CharlieHebdo

bondjames

Suivez_ce_parachute wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

What follows is not CH related (for those who do not understand that).

If your theory cannot explain what actually happens, but works only as a theory about the "motivations" and so on, then you'll feel you're always right, but this is self-delusion.

Thanks for that. We've been having an interesting discussion about issues related to Islam. You're welcome to join in anytime you want to.

chrisisall

bondjames wrote: »

I don't know why some are harping on about economics only. They are debating a strawman.

Strawmen don't say much (outside Oz) and are easy to target.

Ludovico

bondjames wrote: »

Ludovico wrote: »

@bondjames You lost me too with the economic motivations, if there were any.

@Ludovico, at times during this long thread we have diverged into discussing people of Islamic faith in general. This conversation has gone way beyond the CH attacks on more occassion than one, which is why I find it interesting. What follows is not CH related (for those who do not understand that).

I have never said that economics is the sole cause of violence by Islamists in general. Not at at all. I have said that it is a combination of culture, religion, education and economics (and by this I do not mean the actual attacker's economic circumstances, but who he may sympathize with - e.g. Bin Laden was a millionaire but he was sympathizing with the Islamic masses in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere - with his money he would have been an idiot to paint a big dot on his forehead and by all accounts he was not an idiot).

We have on occassion, in our broad discussion, talked about the following:

1) Islamic youth in the Middle East - many males are jobless and repressed by their own regimes. It's a breeding ground for hatred of the west, who they conveniently blame for everything. These people fill the madrasas and are taught the hatred wahabi garbage and this then poisons them further. They then populate the internet with their hate.

2) Islamic youth in Europe (including but not necessarily in France) who do not integrate into society and who are economically not well off. It is possible that some of these youth will sympathize with the attackers, even if they did not commit the acts themselves. This is more likely if one is not fully assimilated into the society. Moreover, one is less likely to volunteer information to the authorities about possible suspects & future attacks in these cases. This argument is very similar to what happens among black youth in urban America - some of whom feel an allegiance with other black youth, even if they are criminals.

I don't know why some are harping on about economics only. They are debating a strawman. There are other issues involved, particularly religion, education, cultural integration (and cultural identity) and economics is only a part of it (or sympathies with the economic situation of people of similar culture and religion in the middle east).

I think you are raising a lot of trees to hide the forest, at least when it comes to the attack on CH, the Danish cartoons and the Islamic militantism in Western democracies. I am not saying that economy or geopolitical motivations cannot explain certain types of terrorism, even Islamic terrorism. But at the core of Islamic terrorism is a particular faith and a brutal rejection of Western secular values. The 9/11 perpetrators were middle to upper middle class. The Canadian terrorists last October were middle class (and one was as White as they come). Al Qaeda has apparently now replaced the USA by France as the Great Satan, at least according to some of its spokesmen. Because France is now exploiting more the Middle East? No, because France is far more secular and far more openly secular. Case in point: they mock religions and defend those who do.

chrisisall

If you can't mock nonsense, what CAN you mock?

bondjames

Ludovico wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

Ludovico wrote: »

@bondjames You lost me too with the economic motivations, if there were any.

@Ludovico, at times during this long thread we have diverged into discussing people of Islamic faith in general. This conversation has gone way beyond the CH attacks on more occassion than one, which is why I find it interesting. What follows is not CH related (for those who do not understand that).

I have never said that economics is the sole cause of violence by Islamists in general. Not at at all. I have said that it is a combination of culture, religion, education and economics (and by this I do not mean the actual attacker's economic circumstances, but who he may sympathize with - e.g. Bin Laden was a millionaire but he was sympathizing with the Islamic masses in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere - with his money he would have been an idiot to paint a big dot on his forehead and by all accounts he was not an idiot).

We have on occassion, in our broad discussion, talked about the following:

1) Islamic youth in the Middle East - many males are jobless and repressed by their own regimes. It's a breeding ground for hatred of the west, who they conveniently blame for everything. These people fill the madrasas and are taught the hatred wahabi garbage and this then poisons them further. They then populate the internet with their hate.

2) Islamic youth in Europe (including but not necessarily in France) who do not integrate into society and who are economically not well off. It is possible that some of these youth will sympathize with the attackers, even if they did not commit the acts themselves. This is more likely if one is not fully assimilated into the society. Moreover, one is less likely to volunteer information to the authorities about possible suspects & future attacks in these cases. This argument is very similar to what happens among black youth in urban America - some of whom feel an allegiance with other black youth, even if they are criminals.

I don't know why some are harping on about economics only. They are debating a strawman. There are other issues involved, particularly religion, education, cultural integration (and cultural identity) and economics is only a part of it (or sympathies with the economic situation of people of similar culture and religion in the middle east).

I think you are raising a lot of trees to hide the forest, at least when it comes to the attack on CH, the Danish cartoons and the Islamic militantism in Western democracies. I am not saying that economy or geopolitical motivations cannot explain certain types of terrorism, even Islamic terrorism. But at the core of Islamic terrorism is a particular faith and a brutal rejection of Western secular values. The 9/11 perpetrators were middle to upper middle class. The Canadian terrorists last October were middle class (and one was as White as they come). Al Qaeda has apparently now replaced the USA by France as the Great Satan, at least according to some of its spokesmen. Because France is now exploiting more the Middle East? No, because France is far more secular and far more openly secular. Case in point: they mock religions and defend those who do.

As I've said on more than one occassion, my comments were more to do with Islamist terrorism and sympathizers, rather than CH or the Danish murders (I have hardly commented on the Danish situation).

At the end of the day I don't think any of us really know the motivations of these particular brand of lunatics.

The common thread is that they happen to be Islamic, and they also happen to be targetting citizens of Western countries that either have military entanglements in the Middle East (where every country other than Israel is Islamic), or support military entanglements in the Middle East, or support repressive regimes and kingdoms in the Middle East.

I know Islamic people who openly reject Western secular values and think of the west as decadent. I know people of other faiths who feel the same way. None of these people are murderers though. So that in itself is not the cause of the killings imo.

patb

The phrase "happen to be" clearly implies its just chance and there is no causal link at all. Just some sort of weird co-incidence?

bondjames

patb wrote: »

The phrase "happen to be" clearly implies its just chance and there is no causal link at all. Just some sort of weird co-incidence?

It may not be coincidence. However, you have to then explain and consider the remainder of the sentence, namely: "they also happen to be targetting citizens of Western countries that either have military entanglements in the Middle East (where every country other than Israel is Islamic), or support military entanglements in the Middle East, or support repressive regimes and kingdoms in the Middle East."

So it may not be coincidence. There is correlation certainly. There may also be causation. I don't know.

The other implication that one could make, which is a far more dangerous one, is that the 99.999999% of muslims who are not murderers are also potential murderers and should also be feared. I am not willing to make that implication.

chrisisall

Basically, when you're a frustrated misogynist misanthrope, and you follow a whack dope protocol, you make examples out of your enemies in a way that doesn't get you killed (Shoot unarmed folks).

SaintMark

Ludovico wrote: »

SaintMark wrote: »

The US send an awesome amount of stately representatives to the funeral of the Saudi King and yet there was nobody from the US in the most awesome demonstration for freedom of speech in the world in Paris.
It shows were the US interests lie, namely with economics and democratic values be damned. Because in the Saudi nation you get a 1000 strikes with a stick on your foot soles when you in any way criticize religion. How hypocritical does that make a war in Afghanistan & Iraq look now.

I could understand that they sent representatives to the funerals of the Saudi despot. Deplorable, but understandable because of our dependence on petrol. But not sending anyone in Paris was unforgiveable. I like Obama, but that was a stupid (in)action. Plain stupid.

On the plus side, Michelle Obama did not wear a veil in Saudi Arabia. I love the First Lady far more than her husband sometimes.

Michelle is a great first lady.

And to just blame Obama for not showing up is a wee bit one sided, as in Arabia there was also a large group of Republican heavies.
You can just state that the US does not care about the freedom of speech in Europe as it is not their problem. We should just remember that next time something awefull happens in the US.

patb

Well I fear all religion so its no problem for me

Ludovico

bondjames wrote: »

Ludovico wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

Ludovico wrote: »

@bondjames You lost me too with the economic motivations, if there were any.

@Ludovico, at times during this long thread we have diverged into discussing people of Islamic faith in general. This conversation has gone way beyond the CH attacks on more occassion than one, which is why I find it interesting. What follows is not CH related (for those who do not understand that).

I have never said that economics is the sole cause of violence by Islamists in general. Not at at all. I have said that it is a combination of culture, religion, education and economics (and by this I do not mean the actual attacker's economic circumstances, but who he may sympathize with - e.g. Bin Laden was a millionaire but he was sympathizing with the Islamic masses in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere - with his money he would have been an idiot to paint a big dot on his forehead and by all accounts he was not an idiot).

We have on occassion, in our broad discussion, talked about the following:

1) Islamic youth in the Middle East - many males are jobless and repressed by their own regimes. It's a breeding ground for hatred of the west, who they conveniently blame for everything. These people fill the madrasas and are taught the hatred wahabi garbage and this then poisons them further. They then populate the internet with their hate.

2) Islamic youth in Europe (including but not necessarily in France) who do not integrate into society and who are economically not well off. It is possible that some of these youth will sympathize with the attackers, even if they did not commit the acts themselves. This is more likely if one is not fully assimilated into the society. Moreover, one is less likely to volunteer information to the authorities about possible suspects & future attacks in these cases. This argument is very similar to what happens among black youth in urban America - some of whom feel an allegiance with other black youth, even if they are criminals.

I don't know why some are harping on about economics only. They are debating a strawman. There are other issues involved, particularly religion, education, cultural integration (and cultural identity) and economics is only a part of it (or sympathies with the economic situation of people of similar culture and religion in the middle east).

I think you are raising a lot of trees to hide the forest, at least when it comes to the attack on CH, the Danish cartoons and the Islamic militantism in Western democracies. I am not saying that economy or geopolitical motivations cannot explain certain types of terrorism, even Islamic terrorism. But at the core of Islamic terrorism is a particular faith and a brutal rejection of Western secular values. The 9/11 perpetrators were middle to upper middle class. The Canadian terrorists last October were middle class (and one was as White as they come). Al Qaeda has apparently now replaced the USA by France as the Great Satan, at least according to some of its spokesmen. Because France is now exploiting more the Middle East? No, because France is far more secular and far more openly secular. Case in point: they mock religions and defend those who do.

As I've said on more than one occassion, my comments were more to do with Islamist terrorism and sympathizers, rather than CH or the Danish murders (I have hardly commented on the Danish situation).

At the end of the day I don't think any of us really know the motivations of these particular brand of lunatics.

The common thread is that they happen to be Islamic, and they also happen to be targetting citizens of Western countries that either have military entanglements in the Middle East (where every country other than Israel is Islamic), or support military entanglements in the Middle East, or support repressive regimes and kingdoms in the Middle East.

I know Islamic people who openly reject Western secular values and think of the west as decadent. I know people of other faiths who feel the same way. None of these people are murderers though. So that in itself is not the cause of the killings imo.

This is the common thread, therefore unlikely to be incidental. Western meddling in the Middle East can hardly be a motivation for killing cartoonists, especially not left-leaning ones. Or trying to murder a writer like Salman Rushdie. Their "crime" was blasphemy. Women and gays in London being threatened by Islamists on a Saturday night out also have nothing to do with whatever their government does in the Middle East. Again, their "crime" is living freely in a Western democracy.

bondjames

Ludovico wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

Ludovico wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

Ludovico wrote: »

@bondjames You lost me too with the economic motivations, if there were any.

@Ludovico, at times during this long thread we have diverged into discussing people of Islamic faith in general. This conversation has gone way beyond the CH attacks on more occassion than one, which is why I find it interesting. What follows is not CH related (for those who do not understand that).

I have never said that economics is the sole cause of violence by Islamists in general. Not at at all. I have said that it is a combination of culture, religion, education and economics (and by this I do not mean the actual attacker's economic circumstances, but who he may sympathize with - e.g. Bin Laden was a millionaire but he was sympathizing with the Islamic masses in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere - with his money he would have been an idiot to paint a big dot on his forehead and by all accounts he was not an idiot).

We have on occassion, in our broad discussion, talked about the following:

1) Islamic youth in the Middle East - many males are jobless and repressed by their own regimes. It's a breeding ground for hatred of the west, who they conveniently blame for everything. These people fill the madrasas and are taught the hatred wahabi garbage and this then poisons them further. They then populate the internet with their hate.

2) Islamic youth in Europe (including but not necessarily in France) who do not integrate into society and who are economically not well off. It is possible that some of these youth will sympathize with the attackers, even if they did not commit the acts themselves. This is more likely if one is not fully assimilated into the society. Moreover, one is less likely to volunteer information to the authorities about possible suspects & future attacks in these cases. This argument is very similar to what happens among black youth in urban America - some of whom feel an allegiance with other black youth, even if they are criminals.

I don't know why some are harping on about economics only. They are debating a strawman. There are other issues involved, particularly religion, education, cultural integration (and cultural identity) and economics is only a part of it (or sympathies with the economic situation of people of similar culture and religion in the middle east).

I think you are raising a lot of trees to hide the forest, at least when it comes to the attack on CH, the Danish cartoons and the Islamic militantism in Western democracies. I am not saying that economy or geopolitical motivations cannot explain certain types of terrorism, even Islamic terrorism. But at the core of Islamic terrorism is a particular faith and a brutal rejection of Western secular values. The 9/11 perpetrators were middle to upper middle class. The Canadian terrorists last October were middle class (and one was as White as they come). Al Qaeda has apparently now replaced the USA by France as the Great Satan, at least according to some of its spokesmen. Because France is now exploiting more the Middle East? No, because France is far more secular and far more openly secular. Case in point: they mock religions and defend those who do.

As I've said on more than one occassion, my comments were more to do with Islamist terrorism and sympathizers, rather than CH or the Danish murders (I have hardly commented on the Danish situation).

At the end of the day I don't think any of us really know the motivations of these particular brand of lunatics.

The common thread is that they happen to be Islamic, and they also happen to be targetting citizens of Western countries that either have military entanglements in the Middle East (where every country other than Israel is Islamic), or support military entanglements in the Middle East, or support repressive regimes and kingdoms in the Middle East.

I know Islamic people who openly reject Western secular values and think of the west as decadent. I know people of other faiths who feel the same way. None of these people are murderers though. So that in itself is not the cause of the killings imo.

This is the common thread, therefore unlikely to be incidental. Western meddling in the Middle East can hardly be a motivation for killing cartoonists, especially not left-leaning ones. Or trying to murder a writer like Salman Rushdie. Their "crime" was blasphemy. Women and gays in London being threatened by Islamists on a Saturday night out also have nothing to do with whatever their government does in the Middle East. Again, their "crime" is living freely in a Western democracy.

So the implication of your points are that Islam is bad then? I just need to clarify what you're saying. Islam is 'evil'. Is that the jist?

chrisisall

bondjames wrote: »

So the implication of your points are that Islam is bad then? I just need to clarify what you're saying. Islam is 'evil'. Is that the jist?

Islam is a fairly restrictive & socially regressive religion as practiced & taught by those in power, so yeah. It's evil. Like Christianity as taught & practiced by Americans seeking to gain control of women & their rights. Evil too. If there comes a time when Buddhism is used to kill or control people, then that too. Evil.

patb

If anyone feels that any religion has bad ideas within it, then it is their right to express their views.

bondjames

Ok, so given that the murders we have been discussing have been committed by people of Islamic faith, the consensus view appears to be that Islam is a problem.

I find this view somewhat problematic personally, given the sheer number and proportion of peaceful muslims compared to the number of murderers of that faith, but we'll agree to have a different point of view on this.

So should I fear interaction with people of muslim faith then?

chrisisall

patb wrote: »

If anyone feels that any religion has bad ideas within it, then it is their right to express their views.

I basically agree with that dude.

Thunderfinger

bondjames wrote: »

Ok, so given that the murders we have been discussing have been committed by people of Islamic faith, the consensus view appears to be that Islam is a problem.

I find this view somewhat problematic personally, given the sheer number and proportion of peaceful muslims compared to the number of murderers of that faith, but we'll agree to have a different point of view on this.

So should I fear interaction with people of muslim faith then?

Of course not. It is islam that is a problem and intrinsically evil. Most people are not, whatever they call themselves. It is the arrogance of ignorance you should fear.

Ludovico

bondjames wrote: »

Ludovico wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

Ludovico wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

Ludovico wrote: »

@bondjames You lost me too with the economic motivations, if there were any.

@Ludovico, at times during this long thread we have diverged into discussing people of Islamic faith in general. This conversation has gone way beyond the CH attacks on more occassion than one, which is why I find it interesting. What follows is not CH related (for those who do not understand that).

I have never said that economics is the sole cause of violence by Islamists in general. Not at at all. I have said that it is a combination of culture, religion, education and economics (and by this I do not mean the actual attacker's economic circumstances, but who he may sympathize with - e.g. Bin Laden was a millionaire but he was sympathizing with the Islamic masses in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere - with his money he would have been an idiot to paint a big dot on his forehead and by all accounts he was not an idiot).

We have on occassion, in our broad discussion, talked about the following:

1) Islamic youth in the Middle East - many males are jobless and repressed by their own regimes. It's a breeding ground for hatred of the west, who they conveniently blame for everything. These people fill the madrasas and are taught the hatred wahabi garbage and this then poisons them further. They then populate the internet with their hate.

2) Islamic youth in Europe (including but not necessarily in France) who do not integrate into society and who are economically not well off. It is possible that some of these youth will sympathize with the attackers, even if they did not commit the acts themselves. This is more likely if one is not fully assimilated into the society. Moreover, one is less likely to volunteer information to the authorities about possible suspects & future attacks in these cases. This argument is very similar to what happens among black youth in urban America - some of whom feel an allegiance with other black youth, even if they are criminals.

I don't know why some are harping on about economics only. They are debating a strawman. There are other issues involved, particularly religion, education, cultural integration (and cultural identity) and economics is only a part of it (or sympathies with the economic situation of people of similar culture and religion in the middle east).

I think you are raising a lot of trees to hide the forest, at least when it comes to the attack on CH, the Danish cartoons and the Islamic militantism in Western democracies. I am not saying that economy or geopolitical motivations cannot explain certain types of terrorism, even Islamic terrorism. But at the core of Islamic terrorism is a particular faith and a brutal rejection of Western secular values. The 9/11 perpetrators were middle to upper middle class. The Canadian terrorists last October were middle class (and one was as White as they come). Al Qaeda has apparently now replaced the USA by France as the Great Satan, at least according to some of its spokesmen. Because France is now exploiting more the Middle East? No, because France is far more secular and far more openly secular. Case in point: they mock religions and defend those who do.

As I've said on more than one occassion, my comments were more to do with Islamist terrorism and sympathizers, rather than CH or the Danish murders (I have hardly commented on the Danish situation).

At the end of the day I don't think any of us really know the motivations of these particular brand of lunatics.

The common thread is that they happen to be Islamic, and they also happen to be targetting citizens of Western countries that either have military entanglements in the Middle East (where every country other than Israel is Islamic), or support military entanglements in the Middle East, or support repressive regimes and kingdoms in the Middle East.

I know Islamic people who openly reject Western secular values and think of the west as decadent. I know people of other faiths who feel the same way. None of these people are murderers though. So that in itself is not the cause of the killings imo.

This is the common thread, therefore unlikely to be incidental. Western meddling in the Middle East can hardly be a motivation for killing cartoonists, especially not left-leaning ones. Or trying to murder a writer like Salman Rushdie. Their "crime" was blasphemy. Women and gays in London being threatened by Islamists on a Saturday night out also have nothing to do with whatever their government does in the Middle East. Again, their "crime" is living freely in a Western democracy.

So the implication of your points are that Islam is bad then? I just need to clarify what you're saying. Islam is 'evil'. Is that the jist?

I consider every religion to be "evil", but this is not what I meant and it is not what I'm saying regarding this particular issue and before I go forward here is a disclaimer: 1)I am not saying that all Muslims/religious people are evil because their religion (like every religion) is superstitious and has not met its burden of proof 2)I am not saying there cannot be good people among Muslims, or Christians, etc.

What I am saying is that the core motivation of Islamist terrorist is religious devotion against what they consider blasphemy and/or decadence. You can have terrorism motivated by economic or national ideologies, but this is not the root of the problem here. Islamism is a religious ideology.

Thunderfinger

Islam is as political as it gets. Spirituality has nothing to do with it.

bondjames

Ludovico wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

Ludovico wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

Ludovico wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

Ludovico wrote: »

@bondjames You lost me too with the economic motivations, if there were any.

@Ludovico, at times during this long thread we have diverged into discussing people of Islamic faith in general. This conversation has gone way beyond the CH attacks on more occassion than one, which is why I find it interesting. What follows is not CH related (for those who do not understand that).

I have never said that economics is the sole cause of violence by Islamists in general. Not at at all. I have said that it is a combination of culture, religion, education and economics (and by this I do not mean the actual attacker's economic circumstances, but who he may sympathize with - e.g. Bin Laden was a millionaire but he was sympathizing with the Islamic masses in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere - with his money he would have been an idiot to paint a big dot on his forehead and by all accounts he was not an idiot).

We have on occassion, in our broad discussion, talked about the following:

1) Islamic youth in the Middle East - many males are jobless and repressed by their own regimes. It's a breeding ground for hatred of the west, who they conveniently blame for everything. These people fill the madrasas and are taught the hatred wahabi garbage and this then poisons them further. They then populate the internet with their hate.

2) Islamic youth in Europe (including but not necessarily in France) who do not integrate into society and who are economically not well off. It is possible that some of these youth will sympathize with the attackers, even if they did not commit the acts themselves. This is more likely if one is not fully assimilated into the society. Moreover, one is less likely to volunteer information to the authorities about possible suspects & future attacks in these cases. This argument is very similar to what happens among black youth in urban America - some of whom feel an allegiance with other black youth, even if they are criminals.

I don't know why some are harping on about economics only. They are debating a strawman. There are other issues involved, particularly religion, education, cultural integration (and cultural identity) and economics is only a part of it (or sympathies with the economic situation of people of similar culture and religion in the middle east).

I think you are raising a lot of trees to hide the forest, at least when it comes to the attack on CH, the Danish cartoons and the Islamic militantism in Western democracies. I am not saying that economy or geopolitical motivations cannot explain certain types of terrorism, even Islamic terrorism. But at the core of Islamic terrorism is a particular faith and a brutal rejection of Western secular values. The 9/11 perpetrators were middle to upper middle class. The Canadian terrorists last October were middle class (and one was as White as they come). Al Qaeda has apparently now replaced the USA by France as the Great Satan, at least according to some of its spokesmen. Because France is now exploiting more the Middle East? No, because France is far more secular and far more openly secular. Case in point: they mock religions and defend those who do.

As I've said on more than one occassion, my comments were more to do with Islamist terrorism and sympathizers, rather than CH or the Danish murders (I have hardly commented on the Danish situation).

At the end of the day I don't think any of us really know the motivations of these particular brand of lunatics.

The common thread is that they happen to be Islamic, and they also happen to be targetting citizens of Western countries that either have military entanglements in the Middle East (where every country other than Israel is Islamic), or support military entanglements in the Middle East, or support repressive regimes and kingdoms in the Middle East.

I know Islamic people who openly reject Western secular values and think of the west as decadent. I know people of other faiths who feel the same way. None of these people are murderers though. So that in itself is not the cause of the killings imo.

This is the common thread, therefore unlikely to be incidental. Western meddling in the Middle East can hardly be a motivation for killing cartoonists, especially not left-leaning ones. Or trying to murder a writer like Salman Rushdie. Their "crime" was blasphemy. Women and gays in London being threatened by Islamists on a Saturday night out also have nothing to do with whatever their government does in the Middle East. Again, their "crime" is living freely in a Western democracy.

So the implication of your points are that Islam is bad then? I just need to clarify what you're saying. Islam is 'evil'. Is that the jist?

I consider every religion to be "evil", but this is not what I meant and it is not what I'm saying regarding this particular issue and before I go forward here is a disclaimer: 1)I am not saying that all Muslims/religious people are evil because their religion (like every religion) is superstitious and has not met its burden of proof 2)I am not saying there cannot be good people among Muslims, or Christians, etc.

What I am saying is that the core motivation of Islamist terrorist is religious devotion against what they consider blasphemy and/or decadence. You can have terrorism motivated by economic or national ideologies, but this is not the root of the problem here. Islamism is a religious ideology.

I agree with that. However, I believe it is not only religious, but cultural. There is a common cultural thread binding these killers. There is also a common anger. They are mainly young, angry men.

Some distinction is required however. The majority of the murders commited in the name of Islam are done by Sunni muslims. Mainly Arab. Not Shia. Not Ismaili either. Even then, it is a very small minority (far lower than .1%). I don't know if that is statistically significant. However, their impact is definitely significant, and damaging the reputation of the other 99.9%.

patb

You should not fear interaction but how comfortable would you feel sitting down and questioning their beliefs? In my experience, Islam does not welcome with open arms those that want to enter into a debate. In an attempt to understand Christianity better, I have attended two Alfa Courses. During these courses, I found everyone to be open to debate, civil in their attitudes and grown up in the ability to discuss all options including the one that I held (that they are all deluded and wasting their lives worshiping a non existent God)). All of this on their "home ground" and over free tea and cake (home made) etc. I find it hard to imagine that I would receive such a warm welcome if I was within a Mosque and told all within the group that they were also deluded.

Thunderfinger

Shiites are a small minority in the muslim world, so that accounts for that. They are just as crazy as the sunnis.

As for the killers being mainly young men, that is the case for most soldiers. These nuts are soldiers for Allah.

bondjames

patb wrote: »

You should not fear interaction but how comfortable would you feel sitting down and questioning their beliefs? In my experience, Islam does not welcome with open arms those that want to enter into a debate. In an attempt to understand Christianity better, I have attended two Alfa Courses. During these courses, I found everyone to be open to debate, civil in their attitudes and grown up in the ability to discuss all options including the one that I held (that they are all deluded and wasting their lives worshiping a non existent God)). All of this on their "home ground" and over free tea and cake (home made) etc. I find it hard to imagine that I would receive such a warm welcome if I was within a Mosque and told all within the group that they were also deluded.

I have had very disturbing conversations with born again (new testament) Christians in North America. So I don't believe this to be a muslim only issue. It's not correct to make that distinction. If someone is deeply religious (of any faith) they are bound to be irrational when it comes to some of the more irreconcilable aspects of their faith. My point is that does not make them murderers, or more likely to be murderers. Just irrational about their faith.

patb

You can be irrational about your own faith (its a pre requisite) but, at the same time, accept that not everyone shares you view. I dont think Islam has a good record on this. Is it possible that a religion that does not welcome debate and creates a relatively "closed off" culture where the alternative views are rarely debated or given any sort of credence can provide a more suitable "breeding ground" for fundamentalists who take their beliefs to the ultimate extreme.

bondjames

patb wrote: »

You can be irrational about your own faith (its a pre requisite) but, at the same time, accept that not everyone shares you view. I dont think Islam has a good record on this. Is it possible that a religion that does not welcome debate and creates a relatively "closed off" culture where the alternative views are rarely debated or given any sort of credence can provide a more suitable "breeding ground" for fundamentalists who take their beliefs to the ultimate extreme.

I can't comment on this, but I have met some very open minded, very calm and peaceful Muslim people who are deeply religious and I have met similarly deeply Christian and peaceful people. I have also met the opposite from both religious groups.

I guess the difference is that I am not willing to go so far as to single out Islam as being particularly restrictive, because there are many interpretations of Islam, by far the most restrictive (yes, more so than Iran by far) being the practice in Saudi Arabia, America's and the west's friend.

chrisisall

I stone myself.

Ludovico

It is not only a Muslim issue, but Islam right now is the religion that has been the most dominated by radicalism, where radicals are most vocal. Many Catholics disagree with their Church on many issues, or at least have a far more liberal views and are mostly secular people that happen to consider themselves Catholics. And the Church is pretty powerless in the West. In other parts of the world, when it is still influential, they are making heavy damages still. Now Islamists are firstly hurting Muslims. And, while I agree with you that it is a vocal minority in Islam, it is also much stronger than say radical Christians because of a tacit endorsement, because of fear or religious submission, of an important part of the mainstream practitioners. And because, unlike the fundamentalist Christians in Western societies, Islamist radicals have endorsement of entire governments on their side. I have heard many "mainstream" Muslims excusing the terrorist attack in Paris because Charlie Hebdo mocked the Prophet.

If Stephen Green from Christian Voice had the same popular backup as some imams, there would be some adulterous women and many British homosexuals executed publicly. I would probably have been tortured for blasphemy because of a few posts on my blog. But he does not have the same popular backup. Most Christians consider him a wacko with zero credibility, moral or otherwise, a British Fred Phelps. This is the only difference, but it would be foolish to ignore it.

bondjames

That is true that there is a vocal, dangerous minority within Islam. A radical minority.

I think one must look to why that minority continues to be able to recruit new followers to its cause. What excuses can it use to increase enrollment, and how can that be prevented.

I propose that it is not only CH that made the murderers do what they did. I think CH was an added excuse - there is seething resentment among this vocal, dangerous radical element and it is not only regarding secularism. It is deeper than that. Anger is poisonous, whether one is religious or not.

Suivez_ce_parachute

bondjames wrote: »

So should I fear interaction with people of muslim faith then?

If you keep on blaming the victims of the terrorist attacks, I think you fear nothing from them, nothing at all. Maybe it's the deep reason of your attitude actually...
Me I fear nothin from them either (I worked on Qatar and EAU, and I wasn't afraid - but well I definitely kept for myself I was an atheist, call me a coward if you want, but well I was there, I was not on some forum), but I don't need to blame others for that.

patb

You are not a coward but it is indicative of the central issue that you did not feel comfortable about your own beleifs within Islamic countries (I would feel the same) , its something that we should never take for granted in the UK