A Christian is tortured every 3 minutes in the Muslim world.

[Guest American Woman]

There are lots of savage incidents all of the world. Could you please provide the statistics by which you proclaim that the Muslim world has more than other groupings in the world?

I can't provide statistics, but I can provide you with a link that you may find interesting. This site explains Muslim violence not as religious, but as political.

Just a couple of simple, brief excerpts:

Some people might argue that while it may be true that terrorism does occur among followers of all religions, it occurs more frequently among Muslims. This is due to two factors. The first is that most media outlets now focus their attention on acts of violence in Muslim nations such as Iraq and Afghanistan. [...]

The second factor is that sadly, Muslim nations today have more than their fair share of political upheaval in the world. Therefore, they have more civil wars and more conflicts and this leads to more violence than other regions of the world. [...]

It's interesting to note that while the statement is made that There are many reasons for this political upheaval, the only reason mentioned/addressed is western intervention.

Edited December 27, 2009 by American Woman

[Michael Hardner]

You're coming at this from a civilization that has largely secularized itself. But that process included a period of incredible brutality. The religious wars that engulfed Europe, in particular during the Thirty Years War, but in other attrocities as well, were what ultimately "scared us straight" so to speak. Still, a whole lot of Christians joined together in Central Europe to kill a few million Jews well within the living memory of many people still alive.

I'm not saying the Muslim world doesn't have enormous problems, but religion is a convenient bit of armor for those using it to manipulate the masses in those countries, and a convenient scapegoat for those who would probably hate Islam no matter how violent or peaceable its adherents were. People seem to take this period of time as being somehow odd, and yet Islam and Christendom (in whatever form they have taken over the last 1,400 years) have spent much of their time in competition and at war. Certainly, for a rather large part of this long struggle, Christendom has been the greater aggressor, and just because we've all tossed off the chains of religious servitude and fanaticism doesn't mean that in some parts of the world, memories are still long about what has gone on.

Ok. Just keep in mind that I posted my statement in response to another poster's categorization of Muslim countries.

[ToadBrother]

The latest was at Detroit Airport this weekend (link).

That's an incident, not a statistic. The claim is that the Muslim world is filled with violence, that Islam is fundamentally violent. To demonstrate that point you need to gather all the violent incidents that involve multiple killings, or at least attempts at multiple killings (like the Detroit incident), and then count them by nationality and religious affiliation. To be perfectly fair, you would need to weed out things like independence struggles, revolutionary actions, and government crackdowns on them, because those are not really religious struggles at all, but political ones. Sometimes both sides will make one seem like the other, of course. As I said, religion is a placeholder. The IRA and the Ulster paramilitaries may have gone around pretending it was a Protestant vs. Catholic war in Northern Ireland, but it was a nationalist struggle, pure and simple. Since religion tends to be a substantial part of any group's view of their nationality, it's not surprising that political struggles will inevitably take on the extra dimension.

There's no doubt there are Islamist crazies out there, but I suspect that much of the violence you see in the Muslim world has little to do with Islamism. In many cases, like Iraq, it's the aftermath of tossing three very different ethnic groups together by the Great Powers early in the 20th century. The Great Powers and even lesser colonial powers did this all over the place; Rwanda, Iraq, Yugoslavia and India all come to mind. In all these cases we've seen civil wars and bloody inter-ethnic fighting and atrocities. The same applies in the Muslim world. Places like Indonesia and Pakistan were the products of forcing various groups of people together, regardless of ethnic or religious considerations, and thus you see violence, often with extreme religious overtones.

Pakistan is probably the most fascinating example, as it includes a number of historically long-divided populations, that even though, ostensibly belonging to the same religion, have some very sharp tribalistic differences, and thus you have the constant push and pull of religion, ethnicity and, to some extent, a sort of suppressed nationalism. Simply put, the lines on the map don't really match the makeup of these groups. But there's a deeper aspect to Pakistan. The country should never have existed, and it was deliberate British sabotage that lead to the bizarre notion of a Muslim "homeland" in the Subcontinent where none had existed before. This allowing Muslims to carve out their own country out of the Eastern and Western sections of India lead to other violent movements, in particular various Punjabi separatist movements that, again, while seemingly wearing the cloaks of religion, were very much ethno-nationalistic struggles.

Edited December 27, 2009 by ToadBrother

[jbg]

Pakistan is probably the most fascinating example, as it includes a number of historically long-divided populations, that even though, ostensibly belonging to the same religion, have some very sharp tribalistic differences, and thus you have the constant push and pull of religion, ethnicity and, to some extent, a sort of suppressed nationalism. Simply put, the lines on the map don't really match the makeup of these groups. But there's a deeper aspect to Pakistan. The country should never have existed, and it was deliberate British sabotage that lead to the bizarre notion of a Muslim "homeland" in the Subcontinent where none had existed before. This allowing Muslims to carve out their own country out of the Eastern and Western sections of India lead to other violent movements, in particular various Punjabi separatist movements that, again, while seemingly wearing the cloaks of religion, were very much ethno-nationalistic struggles.

I agree with this analysis and my agreement is not limited to Pakistan. With Pakistan you're further right in that many of the areas that border Inda are more middle-class and business oriented and not at all like the Tribal Region.

That being said, there is no reason that the West should have to tolerate the export of fratricidal violence to their society. Or for that matter the cultural proclivity to turn to sickening massacres on a whim.

[ToadBrother]

I agree with this analysis and my agreement is not limited to Pakistan. With Pakistan you're further right in that many of the areas that border Inda are more middle-class and business oriented and not at all like the Tribal Region.

That being said, there is no reason that the West should have to tolerate the export of fratricidal violence to their society. Or for that matter the cultural proclivity to turn to sickening massacres on a whim.

And how are we going to prevent, particularly as a big chunk of the Muslim world sits on top of what currently is the single most valuable resource on the planet? Now, we could always try to get away from oil reliance, and thus stop pumping billions of dollars every year into the pockets of regimes that use that wealth to oppress their people and threaten us and our allies. But since practicality and economic momentum means we have to deal with these countries, and largely accept that they're going to use our money against themselves and us. Those who have the gold make the rules. And that, no matter how you spin the religious aspects, is the fundamental truth of human affairs.

[jbg]

And how are we going to prevent, particularly as a big chunk of the Muslim world sits on top of what currently is the single most valuable resource on the planet?

To me it's very simple. Countries that don't guarantee the safety of the world from activities generating within their borders should forfeit the right to self-determination and self-government.

Now, we could always try to get away from oil reliance, and thus stop pumping billions of dollars every year into the pockets of regimes that use that wealth to oppress their people and threaten us and our allies. But since practicality and economic momentum means we have to deal with these countries, and largely accept that they're going to use our money against themselves and us. Those who have the gold make the rules. And that, no matter how you spin the religious aspects, is the fundamental truth of human affairs.

Again, I see nothing magic about the rulers of particular countries. There are ways of assassinating and replacing misbehaving or negligent leaders.

[charter.rights]

To me it's very simple. Countries that don't guarantee the safety of the world from activities generating within their borders should forfeit the right to self-determination and self-government.

Again, I see nothing magic about the rulers of particular countries. There are ways of assassinating and replacing misbehaving or negligent leaders.

Of course that would include Mossad performing cross-border assassinations, right?

And if we look historically that would also include the state of Israel which invaded another country and stole their land....

[ToadBrother]

To me it's very simple. Countries that don't guarantee the safety of the world from activities generating within their borders should forfeit the right to self-determination and self-government.

Let me know when you're ready to invade Russia.

Again, I see nothing magic about the rulers of particular countries. There are ways of assassinating and replacing misbehaving or negligent leaders.

The US and the UK did that in Iran, and ended up with something much much worse.

[ToadBrother]

And if we look historically that would also include the state of Israel which invaded another country and stole their land....

That's a rather large distortion of the truth, don't you think? Which country precisely did they invade and steal land that hadn't, in fact, attempted an attack themselves. In the olden days, when you started a war, and ended up losing territory to the guy you had hoped to beat, that was the price you paid. As to the Palestinians, well they never actually had a state. It was a British Mandate and prior to that it belonged to the Ottoman Empire. The last time there was anything approaching being a Palestinian state was the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem.

[jbg]

Let me know when you're ready to invade Russia.

I never claimed consistency on all issues.

The US and the UK did that in Iran, and ended up with something much much worse.

Not really. There was 25 years of relative quiesence. The problem is Carter did nothing to stop the spiral into chaos in 1978. Earlier Presidents would have arranged Khomeni's meeting with Allah. Carter is the dimwit who struck off the CIA's right to assassinate overseas. Facially appealing, results appalling.

[bush_cheney2004]

Let me know when you're ready to invade Russia.

...or Haiti?

The US and the UK did that in Iran, and ended up with something much much worse.

So the methods are only suspect when failed after 25 years? Let's see how Haiti works out in 2029.

Edited December 28, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Shwa]

To me it's very simple. Countries that don't guarantee the safety of the world from activities generating within their borders should forfeit the right to self-determination and self-government.

You mean like CIA ops, School of the Americas and all that other good stuff?

Dibs on South Carolina!

[bloodyminded]

You mean like CIA ops, School of the Americas and all that other good stuff?

Dibs on South Carolina!

No. Those don't count. The issue, as always, is what others do, not what we do. We're very, very special, and so we can happily hold ourselves to lower standards.

[Shwa]

No. Those don't count. The issue, as always, is what others do, not what we do. We're very, very special, and so we can happily hold ourselves to lower standards.

Rats. I had my eyes on a little bay south of Charleston. Oh well, I suppose I could amble on down and claim manifest destiny or terra nullis or something like that. They likely wouldn't go for it though. Damn. Guess I'll have to pony up for the damned timeshare. :angry:

[ToadBrother]

I never claimed consistency on all issues.

No kidding.

Not really. There was 25 years of relative quiesence. The problem is Carter did nothing to stop the spiral into chaos in 1978. Earlier Presidents would have arranged Khomeni's meeting with Allah. Carter is the dimwit who struck off the CIA's right to assassinate overseas. Facially appealing, results appalling.

And the fact that the Shah was becoming increasingly authoritarian and using Savak in much the same way as the current Iranian regime uses its secret police and network of informers was a-okay.

[bloodyminded]

Rats. I had my eyes on a little bay south of Charleston. Oh well, I suppose I could amble on down and claim manifest destiny or terra nullis or something like that. They likely wouldn't go for it though. Damn. Guess I'll have to pony up for the damned timeshare. :angry:

Even one as ignorant as myself will tell you to keep away from the timeshare.

[bloodyminded]

No kidding.

And the fact that the Shah was becoming increasingly authoritarian and using Savak in much the same way as the current Iranian regime uses its secret police and network of informers was a-okay.

Oh, yes. We're not talking principle here; we're certainly not talking about the lives of human beings.

We're talking about alliances and obedience to the proper Powers. That this gets perversely misconstrued as moral values tells us something about...well, something, I'm not sure what. Perhaps drooling nationalism, perhaps good old-fashioned servility to Power. The old Soviet Commissars would no doubt have some sympathy, since at bottom, we're discussing a similar phenomenon.

[chuck schmidt]

Christians are targeted every day, every three minutes in a Muslim country. What are we going to do about it? Why does the news suppress this information?

Some people think that thousands in the Third World die every year because of western foreign policies and greed. What should we do about that?

Matthew 7:3

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

[jbg]

Some people think that thousands in the Third World die every year because of western foreign policies and greed. What should we do about that?

Matthew 7:3

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

The Third World needs to make some effort to get its own house in order.

[Smallc]

You know, you'd think after being tortured so many times, the poor Christian would just leave.

[chuck schmidt]

The Third World needs to make some effort to get its own house in order.

How? Become richer? Become militarily stronger? Become more like America? Become more moral, such as a comparison between Western "free [and rented, and purchased] love compared to extremist Muslims who prefer chastity before marriage? Or do we simply insist that they are doing some things right, but they must attain perfection before we stop bombing and beating on them?

According to some respected writers (Gwyn Dyer for one) some Gulf nations have been prevented from getting their own house in order by the West. Western governments have used force or the threat of force to help keep friendly leaders in power since at least the end of WW2. The West does it to protect "its" oil supplies. Leaders kept in force that long become corrupt and oppressive and the electorate becomes frustrated, just like any Western population would if a leader was the same guy for 20 years supported by an outside power. What we are seeing now is in part the boiling over of the pot that we (the West) have helped keep under pressure.

Look at Iran for example. Iran has never attacked the US. Yet the US supplied Saddam Hussein with nerve gas against Iran. The US has maintained an aggressive naval force off the Iranian coast. A US cruiser that was illegally in Iranian waters shot down a totally innocent civilian passenger jet causing hundreds of deaths, and denied it at first. I am willing to bet that if Iran did that off the coast of the US, America would wage war on Iran. How would any western power react if Iran kept a permanent and threatening naval force off its coast?

How about Iraq? What legal cause did the US have to wage war on Iraq, or commit any of the hundreds of atrocities committed there?

Look at the US attitude in general. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident caused a decade of US war on North Vietnam and untold casualties - over 55,000 US dead and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese. What was the Gulf of Tonkin Incident? Allegedly two North Vietnamese torpedo boats opened fire on two US destroyers on the open seas. They did, because the US destroyers were cruising off the coast of North Vietnam near Hanoi directing South Vietnamese air force bombing strikes against targets in North Vietnam. What would America have done if the North Vietnamese navy was assisting another power to bomb Washington, DC? Or New York? Or Boston? Would America consider it an act of war and attack the foreign destroyers? I think so.

It seems to me to be clearly arguable that the super power is bullying the impoverished Third World, and people in the super power wish to argue that, "The Third World needs to make some effort to get its own house in order." How? Grovel, roll over and play dead?

[JB Globe]

The Third World needs to make some effort to get its own house in order.

Which is difficult when you have can't get rid of your (sometimes uninvited) house guests (see: The West).

[Jade Dragon]

I cannot follow the link, it goes nowhere. But I do wonder where this statistic comes from. Is some agency roaming the world surveying all Christians residing in nations where Christianity is a minority? It seems to me a dubious statistic at best.

I did manage to find this other link, which may be the source of the story. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ec6_1261039541&c=1

I also found this link. I am not sure how genuine One Free World International is. Is it actually an organization promoting religious tolerance around the world or one of these ministries set up to enrich the founder? I noter the the donation button is prominent in the website. http://www.onefreeworldinternational.org/

[whowhere]

Torturing every 3 minutes is unacceptable they need to get that down to 1 minute.

[jbg]

Which is difficult when you have can't get rid of your (sometimes uninvited) house guests (see: The West).

Couldn't the same be said about such "house guests" as the Khadrs? How do they help keep Canada's house in order?