Shootouts and explosions in Paris

[LennoxLewis]

On the subject of Israel -- which is relevant because it is mentioned in both fatwas -- it's important to recognize exactly what those jihadis believe, and the scope of what they seek.

It's not "we want a return to the 1967 borders". That's the pin-dance that goes on between more moderate Arabs and Israel, but it isn't the issue for the true radicals. They won't be remotely satisfied or appeased even if Israel withdrew completely back to the '67 borders. The only likely effect of that would be to encourage them into thinking they are that much closer to total victory.

They want Israel destroyed. Completely. To them, the existence of Israel at all is an obscene occupation that must be ended. So even if you could appease the moderate Arabs with a return to the '67 borders, it still wouldn't solve the problem of the radical jihadis, who themselves are actually fighting against those same moderate Muslims, whom they view as traitors.

Limiting it to what jihadis want is short sighted, because on both sides, there are people who want just an Israeli state or Palestinian state. The illegal settlements that most of the world, including the US, condemn and see it as a big issue when trying to establish a solution and as a way to get to that Israeli state. When Bibi ran for re election and was down in the polls, he started saying there will only be an Israeli state, denouncing the idea of a two state solution. The Likud is known for their position on just having an Israeli state.

Your right, it isnt the issue for true radicals, but they are on both sides.

Like Maltam mentioned the issues isnt just about religion, but more regional and economical.

 

[gourimoko]

How is this any different from the US administration putting the blame on terrorists, or some decades ago, on the communists?

Peace is impossible as long as the weapon industry is as powerful as it is. No reason for peace when you can earn billions on war.



We have touched this subject before, Q-Tip, but I honestly think that it's ignorant to simply dismiss it as a myth. The hate against the Western world, who hide their oppression behind empty labels such as Democracy and Freedom, is very much alive.

You talk about oppression, you talk about the extremists trying to enslave everyone else in the part of the world. My question to you is then: What is the Western world trying to do? What have they in fact been doing the last couple of centuries, by pushing their agenda, their economic system, their political beliefs, their philosophy and secularity on the rest of the world?

Great post, @No Regard. I agree 100%.

Peace is impossible while we stare at each other behind our own self-righteousness.

 

[gourimoko]

I'll leave that to Mr. Huxley:


Edit as you edited:



My comment was directed to your interpretation of the fatwa, not what may or may not stand in the original document:

+1

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

This is very true. It's also historically relevant: The Bolshevik revolution wasn't spearheaded by the poor and destitute it was meant to bolster, it was middle class citizens who had seen their standard of living drop over a decade, and had no reason to believe that would change. It's doctors and lawyers... The same was true in the French revolution, both the American revolution and the Civil War... The same thing has been happening throughout the Middle East for 30 years, but people aren't fighting themselves anymore, they are lashing out at a Western philosophy.

I agree with all that.

We have some of those problems throughout the world right now though, that's why I think the ISIS philosophy gains a surprising amount of traction worldwide with people who never before even identified themselves as Muslim. Things aren't what they expected, and they don't know how to channel the emotion, but fixing the issue isn't within their control.

This has been true among large segments of humanity for much of history, without it being manifested this way.

But Optimus is right about one critical thing: This isn't a religious issue. It's a regional and an economic one.

This is where I disagree. I certainly would agree that economics plays a part, but to say that it isn't a religious issue ignores reality. There are plenty of poor, skanky places in the world that do not generate international terrorists willing to kill themselves just to take out a few foreigners. Much of Africa has been a cesspool for a long time, but you don't see non-Muslim Congolese taking out their aggression by murdering people in Paris. For that matter, you've got Christian Arabs in the ME who not only live in a depressed region, but have to endure prejudice and discrimination from a religious majority. But they're not blowing up the Moscow Marathon.

Saying this isn't about religion is like saying World War II had nothing to do with Nazism, or that the killing fields in Cambodia or the nightmare of North Korea had nothing to do with Communism, or that the Inquisitions and Crusades in the Baltics weren't about religion, or that the Muslim conquests of the 7th century had nothing to do with religion. Yes, other factors do play a part, but every national depression does not lead to Hitler. Ideology and belief systems matter in terms of motivations and actions. They can be the key variable that escalates an unpleasant situation into something much worse for everyone else.

It also ignores completely the murder and oppression of Muslims by other Muslims because they are not sufficiently devout, and of the organized persecution of religious minorities, whether they be Christian, Yazidi, Druze, Buddhist, or whatever. When people are asked to recite a verse from the Koran or be executed, saying "this isn't a religious issue" seems almost willfully blind.

As you've noted, you've had people here in the U.S. who are not subject to any of that oppression, who convert and then kill people. That's not economic -- that's religious. Believing that murdering non-believers will get you into Paradise with 77 virgins isn't based on neo-Keynesian economic theory. It's religious nutbaggery.

The Taliban brutalized those in Afghanistan who didn't buy into their view of Islam. There weren't Americans or anybody else there oppressing them. It's just what they wanted to do. They'd stone young girls for not dressing in accordance with the Koran, and they blew up those Buddhist statues. Why? If you read religion out of the equation, you've eliminated the only possible motive for those actions. It requires ignoring what the perpetrators themselves give as their reason for doing it.

You also said it was "regional". Exactly what "region" would that be? The Middle East? We've had home-grown Muslim radicals in North America, Boko Haram in Africa, and home-grown terrorists in Europe. There have been Muslim extremist terrorist attacks in the Phillipines, Indonesia, and Thailand.

Now I an NOT saying that Islam is inherently violent. But it seems just as foolish to deny the religious component here as it would to deny the religious component of the Inquisition.

And the real point is that there are always going to be people who feel alienated, or that life has dealt them a raw deal, or that someone, somewhere has screwed them. We will never get away from that. But what we have to do is fight the occasional malignant belief system that arises to fan that shit, whether it be the Nazism or a radicalized view of some religion. We can combat that two ways -- either by attacking the idea as an idea, or by killing those that practice it. Generally, some combination of the two turns out to be necessary.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Here's the President talking in Paris about the Planned Parenthood shooting:

https://youtu.be/LFCnAW27d_cc

Great timing to tell the Parisians that mass shootings only happen in the U.S..

 

[Kouki]

Here's the President talking in Paris about the Planned Parenthood shooting:

https://youtu.be/LFCnAW27d_cc

Great timing to tell the Parisians that mass shootings only happen in the U.S..

bad timing for sure but he's not wrong

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

bad timing for sure but he's not wrong

If he wasn't wrong, the timing would be irrelevant. Mass shootings do happen in other places, including Paris.

He's wrong, and his timing was bad.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Limiting it to what jihadis want is short sighted, because on both sides, there are people who want just an Israeli state or Palestinian state. The illegal settlements that most of the world, including the US, condemn and see it as a big issue when trying to establish a solution and as a way to get to that Israeli state. When Bibi ran for re election and was down in the polls, he started saying there will only be an Israeli state, denouncing the idea of a two state solution. The Likud is known for their position on just having an Israeli state.

Your right, it isnt the issue for true radicals, but they are on both sides.

It's not short-sighted in the context of OBL and AQ mentioning Israel in their fatwas. Sure, the moderates might be fine with going back to the '67 borders, but those moderates generally aren't the ones committing violence in Palestine, and they're certainly not the jihadis that join up for international terrorism. After all, the reason there was a war in 1967 was that the Arabs weren't willing to live with those borders in the first place.

I want to be clear -- I am not saying that Israel shouldn't consider such a move for other reasons, or that pulling back to the '67 borders wouldn't reduce violence in Palestine to some extent. It very well might.

What I'm talking about is the larger picture of international terrorists, ISIS, AQ, etc., and how to address them. And I raised the issue of Israel because they raised it in their fatwas, and I didn't want to be dishonest and pretend it wasn't an issue for them. But to the extent it is an issue for them, and some might argue that pulling back to the '67 borders would eliminate that as an issue for ISIS/AQ, it wouldn't. It won't cease to be an issue for them unless and until Israel is eliminated completely, regardless of the impact in Palestine itself.

I'm pointing out that the appeasement/negotiation/"address their grievances" route is simply not a viable solution for AQ, ISIS, and jihadis. Their demands are too radical and extreme for that to work.

 

[Kouki]

If he wasn't wrong, the timing would be irrelevant. Mass shootings do happen in other places, including Paris.

He's wrong, and his timing was bad.

Clearly there was some hyperbole in his statement. Take it literally and yes he was wrong. But just look at the numbers.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-CH404_SHOOTR_16U_20151004180908.jpg

Mass shootings just do not happen at nearly the same frequency in other countries.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Clearly there was some hyperbole in his statement. Take it literally and yes he was wrong.

That's the point. It was a stupid thing to say, and still would be stupid a year from now. But he's got his pet issues, and is blind/deaf to everything else.

Mass shootings just do not happen at nearly the same frequency in other countries.

Except that's not what he said, and it's particularly tone-deaf to say that in Paris given the criticism he got for his initial reaction to the Paris shooting.

 

[Kouki]

you're being pretty ridiculous

when the united states has 166 shootings from 2000-2014 and the next highest country has 6

i think saying that the united states is "the only country where this happens" is not too much of a strech

 

[MalTalm]

This is where I disagree. I certainly would agree that economics plays a part, but to say that it isn't a religious issue ignores reality. There are plenty of poor, skanky places in the world that do not generate international terrorists willing to kill themselves just to take out a few foreigners. Much of Africa has been a cesspool for a long time, but you don't see non-Muslim Congolese taking out their aggression by murdering people in Paris. For that matter, you've got Christian Arabs in the ME who not only live in a depressed region, but have to endure prejudice and discrimination from a religious majority. But they're not blowing up the Moscow Marathon.

Saying this isn't about religion is like saying World War II had nothing to do with Nazism, or that the killing fields in Cambodia or the nightmare of North Korea had nothing to do with Communism, or that the Inquisitions and Crusades in the Baltics weren't about religion, or that the Muslim conquests of the 7th century had nothing to do with religion. Yes, other factors do play a part, but every national depression does not lead to Hitler. Ideology and belief systems matter in terms of motivations and actions. They can be the key variable that escalates an unpleasant situation into something much worse for everyone else.

It also ignores completely the murder and oppression of Muslims by other Muslims because they are not sufficiently devout, and of the organized persecution of religious minorities, whether they be Christian, Yazidi, Druze, Buddhist, or whatever. When people are asked to recite a verse from the Koran or be executed, saying "this isn't a religious issue" seems almost willfully blind.

As you've noted, you've had people here in the U.S. who are not subject to any of that oppression, who convert and then kill people. That's not economic -- that's religious. Believing that murdering non-believers will get you into Paradise with 77 virgins isn't based on neo-Keynesian economic theory. It's religious nutbaggery.

The Taliban brutalized those in Afghanistan who didn't buy into their view of Islam. There weren't Americans or anybody else there oppressing them. It's just what they wanted to do. They'd stone young girls for not dressing in accordance with the Koran, and they blew up those Buddhist statues. Why? If you read religion out of the equation, you've eliminated the only possible motive for those actions. It requires ignoring what the perpetrators themselves give as their reason for doing it.

You also said it was "regional". Exactly what "region" would that be? The Middle East? We've had home-grown Muslim radicals in North America, Boko Haram in Africa, and home-grown terrorists in Europe. There have been Muslim extremist terrorist attacks in the Phillipines, Indonesia, and Thailand.

Now I an NOT saying that Islam is inherently violent. But it seems just as foolish to deny the religious component here as it would to deny the religious component of the Inquisition.

And the real point is that there are always going to be people who feel alienated, or that life has dealt them a raw deal, or that someone, somewhere has screwed them. We will never get away from that. But what we have to do is fight the occasional malignant belief system that arises to fan that shit, whether it be the Nazism or a radicalized view of some religion. We can combat that two ways -- either by attacking the idea as an idea, or by killing those that practice it. Generally, some combination of the two turns out to be necessary.

I think we're fighting over semantics, but I'll expand a bit on my viewpoint. When I say it's not a religious issue, I am saying more succinctly that this isn't a Muslim issue. If the religion in the middle East was predominantly Buddhist for the past 100 years, we'd be facing terrorist attacks under the name of Buddhism. There are far more Muslims who practice their religion peacefully throughout the world than extremists, and it's the extremism here that's important.

There are more factors than economics, such as the US's history with the Shah and the remnants of British Colonialism which precipitated the hatred of Western culture. There has been widespread oppression throughout the Middle East, and when governments have been overthrown, they've typically been replaced by equally tyrannical oppressors. It makes sense people would turn to religion, and it also makes sense that some would begin to pervert their beliefs into attacks on those who have made life intolerable. The problem is, again, there isn't an easy enemy, so it becomes a philosophical war. Thus, terrorism gains traction.

Historically, there have been times when Christianity was the bastion for killing off the Jewish population (I'm not referring to Hitler) and Buddhist terrorists. Most all religions through history have at some point provided the framework for that generation's extremist movement. Right now, Islam has taken the stage, and it's due to the unrest throughout a region which is predominantly Muslim.

All that said, I agree with your conclusion, though it doesn't go far enough. I'd say killing off extremists and curbing extremists practices is step one. There is still a need for an improved education system and a stable economy in the region that allows for people to live a lifestyle where they'd feel they have something to lose. There are some very real religious issues that do relate to Islam: A religion which does preach to be a political force as well as a religious one runs in opposition to a more open-minded philosophy, and issues such as woman's rights becomes a lot more difficult to navigate appropriately in that set up. But we're far from being able to deal with that at the moment, right now we have to combat state-supported terrorism and organic terrorism.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I think we're fighting over semantics, but I'll expand a bit on my viewpoint. When I say it's not a religious issue, I am saying more succinctly that this isn't a Muslim issue. If the religion in the middle East was predominantly Buddhist for the past 100 years, we'd be facing terrorist attacks under the name of Buddhism.

Well, our disagreement is more than just semantic then. I do not believe religions are any more fungible than any other belief system/ideology in terms of their propensity for violence. Some are more intolerant, with a greater propensity for violence, than others. At least as they are generally interpreted at a given point in history. Early Christianity was heavily biased towards non-violence. It later became doctrinally more violent before reforming itself. But during those different periods, it was an independent factor that made violence/intolerance more of less likely.

There are far more Muslims who practice their religion peacefully throughout the world than extremists, and it's the extremism here that's important.

And the vast majority of Christians weren't active participants in the various crusades, Inquisition, or other forms of violence against those deemed insufficiently pure either. That doesn't mean those events didn't reveal a problem with Christianity itself, though.

(and just as a historical aside, when I refer to "crusades", I'm generally not referring to the Crusades for the Holy Land. There were a lot of other ones that are more clear examples of intolerance.)

There are more factors than economics, such as the US's history with the Shah and the remnants of British Colonialism which precipitated the hatred of Western culture. There has been widespread oppression throughout the Middle East, and when governments have been overthrown, they've typically been replaced by equally tyrannical oppressors. It makes sense people would turn to religion, and it also makes sense that some would begin to pervert their beliefs into attacks on those who have made life intolerable. The problem is, again, there isn't an easy enemy, so it becomes a philosophical war. Thus, terrorism gains traction.

Again, while what you say is correct as far as it goes, I still think you are ignoring the evil of effects of religious intolerance on its own as an independent motive. You don't see Jainists going on pogroms, and despite some Buddhists committing violence in some civil wars, you don't see that generating international terrorism. Why is that?

I don't think you can so conveniently sweep under the rug the particulars of a religion's doctrine or current interpretation as an independent cause of violence.

There have been equally oppressed peoples in South America and sub-equatorial Africa that have not gone on international pogroms, in the name of religion or otherwise. But then, you don't have very high ranking Christian officials calling for violent religious conquest, as you do with some leaders within Islam.

Historically, there have been times when Christianity was the bastion for killing off the Jewish population (I'm not referring to Hitler) and Buddhist terrorists. Most all religions through history have at some point provided the framework for that generation's extremist movement.

Again, our disagreement is much more than just semantic. As I interpret your comments, you see religion as nothing more than the vehicle for violence that would be occurring anyway -- it's just the "framework" for that particular generation's issues.

I disagree. At times, the religious beliefs themselves are an independent factor pushing discontent that might otherwise resolve much more peaceably into something much more violent. I think that's what is happening now Again, I'm struck by how there are so many individuals who commit violence with expressly religious motives who simply have not been subject to oppression. It's not just extremism manifesting as religion. It is religion causing extremism, and producing violent actions that would not otherwise be occurring.

There are some very real religious issues that do relate to Islam: A religion which does preach to be a political force as well as a religious one runs in opposition to a more open-minded philosophy, and issues such as woman's rights becomes a lot more difficult to navigate appropriately in that set up.

Well, that just confused the fuck out of me because it doesn't seem consistent with what you've said above about no difference between Buddhism and Islam. I think these discussions are sometimes influenced by pressures not to seem anti-Islam, so you get this disclaimer (which is kind of how I'm now reading the first part of your post) before getting to the sheepish admission that there really is a problem with the religious belief itself, which is how I read this last paragraph.

I think your last point is right -- I think the blending of the political and religious is a problem in Islam, and I'd include in that things like the general prohibitions against apostasy, proselytization of other religion, and blasphemy that are doctrinal intolerance.

At the same time, I view every religion as sufficiently malleable to rid itself of whatever doctrinal elements may justify violence or intolerance, so that Islam need not be any more prone to violence or intolerance than any other belief system. That's just not the case yet.

But we're far from being able to deal with that at the moment, right now we have to combat state-supported terrorism and organic terrorism.

Maybe I missed the point, but isn't "dealing with that at the moment" at least part of what you meant by saying we need "education"? I mean, I think having a change to religious education, and teaching about how religion and politics should not be blended to the degree they are in much of modern Islam would be part of the solution. Likewise, I change to religious education teaching that religion should be a matter of individual conscience and not the business of others (and especially not the business of the state) is really the only way you're going to be able to affect home-grown terrorism in particular.

 

[tocov]

Didn't want to open another thread. Thought this was the most fitting one:

"Man with 'machete' shouts 'this is for Syria' as he stabs Londoner"

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/624571/machete-attack-Leytonstone-Syria

 

[OptimusPrime]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK_aBuMdMTE


Voices from a refugee camp. Selections from conversation. Part 1-of-2:

AMY GOODMAN: And why did you leave?

MAJD: I escaped from the war. I don’t want to be—to die. This war is not my war. Yes, everyone is fighting in my country, yes. So, I escaped from the war. I don’t want to be dead for nothing.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think the Russian, Syrian, French, British bombing of Syria will save it?

MAJD: No, no, no, it’s not a solution. You can’t protect someone by killing someone else. You know? They can’t stop the bombs here when they bomb in Syria. Yes, it’s not a solution.

AMY GOODMAN: What is the solution?

MAJD: The solution is not giving the weapons to everyone. They’re giving the weapons to the Free Army, to the Assad regime, to ISIS. They just give weapons and money, and just they let them fight in my country. Just stop the weapons.

AMY GOODMAN: And talk about what—when you were in Syria, where you lived with your family, what you did, what your parents do.

MAJD: We have a building, whole building. My family was in the upstairs, and they have a factory. Yes, a paint factory.

AMY GOODMAN: Uh-huh, a paint factory, yes.

MAJD: Paint factory, yes. It was bombed from five years ago. Yeah, I was living a good life—cars and houses and the parties and everything. Yeah, we lost everything right now.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re just back from Majd’s tent, where he lives with two other men. And we’re now on the street of, well, makeshift restaurants. There’s a barbershop. This is the Kabul Café. And right here, as we’re going in, is a map of the whole camp. Let’s go inside.

We’ve come to the back of the Kabul Café—it’s very warm here in this back room—to speak with the owner. Can you tell us your name?

SIKANDAR: Yeah. My name is Sikandar.

AMY GOODMAN: And why did you leave Afghanistan?

SIKANDAR: Because of war. Because of Americans’ politics. Because of the England politics. Because they come to my country, use the bombs, the weapons. In my country, we don’t have any weapons. So these weapons is using in Afghanistan, if the terrorists using, if the Americans using, if anyone using, just use it in my country. So, there is war in my country, and I am here.

AMY GOODMAN: Why are you willing to risk all of this?

SIKANDAR: Because if the people like me, they have problems in their countries, like me. If I have a problem in my country, I have to go forward, you know? I don’t have to go back. If I go back, I’m—100 percent, I die. But for this, I can risk. I say, OK, maybe 50 percent, I go. So some people—I think people are thinking like this: If I go back, I will die, and I have a very bad life. It’s better to try, 50 percent—maybe I will go there and I will arrive there, and I will have a normal life.

AMY GOODMAN: President Obama said the war is ending in Afghanistan. Do you see it ending?

SIKANDAR: Until Americans in Afghanistan, it will be not ending. Never.

AMY GOODMAN: The map of this camp, it’s like a map of the world, or a part of the world.

SIKANDAR: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s a map of where refugees are from. Most of these countries have been bombed by the United States.

SIKANDAR: It’s true. I didn’t think about it, but, yeah, it’s true.

SIDIQ HUSAIN KHIL: My name is Sidiq Husain Khil, and I am from Afghanistan.

AMY GOODMAN: And why did you come here?

SIDIQ HUSAIN KHIL: I want to go to U.K., because in Afghanistan, you better know, the situation are very bad. And America comes there. They want to finish al-Qaeda and terrorism, but they are unsuccessful in that. Instead of that, to finish the terrorism, they increased the war in Afghanistan. And the people are in a very bad situation. It’s all because of America