The war on ISIS.

[GBO Possum]

You're unlikely to renounce your faith or your nation if you were asked to - so what gives you the right to expect it of others?


So, that's it, then? "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim"?

Again, we have another Islamophobe on our hands. You would happily ask that they reject their religious teachings, and you would present such an act as being to the benefit of the whole world, but you would not be willing to do the same as them.

Here, you are guilty of the same thing as extremists - you have mistaken conviction for faith. It doesn't matter what you believe; you have convinced yourself that it is right because you believe it, and anything anyone says in opposition to it will only reaffirm your conviction.

I did not say "expect", I said "hope". I also added the words "unlikely to happen".

And to get the facts straight, I have renounced my faith, and I am an immigrant to the United States. I have actually done exactly what you accused me of being unwilling to do. An accusation based on zero evidence.

As for throwing the vague word "Islamophobe" at me, I am merely observing that most suicide bombers are Muslims. Should I pretend otherwise? Please read the Sam Harris blog linked above. In its entirety.

Your use of the word "belief" in a negative context is something I totally agree with. Which is why I try not to use it. Belief and faith are dangerous things. It is simply not true that I reject anything that anyone says in opposition to my opinions. For example, as soon as anyone can present evidence of a god, then that will get my attention. Of course I would approach with skepticism, since it's an extraordinary claim, and needs to be examined carefully.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I did not say "expect", I said "hope". I also added the words "unlikely to happen".

That does not make it okay.

As for throwing the vague word "Islamophobe" at me, I am merely observing that most suicide bombers are Muslims.

How, exactly, is the word vague? Its meaning is bleedingly obvious - "one who is afraid of Muslims".

Your use of the word "belief" in a negative context is something I totally agree with.

I would thank you to stop putting words in my mouth. I did not use the word "belief" negatively. I used the word "conviction" negatively. A belief is something that you hold to be fundamentally true about the world. Conviction, on the other hand, is when you are convinced that you are right simply because you think that you are. Conviction becomes dangerous when it replaces belief. I made this quite clear in my post.

 

[BobK]

Why do you think it is that the vast, vast majority of suicide bombers are Muslim?

"Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim"?

I would thank you to stop putting words in my mouth.

Oh, the irony! Or hypocrisy, at any rate.

Meanwhile, with respect to this:

Well, that's the most racist thing I've heard for a long time.

You have twice refused to answer this question:

I don't see how that statement can in any way, shape or form be considered racist. Can you kindly explain why you feel it's a racist statement?

 

[GBO Possum]

That does not make it okay.

How, exactly, is the word vague? Its meaning is bleedingly obvious - "one who is afraid of Muslims".

I would thank you to stop putting words in my mouth. I did not use the word "belief" negatively. I used the word "conviction" negatively. A belief is something that you hold to be fundamentally true about the world. Conviction, on the other hand, is when you are convinced that you are right simply because you think that you are. Conviction becomes dangerous when it replaces belief. I made this quite clear in my post.

It is ironic that you should claim I was putting words in your mouth.

You said that I would not give up my faith. I have done exactly that.
You said I would not give up my nation (although how that is significant escapes me). I have moved countries.
You replaced my word "hope" with your word "expect".
You replaced my words "vast majority" with "all"
You replaced my words "suicide bombers" with "terrorists"

Now you are telling me that "Islamophobe" has a precise meaning. The fear of Muslims. It can also, more obviously, mean the fear of Islam. A less ambiguous word is Muslimophobe if you want to convey "fear of Muslims".

Just because I point out that the majority of suicide bombers are Muslim doesn't mean you should put words in my mouth and tell me I fear Muslims.

Here is an anecdote.

I came from a country with more than its fair share of venomous snakes. However, the majority of snake species are not dangerous to humans. Very few carry enough sufficiently potent venom to severely damage a human.

Now I will make this statement. "The vast majority of human deaths due to snake venom are caused by snakes."

This doesn't make me an Ophidiophobe. It makes me "fear" specific poisonous snakes, not all snakes.

To have Ophidiophobia would be to fear snakes generally.

I use this example because it is fresh in my memory. Last week my wife found a snake in our garage and asked me to "look after it". She was nervous, I was not. This was a harmless snake having fun exploring the garage. So I guided it to the outdoors and bade it farewell.

Back to Islamophobia. In the sense of fearing Islam, then, yes, I am Islamophobic. Islam's teachings are dangerous.

I don't fear Muslims generally. I, and my family, did once have a nasty experience in Lombok (one of the Muslim Islands in Indonesia). That experience was the result of religious intolerance, but fortunately we had a huge "guide" whose job, it turned out, was to protect us tourists. I did at first wonder why he looked so warrior-like!

EDIT:-

Maybe I should explain some of the reasons I have given up my faith.

I was brought up in a Christian home, and before I was educated enough to assess things critically and have a say in things, I was baptized and "brainwashed" to believe in God and Jesus and all that stuff. Nightly prayers to "bless" family members and all that stuff. Church on Sunday.

My reasons for dumping "faith" were many, but not the least of them is that I found some of the teachings of the Bible to be dangerously offensive.

Killing people for working on the "Sabbath" is just not nice.
Selling my daughters, although at times tempting, should not be condoned.
A God who commands a father to kill his son as a test of loyalty is a nasty person.
Slavery is not nice.
At times I was a stubborn and rebellious son, but fortunately my mother must have missed that bit of the Bible, since I was never stoned to death by all the men of the city where we lived.
I don't like all the encouragements to hate people. That's not nice.
The list of horrible things goes on...

Then there are less offensive bits of Biblical nonsense such as the story of Noah and the flood, but that moves away to simply logical reasons to disbelieve the teachings.

 

[Rage Racer]

I'll just make a quick suggestion here - an idea I had earlier today.

Muslims pray 5 times a day. If American forces were successfully able to bomb ISIS while their fighters are praying, we'd probably be able to get rid of plenty of them at once, quick and easy.

I'm afraid, airstrikes on the IS won't solve the problem. It's like the Lernaean Hydra - cut one head off and two more grow up.
It may restrain their military activity for some time, but then it'll flare up again, even hotter.

 

[GBO Possum]

I'm afraid, airstrikes on the IS won't solve the problem. It's like the Lernaean Hydra - cut one head off and two more grow up.
It may restrain their military activity for some time, but then it'll flare up again, even hotter.

I have to agree with this.

Would I offend anyone by saying this probably wouldn't have happened under Saddam, and the strife would probably have been less in the region? Sadly, dictatorships seem to work better in that part of the world.

 

[Blitz24]

I have to agree with this.

Would I offend anyone by saying this probably wouldn't have happened under Saddam, and the strife would probably have been less in the region? Sadly, dictatorships seem to work better in that part of the world.

Not even a question. If Saddam was still in charge (and was not a threat to the West) there wouldn't be any instability there.

 

[doblocruiser]

I'm afraid, airstrikes on the IS won't solve the problem. It's like the Lernaean Hydra - cut one head off and two more grow up.
It may restrain their military activity for some time, but then it'll flare up again, even hotter.

I agree with your view that airstrikes won't solve the problem. So what do you propose to solve this issue?

Not even a question. If Saddam was still in charge (and was not a threat to the West) there wouldn't be any instability there.

Agree!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It is ironic that you should claim I was putting words in your mouth.

You have assumed that everyone can objectively view their own religion the same way you did, and come to the same dispassionate conclusion that you did for no other reason than because you did. You are, essentially, a textbook case of conviction.

 

[BobK]

You have assumed that everyone can objectively view their own religion the same way you did, and come to the same dispassionate conclusion that you did for no other reason than because you did. You are, essentially, a textbook case of conviction.

Which does not, of course, address any of the issues that @GBO Possum raised. Unsurprisingly. Nor does it answer the question I've asked you three times now. Consider this the fourth.

What on earth is "textbook case of conviction" supposed to mean, anyway?

 

[GBO Possum]

You have assumed that everyone can objectively view their own religion the same way you did, and come to the same dispassionate conclusion that you did for no other reason than because you did. You are, essentially, a textbook case of conviction.

I certainly DO NOT assume everyone can achieve the path I achieved. There you are 100% wrong. Again.

You might try reading @BobK's post above.

It was incredibly difficult to unentangle all the religion tendrils which had been placed in my mind by family, schooling, friends and societal pressures. It was like painstakingly weeding a massive garden which had been invaded by a virulent species. It has taken decades.

The messages of religions go through an evolutionary process. They gain success by "stickiness". In other words, when they are hard to remove, the religion survives and thrives. No religion will last long if it both comes up with a book like the Bible AND encourages critical thinking. What works well is repetition, ambiguity, wonderful promises and fear. These must be built on getting to the kids so early in their life that their minds are still willing to accept ideas simply because these ideas are provided by people of authority. No religion has ever succeeded by educating kids first and then exposing them to that religion.

Had I been in an environment where everyone prayed every few hours every day, always facing a special direction, it would have been much harder to go on this successful journey. I might not have made it if I was brought up Catholic. Even less likely if I'd been brought up in Islam. Islam uses more evolved methods of "stickiness".

 

[Saidur_Ali]

I think it is probably better if media report them as Terrorist State, it is sickening hearing about what they are doing over there and sooner they are ended, the better for humanity.

 

[Rage Racer]

I have to agree with this.

Would I offend anyone by saying this probably wouldn't have happened under Saddam, and the strife would probably have been less in the region? Sadly, dictatorships seem to work better in that part of the world.

Unfortunately, these countries cannot live in western-type "democracy", they can either have a strong dictator (like Saddam, Kaddafi or Assad) who can keep order in the society (be the "solid hand"), or Islamistic chaos (like we have in Libya and IS-controlled areas in Syria and Iraq today).
Most dictator regimes (except for some extremely abusive ones like in North Korea) have a common trait: those people who don't care about struggle for power, they don't live too bad. Kaddafi's Libya was economically stable (compared to other African states), Assad's regime is relatively tolerant to other religions in his state, and Hussaine did not let Islamists in his country for too long - they were exterminated right away.

I agree with your view that airstrikes won't solve the problem. So what do you propose to solve this issue?

Oh, it's very complicated. Too hard to solve from a couch...
First thing coming to mind is to stab the Hydra in the heart, or leave it with no food. Which means, eliminate their commanders, and/or cut their supply lines somehow, so they stop getting any resources for fighting.

But what's obvious is that military "victory" will not mean the overall victory yet. It's not about simple fighting. As long as people are 'infected' with this destructive ideology - 'to fight for Allah' - they will keep up fighting, fallen 'mujaheeds' will be replaced by their brothers/sons/friends/etc, and exterminating 90% of the local population is not a good way to go.

People will not go away to forest with a gun if they have a job and food on their plate, and feel confident in their future. Poverty and weakness of the government make a good soil for radical Islamism to grow in. Someone should settle a stable government and develop the region economically, take control of the clergy to profess moderate Islam instead of destructive radical one. The United States are responsible for this mess (as we say in Russia - "they have boiled this porridge"), so it'll be their job to do.
This is what Russia barely did in Chechnya. Today, Chechen Republic is relatively stable, but it's governed by a real dictator (Kadyrov), who keeps everything in his solid hands. However, he is esteemed by the vast majority of the CR population.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Which does not, of course, address any of the issues that @GBO Possum raised.

Why would I address them, given that I know what his response will be regardless of the case I make?

As to respond to your question - which I was unaware of until now - actively targeting people by taking advantage of their faith is, in itself racist. The only way to successfully target ISIL is to make it clear that the world recognises the difference between ISIL fighters and the wider Muslim community. That's not going to happen if you target them while doing something (almost) all Muslims do.

If ISIL attacked a Christian church during a mass, there would be an uproar. So why is it suddenly okay to attack ISIL fighters during their prayer time? Because we perceive them to be the enemy? They do the same to us, and they are equally-convinced of their righteousness. We can't beat ISIL by using their own tactics against them.

 

[GBO Possum]

Why would I address them, given that I know what his response will be regardless of the case I make?

You might as well make your case(s), AND give my replies, since you know them already.

You are one step ahead of me, and were putting words in my mouth before, so why not keep it up?

As to respond to your question - which I was unaware of until now - actively targeting people by taking advantage of their faith is, in itself racist.

Faith is a choice, race is not.

 

[doblocruiser]

People will not go away to forest with a gun if they have a job and food on their plate, and feel confident in their future. Poverty and weakness of the government make a good soil for radical Islamism to grow in.

Thanks for your explanation Rager Racer!

The radicals who live in western society often have no worries about money/food. Still it's a good soil for radicalism to grow . I think the problem goes deeper than that. It's a culture that doesn't like many cultural aspects from western society, combine that with the hatred (Driven partially by destruction of western society) they already have for the USA (all reason to/or not), it's a problem that won't go away if the region itself will be pretty stable.

 

[kennylmao]

Thanks for your explanation Rager Racer!

The radicals who live in western society often have no worries about money/food. Still it's a good soil for radicalism to grow . I think the problem goes deeper than that. It's a culture that doesn't like many cultural aspects from western society, combine that with the hatred (Driven partially by destruction of western society) they already have for the USA (all reason to/or not), it's a problem that won't go away if the region itself will be pretty stable.

Living in a Western country and being exposed to Western culture, certain Muslims feel that Western culture is immoral, therefore Muslims increase the practice in their idea of a culture with morals by being more religious (whether or not that includes hardcore extremism is questionable). Muslims proceed to condemn Western culture even on Western soil. Westerners bend over and give in expecting Muslims to change, hoping to agree on a middle point, but they don't. Those who would change already did so by assimilation into Western culture. What do you do with those who don't? Give in more and lose Western culture?

Bottom line is, Islam cannot coexist with Western culture without conflict, in my opinion.

Edit: Or maybe it can, and these radicals Muslims are just like any other radical Christians. I don't know man.

BTW, I've been living under a rock regarding world politics and am just realizing what the hell is happening. This red pill is tough to swallow, man. I shall make a post in the Islam thread soon.

Don't let the little flag under my name here fool you, I am not a Muslim, but I have been living alongside Muslims my entire life.

 

[Spurgy 777]

As to respond to your question - which I was unaware of until now - actively targeting people by taking advantage of their faith is, in itself racist.

I don't think you know what racist or more specifically race means. What you're saying makes about as much sense as saying it's racist to attack Star Wars fans watching a movie marathon.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I don't think you know what racist or more specifically race means. What you're saying makes about as much sense as saying it's racist to attack Star Wars fans watching a movie marathon.

Do me a favour - go and rile up an angry mob by saying something objectionable, then tell them that they have no cause to be angry because that angry mob is not a race, and so what you said is not racism. Then come back here and tell us what happened next.

Muslim communities struggle to trust Western governance because they feel that they are only being investigated because they practice Islam. It's racial profiling. To suggest that the best way to stop ISIL is to attack during their prayer time will only further divide the Muslim community - even the moderate majority - because the West would be targeting them based on a quality that makes them Muslim when the Muslim community has sought to distance itself from ISIL.

You can continue to insist "it's not racism!", but it doesn't matter what you think - what matters is what the community thinks. So you can defend it until you're blue in the face and ultimately claim a moral victory, but when you have turned large sections of the community against you at a time when you need to work with them the most, what have you won?

 

[doblocruiser]

Muslim communities struggle to trust Western governance because they feel that they are only being investigated because they practice Islam.

Well they haven't given the governance any reason to be suspicious about them, or do they?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Well they haven't given the governance any reason to be suspicious about them, or do they?

Oh, so it's their collective fault, is it?

Blaming the many for the actions of a few has never done anyone any good.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Do me a favour - go and rile up an angry mob by saying something objectionable, then tell them that they have no cause to be angry because that angry mob is not a race, and so what you said is not racism. Then come back here and tell us what happened next.

Muslim communities struggle to trust Western governance because they feel that they are only being investigated because they practice Islam. It's racial profiling. To suggest that the best way to stop ISIL is to attack during their prayer time will only further divide the Muslim community - even the moderate majority - because the West would be targeting them based on a quality that makes them Muslim when the Muslim community has sought to distance itself from ISIL.

You can continue to insist "it's not racism!", but it doesn't matter what you think - what matters is what the community thinks. So you can defend it until you're blue in the face and ultimately claim a moral victory, but when you have turned large sections of the community against you at a time when you need to work with them the most, what have you won?

Where have I said whether or not we should bomb ISIL whilst they pray? I'm pointing out that you're incorrectly and unnecessarily using the word racist (seemingly as if it somehow makes your argument more valid). Also, you mention racial profiling (again completely misusing the word) as if it's a bad thing, why is that?

 

[Joel]

One would hope that all Muslims would reject the teachings of the Koran. Unlikely to happen.

Why do you think it is that the vast, vast majority of suicide bombers are Muslim? Coincidence?

Why do you think it is that the vast, vast majority of school shooters are white? Shouldn't it be up to the white community to police themselves and stop this from happening?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Where have I said whether or not we should bomb ISIL whilst they pray?

Have you even been following this thread? I'm well aware you didn't call for the bombing of ISIL during prayer time - someone else did, and that was the comment I originally called racist.

Also, you mention racial profiling (again completely misusing the word) as if it's a bad thing, why is that?

How is it a good thing to presume someone is guilty of something simply because they're not white?

Assuming that a Muslim is plotting a terrorist attack because they're a Muslim rather than because there is evidence is a clear-cut case of racial profiling.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Have you even been following this thread? I'm well aware you didn't call for the bombing of ISIL during prayer time - someone else did, and that was the comment I originally called racist.

I'm well aware of that too, and again, I, and a few others, have pointed out that you are wrong to call it racist.

How is it a good thing to presume someone is guilty of something simply because they're not white?

Assuming that a Muslim is plotting a terrorist attack because they're a Muslim rather than because there is evidence is a clear-cut case of racial profiling.

Just got on my laptop and looked up the definition properly and realised that racial profiling differs from offender profiling, (I thought it just referred to using race as a factor in offender profiling, as opposed to it being a key factor) so I'd agree that it is a bad thing. However that doesn't negate the fact that you are still misusing it with regard to Muslims.

 

[Furinkazen]

Have you even been following this thread? I'm well aware you didn't call for the bombing of ISIL during prayer time - someone else did, and that was the comment I originally called racist.

Assuming that a Muslim is plotting a terrorist attack because they're a Muslim rather than because there is evidence is a clear-cut case of racial profiling.

That isn't racist. Racism is the specific targeting of an ethnic group. Muslims are not a categorised ethnic group however. Anyone else who says about bombing IS are not being racist. IS are a group, not categorised as a specific ethnicity or race. It is like saying "Bombing Manchester United Football Fans" is racist. Yes, it is targeting a group of people. But not racist.

However the second point about assuming a Muslim is a terrorist (which is ridiculous) I totally agree with.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

What would you call it, then? "Ethnicism"? And how does it differ from racism, except in name?

And most importantly, how is everyone going to convince the angry mob that they have just stirred up that they've done nothing wrong because it's technically not racism?

 

[Furinkazen]

What would you call it, then? "Ethnicism"? And how does it differ from racism, except in name?

And most importantly, how is everyone going to convince the angry mob that they have just stirred up that they've done nothing wrong because it's technically not racism?

How is it even being racist? It isn't targeting muslims on a majority or whole. It's targeting one small group, which do not even have an termed sub-group - if it was "Death to Kurds!" "Exterminate the Shias!" "Destroy the Sunnis!" I would understand. But by your reasoning if I told a group of people in the street causing trouble they should go somewhere, I am being racist?

 

[GBO Possum]

Why do you think it is that the vast, vast majority of school shooters are white? Shouldn't it be up to the white community to police themselves and stop this from happening?

I don't know the answer to that question. However, being white is not a belief system.

 

[Joel]

I don't know the answer to that question. However, being white is not a belief system.

If we want to go to the next step, Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Wade Michael Page, and Anders Behring Breivik were all reportedly Christians. Breivik made himself very clear that his killings were religiously motivated.


You're right that white isn't a belief system, but to deny that there's a distinct culture present among white people is a stretch. In the past few years there has been a number of highly publicized shootings and almost exclusively they involve white men. 200 years ago whites commonly believed that blacks were inferior people and deserved to be enslaved. What is it about the social conditions and culture of whites that leads to them committing these acts? What is the responsibility of us as moderate whites to regulate our culture to stop these kinds of things from happening?


Whether or not we're talking about race is irrelevant to a discussion about whether or not a group is being discriminated against. It doesn't matter whether people are enslaved for being black, or put in death camps for being Jews, or massacred by Japanese soldiers for being Chinese. People will profile based on all sorts of reasons, what we have to do is to look into whether that's legitimate. I profile members of the KKK or WBC negatively. I profile members of Islamic State negatively. I wouldn't profile people negatively for being Christian, or Muslim, despite the WBC and IS both being extreme interpretations of those religions.


I'm not just asking rhetorical questions to be contrarian here. The reason I'm asking these things (and my posts earlier where I compared it to racism towards black people) is to try and demonstrate how absurd these things are if you substitute other ethnic groups, religions, or races into the place of Muslims. The hand waving away is silly, I know that "Muslim" isn't a race, and "white" isn't a religion. Those kinds of rebuttals are missing the forest for the trees.


The point I'm trying to bring up here is that to believe these negative things are a risk associated with Islam is to claim that it's an inherent part of being a Muslim. I'm just not prepared to agree with that, and I have a hard time seeing it as anything other than unjustified profiling. Yes, the middle east is screwed, and no sane person would ever support Islamic State or other similar terrorist organizations. But that doesn't mean we have to start painting all Muslims with the same brush and fear for our own cultures because of some extremists, in the same way we don't hold Anders Behring Breivik as indicative of Norwegian Christians.

In the other thread I posted a bit about Toronto. More than half of the people there are immigrants, and the city has the largest concentration of Muslims in North America. People regularly just practice their own culture, and there isn't a big emphasis on assimilating. Multiculturalism in Toronto is at a place where most people don't even think about it, China town is next to a huge hipster neighbourhood. Somehow despite that, Sharia law hasn't been declared and it's a very safe and great place to live. I just have a hard time believing there's anything inherently different about the Muslims in Europe that makes Islam such a threat to Europeans, while there aren't issues in Canada.