rewarded with death penalty. When a Pakistani farmer reacted negatively because no one wants to drink on the well she just drunk with just because she is a Christian, she was punished by death and her Christian village attacked by angry mobs. These are not nit-pickings, these are common day events experienced by free-thinking Muslims, apostates, and minorities in their world.
'Their World' being pretty much the Middle East, which is very different than the Muslim world as a whole. Don't conflate the two. The middle east and north Africa have a wide variety of problems, most of which have significantly less to do with religion than with the last hundred years of politics.
I don't even know why we are arguing about this. My statement that the "Islamic world should have a cultural revolution" is just a reiteration by many politicians, celebrities, and other people all over the world. As long as many of the untolerant views persists in their culture, then they will continue to produce these Hitler-wannabes, and these types of violent attacks would go on. In the end, it's their people that will suffer and we outsiders are becoming casualties. We shouldn't hide what is on plain sight. It's very obvious that what is driving these terrorist groups are: isolation, hatred, prejudice, and a twisted version of their religion.
The problem with a statement like that is that it's inaccurate. The 'Islamic World' doesn't need a revolution, you're talking about countries that represent about a fifth of the world's populations of Muslims. It's those countries we need to focus on, and not over-generalize to billions of people. It's also important to understand why these terror groups exist and how we can counteract them, and oversimplifying the reality doesn't help.
If you said 'the Arab World', well then that's a much more accurate statement.
This entire debate gets boring after a bit, because facts still remain ignored, or removed.
Probably the biggest fact that is ignored is that research has put the number of extremists in the past few years at 15% on the low end, with 25% being the high end—and also regarded as being the most likely. Twenty-five percent of even 1-billion is still 250,000,000, almost two-thirds the population of the United States. We know that there are more than one-billion Muslims in the world, too. So even accepting that it is a minority that is committing these atrocities, that is still a very significant number of terrorists running around there.
Next, we will never catch them all that come into this country. We may catch a majority, but they only need to commit one act to score a victory. Accept this. No matter how vigilant you are, no matter what your background in combat operations or counterterrorism, you will not stop it from happening every time. Look at Israel: they are the greatest in the world at infiltrating terrorist cells and stopping attacks, and yet they still happen. That’s because many are lone wolf-style attacks, where there’s no cell to operate in. We’ve seen that these attacks can be done quickly and timetables shifted to accommodate new developments: Paris showed us this, after all.
The biggest problem is that these guys aren’t the military of a country. They don’t wear uniforms. They hide in civilian populations, and our hands in combat are tied by rules of engagement that don’t work. If the guy just got done shooting three of your comrades then throws down his weapon and surrenders, you are not supposed to kill him. You’re supposed to take him into custody. Tell me who would follow such rules when you just watched your buddies get mowed down by some jihadi wielding an AK. Or a suicide bomber you couldn’t engage, because he wasn’t ACTUALLY pointing a weapon at you (yes, these are ROEs that we had under Obama, and to a lesser extent under Bush a couple of months leading up to Operation Phantom Fury but were then removed). Restricting the combat competence of our troops for political reasons is pointless.
We can all agree that Islam has a problem. But you and I look at this differently, Jay. Islam has been engaging in violent actions in the name of jihad since its founding. Christianity and Islam have a similar beginning: both were persecuted when they began before making violent expansions. Christianity, however, grew out of it beginning in the 1200s, really, even though the last Crusade wasn’t launched until 1455. Even after that, you can make arguments for the Spanish Inquisition, the Schism, all of these issues that have plagued predominantly the Catholic Church—a distinction many Protestants will point to, but is usually ignored as a whole because it doesn’t fit into an agenda. I’m not saying Christianity hasn’t done some stuff that is ****ed up, but I’m also saying that what happened 600 years ago does not have much relevance when talking about what Islam is doing right here, and right now.
You can’t reason with these people. You can’t talk to them. The minute you do, you are giving their ideology credence, and you are validating their claims. The only way to fight this is with violence. We did it in 1941, when we entered the Second World War and fought the Nazis, Italian fascism, and the Imperial Japanese relentlessly. We fought violent ideology with violence, because it was what they understood. It was all they were able to understand. We fought and bled because we had to. This is no different.
I will admit I don’t like Islam. I’ve studied to Qu’ran. I’ve read it in depth because I wanted to know my enemy, much as I have read Mein Kampf. I may not fully understand the religion, but I understand its founding principles, which require conversion or death. That is much different than Christianity and Judaism, which their holy texts do not call for the death of non-believers. The New Testament—which every Christian is supposed to live by—even makes mention that killing non-believers is hateful to God. Go ahead and read the Qu’ran: killing non-believers is quintessential to the survival of Islam. It may have been written at a time when Islam was being persecuted, but consider the fact that there is no way to really update the book, because Muhammad is dead.
The silent majority doesn’t matter, because they don’t do anything about it until its too late. It’s been that way almost every time there’s been a conflict. Nazi Germany, the USSR, communist China, communist Vietnam, Iraq…the list can go on. If people want it to stop, they need to stop making all these websites. They need to stop saying “I stand by the people of Paris.” The effective range of prayers is 0 meters, people. You want to do something about this, you want to show you care? The Peshmerga are kicking ass and taking names against Daesh (ISIS) right now. Shoulder a rifle and go help them out.
Probably the biggest fact that is ignored is that research has put the number of extremists in the past few years at 15% on the low end, with 25% being the high end—and also regarded as being the most likely. Twenty-five percent of even 1-billion is still 250,000,000, almost two-thirds the population of the United States. We know that there are more than one-billion Muslims in the world, too. So even accepting that it is a minority that is committing these atrocities, that is still a very significant number of terrorists running around there.
If that were remotely true, we'd all be dead right now, wouldn't we? So when you say 'Extremist', what exactly do you mean?
Islam has been engaging in violent actions in the name of jihad since its founding. Christianity and Islam have a similar beginning: both were persecuted when they began before making violent expansions. Christianity, however, grew out of it beginning in the 1200s, really, even though the last Crusade wasn’t launched until 1455. Even after that, you can make arguments for the Spanish Inquisition, the Schism, all of these issues that have plagued predominantly the Catholic Church—a distinction many Protestants will point to, but is usually ignored as a whole because it doesn’t fit into an agenda. I’m not saying Christianity hasn’t done some stuff that is ****ed up, but I’m also saying that what happened 600 years ago does not have much relevance when talking about what Islam is doing right here, and right now.
No one is talking about the Crusades or anything 600 years ago except you. I'm pretty exclusively talking about the last 100 years of world history.
Probably the biggest fact that is ignored is that research has put the number of extremists in the past few years at 15% on the low end, with 25% being the high end—and also regarded as being the most likely. Twenty-five percent of even 1-billion is still 250,000,000, almost two-thirds the population of the United States. We know that there are more than one-billion Muslims in the world, too. So even accepting that it is a minority that is committing these atrocities, that is still a very significant number of terrorists running around there.
If that were remotely true, we'd all be dead right now, wouldn't we? So when you say 'Extremist', what exactly do you mean?
Islam has been engaging in violent actions in the name of jihad since its founding. Christianity and Islam have a similar beginning: both were persecuted when they began before making violent expansions. Christianity, however, grew out of it beginning in the 1200s, really, even though the last Crusade wasn’t launched until 1455. Even after that, you can make arguments for the Spanish Inquisition, the Schism, all of these issues that have plagued predominantly the Catholic Church—a distinction many Protestants will point to, but is usually ignored as a whole because it doesn’t fit into an agenda. I’m not saying Christianity hasn’t done some stuff that is ****ed up, but I’m also saying that what happened 600 years ago does not have much relevance when talking about what Islam is doing right here, and right now.
No one is talking about the Crusades or anything 600 years ago except you. I'm pretty exclusively talking about the last 100 years of world history.
I do want to note that the rhetoric offered up by ISIS is very much hung up on (literally) medieval concepts. To keep your focus only on the last 100 years is almost certainly a mistake, as the apocalyptic beliefs of these individuals are founded in comparatively ancient ideology.
Dozens of LGBT people have been killed in the US by gay bashers. Christian Extremism is a lot more dangerous than you think.
Just so we're clear: it's OK to attribute the dozens of LGBT hate-crime related deaths in the U.S. over the years to Christian-based hatred, but it's not OK to associate ISIS with Islam?
Oops. While I was typing this, ISIS just killed a dozen more.
Christian Extremism is a lot more dangerous than you think. If you head over to countries in Africa, women and children are routinely murdered as 'witches'.
Can we call those groups Christian? You just did. So I'm calling ISIS Islamic.
See, I don't care about any group one way or another. I'm just getting worn down by this leftist idea that some groups, some ideologies can be named and others cannot.
I do want to note that the rhetoric offered up by ISIS is very much hung up on (literally) medieval concepts. To keep your focus only on the last 100 years is almost certainly a mistake, as the apocalyptic beliefs of these individuals are founded in comparatively ancient ideology.
I'm talking about the conditions that spawn these kinds of people. Their ideology is nonsense, what matters is the conditions that make people attracted to that nonsense. And those conditions were pretty much exclusively created in the 20th century.
Just so we're clear: it's OK to attribute the dozens of LGBT hate-crime related deaths in the U.S. over the years to Christian-based hatred, but it's not OK to associate ISIS with Islam?
You miss the point. I was deliberately making the same poor generalizations to point out why it's a bad argument.
The African witch-killers are a direct product of their specific cultural and economic conditions, not as a result of Christianity. They likely killed scapegoats long before missionaries came to convert them, as a lot of tribal cultures have had problems with.
Wahhabism, to be specific.
Although, if you want powerful terror organizations that are non-Muslim, I'd name FARC and the IRA, who are both right up there with the best of them in terms of reach and willingness to murder.
We shouldn't deny the link between Islamic culture and ISIS because by doing so, we neutralize the voices that seek to challenge the religious interpretations adopted by extremists.
ISIS/Al Qaeda have goals in their region like FARC and IRA, but fundamentally they are very different. ISIS wants to further their cause of extreme Islamism as globally as they can and is much more closer to NAZI ideology.
About half of the world's Muslims live in Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. With the exception of Pakistan, they're all extremely secular.
What you're talking about are a lot of smaller countries who would likely have oppressive regimes anyway. I don't like them, and I think they should change, just like I think there is a lot that could change about a lot of non-Muslim countries. Many of the places you're talking about are in South Asia, where if you look at these Muslim's countries non-Muslim neighbors, they largely have the same problems.
We all want to promote open minded views but reality is just different.
Bangladesh secularism is under seige. A string of murders against secular and atheist bloggers/journalists. Their media is slowly being controlled by religious groups promoting sharia and undermining secularism.
As for India, used to be secular, but now there is this ongoing tension between faiths. A pro-Hindu party just came to power and many non-Hindus claim that they instigate riots against minorities. Innocent Muslims all over the country are prone to being targeted by rioting Hindu mobs who always blame them when something blows up.
I've been to Indonesia a few times and I know that it is a moderate country, but hate preachers still find their messages broadcasted on TV and radio. Jemaah Islamiyah which is like the Al Qaeda of Southeast Asia originated in Indonesia.
This is hyperbole. First of all, both the Saudis and Pakistan have people who actively challenge those anti-apostasy laws. Second of all, there are plenty of other countries where minority voices are treated harshly. As these countries continue to develop, we'll see these rates drop significantly.
Now, the death penalty for apostasy is abhorrent and I'm completely against it. What I was trying to say is that it's a relatively recent development.
It's good to have some people challenging this medieval law but still the majority wants it implemented. Some Muslim countries views about the implementation of death penalty according to a 2010 Pew Research poll:
84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
86% of Jordanian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
76% of Pakistanis support death the penalty for leaving Islam
51% of Nigerian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
30% of Indonesian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
All of these are indicators of how tolerant people in the Muslim world are. WThese is additional fuel for terrorists, and there are a lot of essays defending death penalty for apostasy written by educated folks.
My point about the Atheists in the US is that we are not that far removed from a lot of the countries you're talking about. It's easy for forget that those cultural practices that we view as problematic in other countries were fairly common in the US in many American's lifetimes (treatment of women/minorities/political ideologies).
And my reply is the same. Why are we going in circles here?
See, this is too easy. First of all, in the US this kind of thing wasn't just accepted, but common, less than 50 years ago. Second of all, the 'raised on propaganda' is a lazy argument.
Raised on propaganda is not a lazy argument when actual propaganda is really happening.
[quote from="Jay13x »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/water-cooler-talk/647349-terrorist-attacks-in-paris?comment=33"]It still doesn't explain why that propaganda exists, or to what extent it really affects people's decisions.
The propaganda exist because many of these hate preaching Imams thinks that Jews and Westerners are the cause of all the current woes the Islamic world is experiencing. They're like scripted skits when you're watching them on TV. Like a movie that had been remade countless of times.
Propaganda affects people the same way it has always did. Try to watch an Arab news channel (MEMRI TV, although they've cleaned up their content a little bit) so that you'll have an idea of what I am talking about. Lots of these segments are posted online, they're not hard to find.
You want to know why a lot of people in the Middle East hate the west? Colonialism, propping up of totalitarian but western friendly governments, drone strikes and ongoing support of Israel. Each of which are understandable reasons for anti-western sentiment, although not a justification for the murder of innocent people.
I too watch CNN, Al Jazeera, BBC, RT, and many others. Part of job description.
Yeah, except that doesn't include data on what their contemporaries believe. Taking a look at polls of westerners, like this or this from Pew tells the real story here. There is a frightening number of non-Muslim Americans who believe violence against civilians is justified.
Then show those stats if you want to make a comparison. But that will not change the fact that a "significant" number of Muslims approves of suicide bombing as a solution.
Let's put death threats into perspective, here. When Anita Sarkeesian said video games are sexist, she also received death threats.
I don't know where you are going with this. BTW, that Danish cartoonist, is still under 24/7 police protection and still fearing for his life. He was almost killed. All that for a stupid cartoon.
'Their World' being pretty much the Middle East, which is very different than the Muslim world as a whole. Don't conflate the two. The middle east and north Africa have a wide variety of problems, most of which have significantly less to do with religion than with the last hundred years of politics.
'Their World' being pretty much the Middle East, which is very different than the Muslim world as a whole. Don't conflate the two. The middle east and north Africa have a wide variety of problems, most of which have significantly less to do with religion than with the last hundred years of politics.
Sudan (Muslims vs Christians), Iraq (Sunni vs Shiite), Libya (Secular vs Sharia), Yemen (Sunni vs Shiite), Lebanon (Shiite vs Sunni), and Egypt (Secular vs Sharia) all begs to differ.
The problem with a statement like that is that it's inaccurate.
Inaccurate in what way? European Christians and Jews have had a cultural revolution during the enlightenment period that allowed for more critical thinking, rejection of supernatural explanations, and more in depth study of nature. During this era, inquisitions became less, science and arts progressed, liberal minded folks became more confident in expressing their views, and the power of the church diminished. Now I am not saying that the Muslims should undergo the same exact experience, this is already the modern times and situations are different. But whatever revolution they'll experience (if it even comes at all) would hopefully lead to less radicalism, less oppression, more tolerance, and more freedom for the people.
In some ways it makes a lot of sense. The sheer speed at which radical islam can convert people to learn an ideology, embrace it, and be mobilized to such action as to be ready to die for it, is too fast. Too fast in the sense that it's managerially and logistically impossible or highly improbable.
Sure you're always going to get some converts who drink the cool-aid hard and quickly.
But the majority of people worldwide just isn't wired to be willing to sacrifice so much of their physical well-being for some intangible philosophy. It's more likely that instead of having people motivated by religious dedication, you really have tons of people who aren't really sure what is going on(6th grade education), who are doing what they are told, motivated primarily by their day-to-day social needs.
The origins of both conflicts might vary, but what they do have in common is heavy handed western intervention during the Cold War and a large population of the disaffected. Both have conditions ripe for extremizing people, whether that's into gangs and cartels or into terror groups (which South America has as well) is entirely up to whats available.
Western Intervention ?
The biggest cartel in South America is reminiscent of a revolutionary militia supported by soviets. And the smallest cartels such as the ones here in Brasil appeared because soviet spies started to smuggle firearms to empower the local militias. The smuggling channels were opened that time but never closed and now they are used by such cartels that evolved from gangs to paramilitary armies because of this. All the crime experts that tackles SA violence problems always mentions that criminals overpowering the local police in terms of firepower is a huge issue. In Brazil there's several cases that governments had to send the national guard to fight drug dealers because the police were being slaughtered. And no stability comes when you have to send the military (shoot to kill mentality) to patrol the streets.
If anything NA and Europe helped us. I can't imagine where SA would be today if revolutionary militias weren't fought of in the 70's and 80's.
If anything NA and Europe helped us. I can't imagine where SA would be today if revolutionary militias weren't fought of in the 70's and 80's.
It depends on the country. I'd mentioned it earlier, but I should have been more specific - I was talking more about Central America than South America.
As for Western Intervention - I was talking about the colonial history of the area combined with western companies forming banana republics.
If anything NA and Europe helped us. I can't imagine where SA would be today if revolutionary militias weren't fought of in the 70's and 80's.
Indeed, where would be we be without leaders such as Batista, Duvalier and Pinochet. Their absence would be unthinkable.
Yeah twist my words and address none of my points. >_>
Which is SA current violence issues is connected to the red side of the cold war. It doesnt matter how much we hate the military dictatorships, you can't blame then for giving guns to revolutionaries.
Although, if you want powerful terror organizations that are non-Muslim, I'd name FARC and the IRA, who are both right up there with the best of them in terms of reach and willingness to murder.
About half of the world's Muslims live in Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. With the exception of Pakistan, they're all extremely secular.
What you're talking about are a lot of smaller countries who would likely have oppressive regimes anyway. I don't like them, and I think they should change, just like I think there is a lot that could change about a lot of non-Muslim countries. Many of the places you're talking about are in South Asia, where if you look at these Muslim's countries non-Muslim neighbors, they largely have the same problems.
This is hyperbole. First of all, both the Saudis and Pakistan have people who actively challenge those anti-apostasy laws. Second of all, there are plenty of other countries where minority voices are treated harshly. As these countries continue to develop, we'll see these rates drop significantly.
My point about the Atheists in the US is that we are not that far removed from a lot of the countries you're talking about. It's easy for forget that those cultural practices that we view as problematic in other countries were fairly common in the US in many American's lifetimes (treatment of women/minorities/political ideologies).
Now, the death penalty for apostasy is abhorrent and I'm completely against it. What I was trying to say is that it's a relatively recent development.
See, this is too easy. First of all, in the US this kind of thing wasn't just accepted, but common, less than 50 years ago. Second of all, the 'raised on propaganda' is a lazy argument. It still doesn't explain why that propaganda exists, or to what extent it really affects people's decisions. You want to know why a lot of people in the Middle East hate the west? Colonialism, propping up of totalitarian but western friendly governments, drone strikes and ongoing support of Israel. Each of which are understandable reasons for anti-western sentiment, although not a justification for the murder of innocent people.
The point was the phrasing. You're implying that a fair part of you believes all Muslims are evil murderers.
Combined, they kill less than a tenth of the people Narcos do annually. Narcos are far scarier.
Yeah, except that doesn't include data on what their contemporaries believe. Taking a look at polls of westerners, like this or this from Pew tells the real story here. There is a frightening number of non-Muslim Americans who believe violence against civilians is justified.
Let's put death threats into perspective, here. When Anita Sarkeesian said video games are sexist, she also received death threats.
'Their World' being pretty much the Middle East, which is very different than the Muslim world as a whole. Don't conflate the two. The middle east and north Africa have a wide variety of problems, most of which have significantly less to do with religion than with the last hundred years of politics.
The problem with a statement like that is that it's inaccurate. The 'Islamic World' doesn't need a revolution, you're talking about countries that represent about a fifth of the world's populations of Muslims. It's those countries we need to focus on, and not over-generalize to billions of people. It's also important to understand why these terror groups exist and how we can counteract them, and oversimplifying the reality doesn't help.
If you said 'the Arab World', well then that's a much more accurate statement.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Probably the biggest fact that is ignored is that research has put the number of extremists in the past few years at 15% on the low end, with 25% being the high end—and also regarded as being the most likely. Twenty-five percent of even 1-billion is still 250,000,000, almost two-thirds the population of the United States. We know that there are more than one-billion Muslims in the world, too. So even accepting that it is a minority that is committing these atrocities, that is still a very significant number of terrorists running around there.
Next, we will never catch them all that come into this country. We may catch a majority, but they only need to commit one act to score a victory. Accept this. No matter how vigilant you are, no matter what your background in combat operations or counterterrorism, you will not stop it from happening every time. Look at Israel: they are the greatest in the world at infiltrating terrorist cells and stopping attacks, and yet they still happen. That’s because many are lone wolf-style attacks, where there’s no cell to operate in. We’ve seen that these attacks can be done quickly and timetables shifted to accommodate new developments: Paris showed us this, after all.
The biggest problem is that these guys aren’t the military of a country. They don’t wear uniforms. They hide in civilian populations, and our hands in combat are tied by rules of engagement that don’t work. If the guy just got done shooting three of your comrades then throws down his weapon and surrenders, you are not supposed to kill him. You’re supposed to take him into custody. Tell me who would follow such rules when you just watched your buddies get mowed down by some jihadi wielding an AK. Or a suicide bomber you couldn’t engage, because he wasn’t ACTUALLY pointing a weapon at you (yes, these are ROEs that we had under Obama, and to a lesser extent under Bush a couple of months leading up to Operation Phantom Fury but were then removed). Restricting the combat competence of our troops for political reasons is pointless.
We can all agree that Islam has a problem. But you and I look at this differently, Jay. Islam has been engaging in violent actions in the name of jihad since its founding. Christianity and Islam have a similar beginning: both were persecuted when they began before making violent expansions. Christianity, however, grew out of it beginning in the 1200s, really, even though the last Crusade wasn’t launched until 1455. Even after that, you can make arguments for the Spanish Inquisition, the Schism, all of these issues that have plagued predominantly the Catholic Church—a distinction many Protestants will point to, but is usually ignored as a whole because it doesn’t fit into an agenda. I’m not saying Christianity hasn’t done some stuff that is ****ed up, but I’m also saying that what happened 600 years ago does not have much relevance when talking about what Islam is doing right here, and right now.
You can’t reason with these people. You can’t talk to them. The minute you do, you are giving their ideology credence, and you are validating their claims. The only way to fight this is with violence. We did it in 1941, when we entered the Second World War and fought the Nazis, Italian fascism, and the Imperial Japanese relentlessly. We fought violent ideology with violence, because it was what they understood. It was all they were able to understand. We fought and bled because we had to. This is no different.
I will admit I don’t like Islam. I’ve studied to Qu’ran. I’ve read it in depth because I wanted to know my enemy, much as I have read Mein Kampf. I may not fully understand the religion, but I understand its founding principles, which require conversion or death. That is much different than Christianity and Judaism, which their holy texts do not call for the death of non-believers. The New Testament—which every Christian is supposed to live by—even makes mention that killing non-believers is hateful to God. Go ahead and read the Qu’ran: killing non-believers is quintessential to the survival of Islam. It may have been written at a time when Islam was being persecuted, but consider the fact that there is no way to really update the book, because Muhammad is dead.
The silent majority doesn’t matter, because they don’t do anything about it until its too late. It’s been that way almost every time there’s been a conflict. Nazi Germany, the USSR, communist China, communist Vietnam, Iraq…the list can go on. If people want it to stop, they need to stop making all these websites. They need to stop saying “I stand by the people of Paris.” The effective range of prayers is 0 meters, people. You want to do something about this, you want to show you care? The Peshmerga are kicking ass and taking names against Daesh (ISIS) right now. Shoulder a rifle and go help them out.
No one is talking about the Crusades or anything 600 years ago except you. I'm pretty exclusively talking about the last 100 years of world history.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I do want to note that the rhetoric offered up by ISIS is very much hung up on (literally) medieval concepts. To keep your focus only on the last 100 years is almost certainly a mistake, as the apocalyptic beliefs of these individuals are founded in comparatively ancient ideology.
Just so we're clear: it's OK to attribute the dozens of LGBT hate-crime related deaths in the U.S. over the years to Christian-based hatred, but it's not OK to associate ISIS with Islam?
Oops. While I was typing this, ISIS just killed a dozen more.
Can we call those groups Christian? You just did. So I'm calling ISIS Islamic.
See, I don't care about any group one way or another. I'm just getting worn down by this leftist idea that some groups, some ideologies can be named and others cannot.
You miss the point. I was deliberately making the same poor generalizations to point out why it's a bad argument.
The African witch-killers are a direct product of their specific cultural and economic conditions, not as a result of Christianity. They likely killed scapegoats long before missionaries came to convert them, as a lot of tribal cultures have had problems with.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
We shouldn't deny the link between Islamic culture and ISIS because by doing so, we neutralize the voices that seek to challenge the religious interpretations adopted by extremists.
ISIS/Al Qaeda have goals in their region like FARC and IRA, but fundamentally they are very different. ISIS wants to further their cause of extreme Islamism as globally as they can and is much more closer to NAZI ideology.
We all want to promote open minded views but reality is just different.
Bangladesh secularism is under seige. A string of murders against secular and atheist bloggers/journalists. Their media is slowly being controlled by religious groups promoting sharia and undermining secularism.
As for India, used to be secular, but now there is this ongoing tension between faiths. A pro-Hindu party just came to power and many non-Hindus claim that they instigate riots against minorities. Innocent Muslims all over the country are prone to being targeted by rioting Hindu mobs who always blame them when something blows up.
I've been to Indonesia a few times and I know that it is a moderate country, but hate preachers still find their messages broadcasted on TV and radio. Jemaah Islamiyah which is like the Al Qaeda of Southeast Asia originated in Indonesia.
It's good to have some people challenging this medieval law but still the majority wants it implemented. Some Muslim countries views about the implementation of death penalty according to a 2010 Pew Research poll:
84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
86% of Jordanian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
76% of Pakistanis support death the penalty for leaving Islam
51% of Nigerian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
30% of Indonesian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
All of these are indicators of how tolerant people in the Muslim world are. WThese is additional fuel for terrorists, and there are a lot of essays defending death penalty for apostasy written by educated folks.
And my reply is the same. Why are we going in circles here?
The propaganda exist because many of these hate preaching Imams thinks that Jews and Westerners are the cause of all the current woes the Islamic world is experiencing. They're like scripted skits when you're watching them on TV. Like a movie that had been remade countless of times.
Propaganda affects people the same way it has always did. Try to watch an Arab news channel (MEMRI TV, although they've cleaned up their content a little bit) so that you'll have an idea of what I am talking about. Lots of these segments are posted online, they're not hard to find.
I too watch CNN, Al Jazeera, BBC, RT, and many others. Part of job description.
I find this reply odd. Genocide, trafficking, slavery, rape, mutiliting people, selling drugs, selling ingredients that make drugs.
Then show those stats if you want to make a comparison. But that will not change the fact that a "significant" number of Muslims approves of suicide bombing as a solution.
I don't know where you are going with this. BTW, that Danish cartoonist, is still under 24/7 police protection and still fearing for his life. He was almost killed. All that for a stupid cartoon.
But it's not just confined in the middle east.
Sudan (Muslims vs Christians), Iraq (Sunni vs Shiite), Libya (Secular vs Sharia), Yemen (Sunni vs Shiite), Lebanon (Shiite vs Sunni), and Egypt (Secular vs Sharia) all begs to differ.
Inaccurate in what way? European Christians and Jews have had a cultural revolution during the enlightenment period that allowed for more critical thinking, rejection of supernatural explanations, and more in depth study of nature. During this era, inquisitions became less, science and arts progressed, liberal minded folks became more confident in expressing their views, and the power of the church diminished. Now I am not saying that the Muslims should undergo the same exact experience, this is already the modern times and situations are different. But whatever revolution they'll experience (if it even comes at all) would hopefully lead to less radicalism, less oppression, more tolerance, and more freedom for the people.
Another odd reply.
000000
I'm done here, I'll go back to reading warhammer books.
Studying, Working, and being Productive is bad for your MTG skills!
Thought this was an interesting article.
In some ways it makes a lot of sense. The sheer speed at which radical islam can convert people to learn an ideology, embrace it, and be mobilized to such action as to be ready to die for it, is too fast. Too fast in the sense that it's managerially and logistically impossible or highly improbable.
Sure you're always going to get some converts who drink the cool-aid hard and quickly.
But the majority of people worldwide just isn't wired to be willing to sacrifice so much of their physical well-being for some intangible philosophy. It's more likely that instead of having people motivated by religious dedication, you really have tons of people who aren't really sure what is going on(6th grade education), who are doing what they are told, motivated primarily by their day-to-day social needs.
Western Intervention ?
The biggest cartel in South America is reminiscent of a revolutionary militia supported by soviets. And the smallest cartels such as the ones here in Brasil appeared because soviet spies started to smuggle firearms to empower the local militias. The smuggling channels were opened that time but never closed and now they are used by such cartels that evolved from gangs to paramilitary armies because of this. All the crime experts that tackles SA violence problems always mentions that criminals overpowering the local police in terms of firepower is a huge issue. In Brazil there's several cases that governments had to send the national guard to fight drug dealers because the police were being slaughtered. And no stability comes when you have to send the military (shoot to kill mentality) to patrol the streets.
If anything NA and Europe helped us. I can't imagine where SA would be today if revolutionary militias weren't fought of in the 70's and 80's.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
As for Western Intervention - I was talking about the colonial history of the area combined with western companies forming banana republics.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Yeah twist my words and address none of my points. >_>
Which is SA current violence issues is connected to the red side of the cold war. It doesnt matter how much we hate the military dictatorships, you can't blame then for giving guns to revolutionaries.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath