This week in Islam

[Argus]

How far back can we go - is the question.

I know those who want to excuses terrorism will go as far back as they feel they need to in order to condemn western democracies.

But the topic is extremism TODAY. If you guys want to suggest we were horrible 'extremists' by present standards a century ago that's fine, but irrelevent.

[Michael Hardner]

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

I'm not talking about specific acts of extremism. You're great at citing extreme examples, also known as anecdotes. Following your cite, you INSIST that I acknowledge that such acts are extreme. Why you do this, I don't know.

I'm looking for some way we can actually define a class of behaviors as 'extreme' - so as to facilitate some kind of objective discussion. For example "stoning" is too culturally specific to the group [that I suspect] that you don't like - so we wouldn't allow that.

I came up with a single measure - murder rate - and there were mostly Christian countries in the top 20.

Any response to that ?

[Michael Hardner]

I know those who want to excuses terrorism will go as far back as they feel they need to in order to condemn western democracies.

That cuts both ways. You may not want to excuse terrorism, but you want to excuse things like capital punishment, collateral damage and so on.

It's still on you to come up with some kind of way to characterize extremism - apart from listing specific acts, which is useless in a discussion that attempts to be objective.

But the topic is extremism TODAY. If you guys want to suggest we were horrible 'extremists' by present standards a century ago that's fine, but irrelevent.

Right. So keep posting links of acts that you deem extreme, and I will agree that they're extreme and there will be no progress in this discussion. Is that what you want ? It seems so, as you're not really moving the discussion ahead at all.

[Shady]

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

Like I said there's no double standard. Not all violence is considered terrorism. Even past Muslim/Arab aggression as I've pointed out, isn't considered terrorism, ie the Yom Kippur War.

[Shady]

I'm not talking about specific acts of extremism. You're great at citing extreme examples, also known as anecdotes. Following your cite, you INSIST that I acknowledge that such acts are extreme. Why you do this, I don't know.

I'm looking for some way we can actually define a class of behaviors as 'extreme' - so as to facilitate some kind of objective discussion. For example "stoning" is too culturally specific to the group [that I suspect] that you don't like - so we wouldn't allow that.

I came up with a single measure - murder rate - and there were mostly Christian countries in the top 20.

Any response to that ?

When has murder rate ever been considered evidence of terrorism? Is this a new metric?

Edited May 22, 2014 by Shady

[Michael Hardner]

When has murder rate ever been considered evidence of terrorism? Is this a new metric?

Of violence. Why should we ignore other types of violence if we're trying to judge a culture ?

[cybercoma]

Link can still be used in this debate to show levels of violence which does have some relevance here.

WWWTT

It can be used, but whilst using them, one ought to be careful about what one's implying.

Edited May 22, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

No, there is no double standard. You're referring to things that are mostly long in the past, versus Islamic extremism that exists today. As Bill Maher says, if he were alive in the 14th century, he would've rightly condemned Christianity. But we're not in the 14th century.

Are you actually saying the West hasn't killed anyone since the Middle Ages?

Obviously they have and I assume you would say those deaths were justified.

So now we're to the point of weighing justifications.

Edited May 22, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

No, they're not the be-all and end-all but they are objective measures.

If you would still say statistics are objective, then I fear you've missed my point entirely. My point is that the numbers are just numbers. We need to be aware of how they're collected--what's counted and what isn't. The way things get reported may different greatly from country to country. If you're going to make comparisons between those countries, you need to be acutely aware of these differences. I'm not saying abandon the numbers entirely. However, I am saying that numbers are not necessarily as objective as they appear. Nate Silver once wrote that numbers don't speak for themselves, we have to speak for them. He's right. If numbers spoke for themselves, we would have no need for data analysts. Numbers could just be gathered and published with no explanations whatsoever. The crucial part of statistics is the analysis and that's where the art comes in. Maybe that should be the debate part of the discussion. However, you and others have rejected thoughtful criticism if it doesn't contain numbers, when a discussion of what the numbers mean is equally if not more important than the numbers themselves.

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.

I think what I said above answers your point that the numbers should be central to the argument. Yes, they do, but we need to be very clear about what the numbers represent if we're going to have a meaningful discussion about them. For example, WWWTT gave an example in another thread where he noted that the US has more people in prison than China. What those numbers do not account for are the number of people that are executed or go missing in China. Here's some figures about known executions, which doesn't account for the unknown executions and people that the Chinese government have made disappear.

China executed 10000 people in 2005 and their population was 1.3 Billion. That's 0.8 people per 100,000 (if my math is correct).

United States executed 60 people in 2005 and their population was 300 Million. That's 0.02 people per 100,000.

China had 40 times the execution rate as the United States.

So at a glance, we sit here and look at a figure like the incarceration rate and think to ourselves, "What the hell is wrong with the US?" Indeed, there is a problem. They have an incarceration rate of over 700 people per 100,000. That's huge and quickly approaching 1% of their total population. China on the other hand has an incarceration rate below 200. There are different estimates because their official statistics are not accurate. They say 121 per 100,000 while the ICPS says 170. Even if we go the higher estimate, the US incarceration rate is over 4 times that of China. There is absolutely no doubt that the US judicial system is troubled. The incarceration rate by county shows a strong relationship with for-profit prisons. That's a topic for another time and thread though.

So what's my point here? Well, China executes far more people both in absolute terms (obviously), but also as a proportion of their population. Comparing incarceration rates without also mentioning that China tends to kill people instead of imprisoning them is disingenuous. However, someone who just looks at the incarceration rates alone may not have considered the execution rates in relation to incarceration. An argument is made with the numbers as if the numbers are concrete and objective. However, we rarely if ever on these forums go into the kind of depth needed to fully understand what is being represented by those numbers and their relationship to other situations and processes. That's the point of discussion, debate, and peer review.

I'm just very reluctant to take numbers as objective because there's a whole lot of art in the argument, analysis, and interpretation of those numbers. It's not that numbers are entirely BS, don't get me wrong. It's just that people are rarely if ever as thorough as they ought to be when presenting those figures. It needs to be perfectly clear what the numbers measure, how they're gathered, and how they fit into the broader picture. That rarely if ever happens here.

Though, like I said, as it pertains to this topic, it would help if we nailed down a definition of violence on the qualitative side of the discussion. From there, assumptions about what is and is not considered violence can be examined and only then can we even begin to consider some sort of comparison, which may or may not demand empirical support.

[cybercoma]

Sorry for the long reply. I don't generally post at such length and only did so because MH seems genuinely interested in the discussion.

[cybercoma]

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 ?

It's not a fair point. What do the innocent victims' families care about the killer's reasons? Edited May 22, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

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?

I don't think people are stupid. There's just many things they don't know or don't consider when making their arguments. The fact that so-called terrorists were trained and armed by the US themselves is out of mind out of sight. The obvious example is al Qaeda, but look at the hell they wreaked on South America too. People aren't going to talk about Muslim terrorism and think of Pinochet because they're not thinking about the validity or social acceptance of violence like we are here. Edited May 22, 2014 by cybercoma

[WWWTT]

Like I said there's no double standard. Not all violence is considered terrorism. Even past Muslim/Arab aggression as I've pointed out, isn't considered terrorism, ie the Yom Kippur War.

I would have to research the Yom Kippur war so for now I won't comment on that.

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

you try to frantically make excuses for murder and terorrism because the perpatrators are 'brown people'.

Frankly, I don't believe most of your post here is worth my time. Yet, I find this statement very interesting so I'll respond to it.

You say I'm making excuses for murder, while I've done nothing of the sort. In fact, someone who reads my posts carefully will notice that what I actually did was denounce Western violence. Upon reading that, you see it as being an apologist for terrorism.

And you know why that is?

Go back to my comment that you called "complete drivel."

[W]hat we conceive of as valid and invalid forms of violence are coloured by our own sense of national, cultural, and ethnic superiority.

You're so stuck on the superiority and validity of our Western violence that you can't even bring yourself to see a denunciation of it as a denunciation of all violence. I'm not apologizing or justifying Muslim or non-Western violence anymore than I'm justifying Western violence. I'm saying they're both contemptible. Yet, you see an equivalency as a justification for Muslim violence because you cannot bring yourself to conceive of Western violence in any other light than positive. Why do you do that? Because you have a sense of national, cultural and ethnic superiority. We're pure and righteous, so our violence i justified, while the Others are vulgar barbarians worthy of nothing but your contempt.

I honestly don't expect this response to make a damn bit of difference either because your entire posting career demonstrates that this way of thinking is completely entrenched for you. Therefore, I highly doubt you will ever be persuaded to see the hypocritical position that you are in.

[WWWTT]

So what's my point here? Well, China executes far more people both in absolute terms (obviously),

You used "cherry picked" numbers.

Also neglected several important factors.

This is why you omitted the Wikipedia link where you got the info. I can see why you're a big defender of Big Guy. You don't want to play on a even playing field!

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

You used "cherry picked" numbers.

Also neglected several important factors.

This is why you omitted the Wikipedia link where you got the info. I can see why you're a big defender of Big Guy. You don't want to play on a even playing field!

WWWTT

The actual numbers themselves don't matter, since I wasn't making an argument about the numbers and what they represent. I was making an argument about how arguments are constructed with numbers and how subjective the analysis and interpretation of those numbers can be. I used the example of your post in another thread because it was at the top of my mind. I'm not discussing that topic though. That should have been obvious.

[GostHacked]

I don't think people are stupid. There's just many things they don't know or don't consider when making their arguments. The fact that so-called terrorists were trained and armed by the US themselves is out of mind out of sight.

True, and even among this crowd that is one point that is overlooked intentionally. Have to take it with a pound of salt what our leaders say in regards to Islam and terrorism. Our actions in Haiti severely undercut the notion that proper and quick humanitarian aide would be delivered, just after ousting the democratically elected president. There is no high road to take here. A point you and I have been trying to drive home.

They do it. Yea, so do our guys. Then what's the real issue here? Depends on the twist/spin that government would like to put on it. Let's take another look at Boko Harum, recently making headlines here. The US state department rejected putting them on the terror list some years back. Maybe there was a deeper connection than we understand in light of Iran-Contra and the CIA-AlQueda links.

Ties in the stuff in Ukraine when talking about propaganda and saying that only one side is truly being manipulated.

The obvious example is al Qaeda, but look at the hell they wreaked on South America too. People aren't going to talk about Muslim terrorism and think of Pinochet because they're not thinking about the validity or social acceptance of violence like we are here.

The way I see the media portray it is, only Radical Islam is terrorism, and only comes from the Middle East. We have state sponsored government officials doing official business in other nations to undermine their sovereignty.

The recent CIA vaccination spying program is also going to piss off a lot of people, which will only bring more contempt for the west. We cannot win a war on anything if we keep stirring the pot, which does nothing more than justify the military contractors who make weapons for the military.

[WWWTT]

The actual numbers themselves don't matter, since I wasn't making an argument about the numbers and what they represent. I was making an argument about how arguments are constructed with numbers and how subjective the analysis and interpretation of those numbers can be. I used the example of your post in another thread because it was at the top of my mind. I'm not discussing that topic though. That should have been obvious.

Understood, carry on.

WWWTT

[Shady]

Of violence. Why should we ignore other types of violence if we're trying to judge a culture ?

We shouldn't necessarily ignore it, but all violence doesn't equal extremism and/or terrorism. For instance, it's the exact opposite. In th most repressive countries in the world, you tend to find low levels of violence due to the extreme control of the governments of said countries.

[Shady]

Are you actually saying the West hasn't killed anyone since the Middle Ages?

Obviously they have and I assume you would say those deaths were justified.

So now we're to the point of weighing justifications.

No, I'm not saying that at all. But murder doesn't automatically mean terrorism. Perhaps that's the issue you and others have. Is with the definition of terrorism. Acts of war, which follow the rules of war, and the geneva conventions etc, aren't terrorism. Sure, they can be terrifying, but it's not technically terrorism.

[Michael Hardner]

However, I am saying that numbers are not necessarily as objective as they appear.

Ok.

I'm just very reluctant to take numbers as objective because there's a whole lot of art in the argument, analysis, and interpretation of those numbers.

A knowledgeable discussion can be had to use such numbers as a basis for assessment, that's all. The context needs to be ascertained in the way you have well described it here.

Sorry for the long reply. I don't generally post at such length and only did so because MH seems genuinely interested in the discussion.

I think management by numbers is a good thing. It is fraught with pitfalls but the pitfalls are manageable with a thorough discussion.

It's not a fair point. What do the innocent victims' families care about the killer's reasons?

We're doing a qualitative assessment of evil here, which is impossible anyway. As far as the exercise goes, I think it's fair to factor in intentions.

[Michael Hardner]

We shouldn't necessarily ignore it, but all violence doesn't equal extremism and/or terrorism. For instance, it's the exact opposite. In th most repressive countries in the world, you tend to find low levels of violence due to the extreme control of the governments of said countries.

Ok. Well, honestly I don't know what to make of this. It's getting pretty philosophical, to be honest. If we're only measuring acts of terrorism, and we've acknowledged that these countries are repressive AND have low levels of domestic violence, then maybe we've answered a question here.

That is, there are many differences and in the end they are not like us, nor do we want to be like they are.

[cybercoma]

We're doing a qualitative assessment of evil here, which is impossible anyway. As far as the exercise goes, I think it's fair to factor in intentions.

I think there's a very good argument to be made for negligence, if one were to take the point of the West's "pure" intentions.

[On Guard for Thee]

We shouldn't necessarily ignore it, but all violence doesn't equal extremism and/or terrorism. For instance, it's the exact opposite. In th most repressive countries in the world, you tend to find low levels of violence due to the extreme control of the governments of said countries.

Obviously you havent' travelled much. The violence doesn't show up on the morning newspaper in London Ontario.

[Argus]

I'm not talking about specific acts of extremism. You're great at citing extreme examples, also known as anecdotes.

Evidently you don't know what an anecdote is, just that it's a word you can use to dismiss something.

It is not an 'anecdote' to recite Islamic laws and ask whether or not you approve of them or believe those who believe they are proper to be extreme.

I'm looking for some way we can actually define a class of behaviors as 'extreme' - so as to facilitate some kind of objective discussion.

I gave you a whole class of things, a bunch of Islamic laws, and you refuse to address whether you believe they're extreme.

For example "stoning" is too culturally specific to the group [that I suspect] that you don't like - so we wouldn't allow that.

I didn't ask if 'stoning' was extreme. I asked if stoning people to death for adultery was extreme. If you prefer, I can ask whether you believe it's extreme to want adulterers executed by any means, as called for under Islamic law.

I came up with a single measure - murder rate - and there were mostly Christian countries in the top 20.

Any response to that ?

Murder is not extremism, nor is it an indication of extremism in society. It's more of an indication of societal breakdown, poverty and lack of policing ability.