This week in Islam

[Michael Hardner]

Right. I agree with most of this. What I'm saying is that murder stats are only murders that are discovered or known by police agencies.

Fair enough, but looking at the list of countries, such as Cote D'Ivoire, you wonder how much of a factor that is.

But ok.

What I'm suggesting is that the conversation is a lot deeper than "show me the figures" would allow. Statistics are not the be all and end all of the discussion. Sometimes people like to invoke them without really considering what they measure and how they measure it. If that's not part of the discussion then we're missing most of the picture here.

No, they're not the be-all and end-all but they are objective measures. People who want to set out to paint Muslims in a certain light would include something like 'stoning' in the definition of extremism but not capital punishment in general. You're right that the conversation doesn't end with statistics but they are central to the discussion, or should be.

[Michael Hardner]

That must say something into the role of religion.

Loud sigh.

No. No it does not. You can't separate religion from other factors, that is the entire point I'm making.

[WWWTT]

Loud sigh.

No. No it does not. You can't separate religion from other factors, that is the entire point I'm making.

What you may have intended and what I have used your link to highlight are two different things.

I give a rats ass if you sigh! So keep sighing.

WWWTT

[Shady]

Good argument.

I will counter that, many western nations have not learned from past lessons and have not repaid for damages. You are assuming that since something has happened in the past, the statute of limitations is somehow applying. Good examples would be Iraq/Afghanistan.

WWWTT

How are Iraq and Afghanistan examples? Btw, they happened AFTER 911.

[Michael Hardner]

What you may have intended and what I have used your link to highlight are two different things.

You have not highlighted the role of religion. I was using the list to show the uselessness of such generalizations, and meanwhile you have picked it up and used it to generalize.

If there's a correlation between Catholicism and murder rate, it says nothing about the 'role' of religion just as crime, economic productivity and race statistics says nothing, on their own, about the role of 'race'.

[Guest]

The point is that it's a double standard. That what we conceive of as valid and invalid forms of violence are coloured by our own sense of national, cultural, and ethnic superiority. Obama drops bombs using drones on grade school children and he gets the Nobel Peace Prize. A terrorist sets off a car bomb near the entrance of a military site, killing 3 or 4 civilians and people lose their minds. The death of some civilians is condemned as the worst possible outrage ever, while the others are glossed over as collateral damage. At the end of the day, it's innocent people in the ground.

So people like Argus want to sit here and say that Muslims are a scourge on the earth and that their "culture" is the source of that. Meanwhile, the amount of death and destruction caused by non-Muslims around the world just in the last century is not even comparable and not even considered in these conversations about "violence." And why is that? Because at the end of the day Muslim violence is nothing but a soap box for intolerant bigots to flex their notions of racial, ethnic, cultural, and religious superiority without any reflexivity whatsoever for the amount of violence perpetrated by "our" kind.

The fact that you have to go to such historical examples merely proves the argument.

If we had all been on here a hundred years ago you could have started a "This week in the Austro Hungarian Empire" thread and you probably wouldn't have seen much of an argument.

The drone argument is ridiculous also. Targeted attacks on threats might come with the deaths of innocent civilians, but they are not the goal. Not the only aim of the act. It could also be argued that more innocent lives were saved by the attack than were lost, if it successfully kills its target.

[Michael Hardner]

Targeted attacks on threats might come with the deaths of innocent civilians, but they are not the goal.

That's a fair point. At what threshold does collateral damage become unjustified ? How far back should we go in examining our own practices during times of war ?

[GostHacked]

That's a fair point. At what threshold does collateral damage become unjustified ? How far back should we go in examining our own practices during times of war ?

When you kill more innocents than terrorists while trying to kill the terrorists. Several wedding parties were blown up by drone fire. And they are not able to verify that they killed the target in many cases.

Are 10 innocent deaths for every terrorist acceptable?

[Guest]

That's a fair point. At what threshold does collateral damage become unjustified ? How far back should we go in examining our own practices during times of war ?

I don't think we can go back and assess justification in another time. Perhaps extremely competent historians could give it a shot, but I will not judge those who carried out acts of war resulting in collateral damage if the goal was justified in their minds given the circumstances at the time.

The obvious example is the use of atomic weapons in 1945. To my simplistic reasoning it saved lives, so i have no problem with it. I'm sure it's a lot more complicated than that, but I suppose that's another thread.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think we can go back and assess justification in another time.

How far back can we go - is the question.

[GostHacked]

How far back can we go - is the question.

You can go back a long way. It's how far back should we go. If you only go back 10 years, you will get one view. You go back 50 years, you get a different view. Go back 100 years and yet another different view.

The more you go back, the more context you would have to understand the current crisis.

Also do we ignore something like the CIA assisting and arming known terror groups in the overall context of radical Muslims? All while complaining about 9/11 and telling us they hate us for our freedoms? Are people that stupid to believe such simplistic tripe?

[Michael Hardner]

... telling us they hate us for our freedoms? Are people that stupid to believe such simplistic tripe?

I guess it's easier than just saying "we have power, and they want it". We can't get people to worry about power can we ? Maybe not caring about power is the ultimate sign of power ?

[GostHacked]

I guess it's easier than just saying "we have power, and they want it". We can't get people to worry about power can we ? Maybe not caring about power is the ultimate sign of power ?

The people that want power are the least deserving of it. But no, it's not even about 'we have power and they want it'. It is about wanting to be left alone to run their country/lives as they see fit.

One cannot go globetrotting exercising it's power for change without some kind of push back from certain groups who have received the brunt of the political rhetoric and military might.

And when we talk radical Islam, we mainly seem to focus on the Middle East and North Africa. For people that scream it is a global issue only really focus on it when it comes from selected countries, again mainly in the areas stated above.

Some east Asian countries have radical Muslims as well. But rarely if ever do you hear about those places and the problems they encounter.

There are problems within Islam and the radicalization of it, but it would help if we did not try to intervene as that has produced more terrorists than if we did not try to impose our way of life on them. For one, instant culture shock.

[WWWTT]

How are Iraq and Afghanistan examples? Btw, they happened AFTER 911.

Two countries where western powers have been interfering with the internal politics.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

You have not highlighted the role of religion. I was using the list to show the uselessness of such generalizations, and meanwhile you have picked it up and used it to generalize.

If there's a correlation between Catholicism and murder rate, it says nothing about the 'role' of religion just as crime, economic productivity and race statistics says nothing, on their own, about the role of 'race'.

And for decades, I believe it couldn't be proven that cigarette smoking wasn't bad for you.

How about climate change?

Sounds like you just live for opening up a can of worms.

And yes, you just proved that Catholicism does not really discourage people killing each other, that speaks volumes, but are you listening? Or better yet are you even looking?

Edited to add

This is my 5 000 comment!!!!!!! I now have five freekin dots and am a senior member BABY!

WWWTT

Edited May 22, 2014 by WWWTT

[Michael Hardner]

And for decades, I believe it couldn't be proven that cigarette smoking wasn't bad for you.

How about climate change?

Neither of things can ever be proven using the usual methods, ie. clinical double blind trials.

And yes, you just proved that Catholicism does not really discourage people killing each other, that speaks volumes, but are you listening? Or better yet are you even looking?

No, there are co-factors at play. I reject the dead-dumb assumption that correlation means there's a causative relationship on any level - both for Muslims and for Catholics. How can you believe the "other factors" argument for one religion and not another ?

[Argus]

I don't really remember, but let's just assume that they are in fact extreme ok ?

You don't really remember? Well, I suppose that's understandable. I mean, I posted it yesterday, two posts ago. Okay then, given you believe supporters of Islamic law are extremists, and surveys show the majority of Muslims around the world support Islamic law, that makes the majority of Muslims extremists.

I already addressed this. One could make the argument about race as a factor in productivity by tracing the African lineage to the United States, for example. Please don't force me to repeat these ridiculous arguments any more - I already posted them once, which is more than enough.

I agree they were ridiculous. I pointed that out. You seem to be dismissing the inadequacy of your ridiculous comparison while at the same time suggesting I need to address them yet again.

The rest of your post ignores the point which I already made above - please address it.

You mean your ridiculous point? The one where you compare people of the same race and geographical area to a vastly disparate group of racial and ethinc groups spread across the globe? Do I once again have to point out how there could be any number of commonalities with ONE concentrated group but can't be with DOZENS of groups spread acorss the earth?

Edited May 22, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

Here's something!

WWWTT

Who slaughtered their way across central Asia and into Europe, putting entire cities to the sword and giving millions of people the choice of either converting to Islam or being murdered? Muslims.

Since you seem fond of history.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Argus

[WWWTT]

Neither of things can ever be proven using the usual methods, ie. clinical double blind trials.

No, there are co-factors at play. I reject the dead-dumb assumption that correlation means there's a causative relationship on any level - both for Muslims and for Catholics. How can you believe the "other factors" argument for one religion and not another ?

I must agree. Somewhat.

However, these alleged "coincidences" usually pushes an interested party to dig deeper and search for more specifics/details/factors etc.

But I will leave this branch of debate within this thread at that. I don't want to drift further away.

WWWTT

[Argus]

I think it's lame, but it shows the problems in picking out one type of extremism and building a case around that.

No, it does nothing of the sort. It's pretty easy to show extremism, as I have done.

It takes considerable and determined effort to put your hands over your eyes and pretend you don't see it.

[WWWTT]

Who slaughtered their way across central Asia and into Europe, putting entire cities to the sword and giving millions of people the choice of either converting to Islam or being murdered? Muslims.

Since you seem fond of history.

Point of the picture provided was not to create a tally list of who did what to who.

Point was to highlight a double standard.

WWWTT

[Michael Hardner]

You don't really remember? Well, I suppose that's understandable. I mean, I posted it yesterday, two posts ago. Okay then, given you believe supporters of Islamic law are extremists, and surveys show the majority of Muslims around the world support Islamic law, that makes the majority of Muslims extremists.

Sorry, that doesn't follow.

I agree they were ridiculous. I pointed that out. You seem to be dismissing the inadequacy of your ridiculous comparison while at the same time suggesting I need to address them yet again.

Yes, because your generalizations about religion as it applies to individuals are equally ridiculous. And your double-logic for claiming 'colonialism' as an influencer for Africa, but not the Muslim world is ridiculous too.

You mean your ridiculous point? The one where you compare people of the same race and geographical area to a vastly disparate group of racial and ethinc groups spread across the globe?

Actually, I already explained that the analogy works for people of African descent too. What's good for the racist goose isn't good for the religionist gander it seems - using a fowl metaphor for the abstractions at play.

Do I once again have to point out how there could be any number of commonalities with ONE concentrated group but can't be with DOZENS of groups spread acorss the earth?

And I have responded to it again. Look - let's just stop at this point. If you're going to repeat your assertion without even reading my response can we say that we're run out of discussion at this point ?

It's certainly not enjoyable for me to wait several days for you to respond, only to find out that you're not even paying attention to the discussion.

[Michael Hardner]

It takes considerable and determined effort to put your hands over your eyes and pretend you don't see it.

Once again, I'm not denying that extremists exist. How many times are you going to make me restate that, while not responding to my points ?

Also - It's very easy to point out someone's race and religion whenever they do a misdeed, and claim that the race/religion has something to do with it.

[Argus]

The point is that it's a double standard. That what we conceive of as valid and invalid forms of violence are coloured by our own sense of national, cultural, and ethnic superiority.

Complete drivel.

Obama drops bombs using drones on grade school children and he gets the Nobel Peace Prize.

The very obvious difference being Obama would never target the school children, while terrorists would and do and have.

So people like Argus want to sit here and say that Muslims are a scourge on the earth and that their "culture" is the source of that.

I didn't say that Muslims were the scourage of the earth, nor anything similar. I would suggest that phrase is coming from your own subconscious, which is so deeply repressed as you try to frantically make excuses for murder and terorrism because the perpatrators are 'brown people'.

Meanwhile, the amount of death and destruction caused by non-Muslims around the world just in the last century is not even comparable and not even considered in these conversations about "violence."

And again, we see the politically correct determination to change the topic from extremism to 'violence' so that the braying about evil western states can be brought into the topic once more.

Let me as you, PC man, do you believe it's okay to murder people for being gay? Do you believe that's an acceptable belief to have, and that we should refuse to condemn those who have it? Yes or no. I don't want to hear about world war two of the crusades.

[Argus]

Yes - which is why I'm trying to get them to be specific about what they're trying to measure when discussing 'extremism' or 'violence', and perhaps why they're reluctant to do so.

And yet when 'they' are specific you delete the specifics, don't reply to them, and then 'forget' them within 24 hours.