User Tag List

First 91011

Results 101 to 110 of 110

  1. #101
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    I'm sad I missed this thread until now. First, some facts. That usually helps.

    1. The maximum number of suicide bombings have not been conducted by terrorists adhering to Islam, they have actually been carried out by Tamils in Sri Lanka (Hindus). FYI.

    2. There is a great amount of research that has been done that shows that relying on individual characteristics to explain who becomes a terrorist holds little weight when tested on actual empirical data based on passed terrorist acts. These include gender (men and women), education levels, socialization and particularly religion -- terrorists don't necessarily belong to or adhere to extreme factions of their religion. They carry out suicide attacks because they work in garnering attention to whatever cause the group they support espouses. They use this strategy because it works.
    Source: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism, Robert Pape. American Political Science Review. Copy here
    http://www.danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    For various reasons, Muslim nations also have a massive surplus of young men, which has a high correlation with violence in society (guys who can't get any and are frustrated tend to be a little punchy).
    This may not apply to terrorism in general but you do have a point here with social violence in general. Young men, particularly unemployed men in a fast growing (economically) society are susceptible to use violence for political means. Well established argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    The relationship between Christianity and violence is a rather complicated and paradoxical issue.
    The relationship between any religion and violence is a rather complicated and paradoxical issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alwar View Post
    Most of the violence of Christianity is in the past, though a few pockets still exist, mostly in the United States. Some in Africa.
    Really? Turn Al-Jazeera on. The rhetoric involving God with the war on iraq and Afghanistan, as Tiny Army says, and the support from the religious right in the United States would confirm that Christianity was invoked (the point is that it isn't a religion but its twisted interpretation by some followers leads to violence) in both wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. People in the Islamic world certainly see it as such and react accordingly. Why should they object to what is seen by many as defense against the Western Christian countries' attacks on their religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by A Schnitzel View Post
    Even if I don't debate that point do you still think that Judaism is a religion of violence?
    Judaism, again, may be invoked for violence, see Israel.

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Frederick the Great didn't start wars over humanism, he started wars because he wanted more stuff. Napoleon didn't get people on board with the Grande Armee initially because he reminded them of the greatness of being French; he got them on board by promising food and then beginning the propaganda assault.
    The most apropos point here. Resources explain most wars including colonial wars. The Iraq war, arguably was at least partially for control over resources as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Can you tell me what the principle teaching is of resorting to Jihad, in accordance with the Qur'an?
    Judges 16:22-30
    Right. Also, there are plenty of modern day churches preaching violence as a way to protect and propagate Christianity - you don't see the rest of the world immediately connecting the religion with the freaks who choose to interpret it in this fashion.

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    It's just like the Ashes, for example. If an Australia batsman went and smashed the England bowler in the gut with the bat, would that invalidate Australia cricket as a whole? (not saying you're a cricket follower or anything, but sports and religion are way more connected than people give credit for).
    I would just like to stop and acknowledge the cricket analogy - thank you, thank you. It just makes me SO happy

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Can you see how a Muslim country would find the so-called "Universal" declaration of human rights to be an instrument of Western Imperialism? Especially when their objections were completely ignored?
    I doubt that Muslim countries see the declaration and its principles as an instrument of imperialism. Having said that, the U.N., controlled by the Security Council may be seen as less than a completely neutral body. Also, while the United States signed the UNDHR in 1948, they have deliberately chosen to not ratify several important human rights treaties. This is not a question of Islam versus not Islam. Individuals don't ratify declarations, countries do. Countries in the West and the Middle East have chosen to not ratify these conventions and treaties for strategic purposes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    It was an Islamist who murdered my neighbour in the suburb of Griffith yesterday. And it is muslims and their supporters who are defending the Islamists.

    Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights we all have the Right to Self Defence. But under Islamic law dhimmis and infidels do not have a right to self defence.

    So it all boils down to a simple moral issue - do you support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or not?
    It was a person who adhered to Islam who committed the heinous act against your neighbor yesterday. Please don't connect this person, as others have so articulately pointed out, with all others adhering to the same religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    This is disingenuous.

    It is disingenuous because it leaves out the fact that the Koran divides us into muslims, dhimmi and infidels.

    And while the Koran does enjoin muslims to support one another, it also says dhimmi are to be dominated or killed, and also that infidels are to be converted or killed.

    And it is disingenuous because you omit to mention that almost all of us here are dhimmi, that is, Jews or Christians, or we are infidels, that is, everyone else.
    From a non-Christian perspective, this is how the world views Christianity - at least the evangelical brands. They also divide the world in to believers, those who have access to heaven and infidels, those are damned to hell. They also work on converting everyone who doesn't adhere to their God and beliefs connected to this God. Many churches in the United States don't shy away from preaching violence as a means to protect the faith. This is not true for all of Christianity, of course. Similarly, some Islamists preaching violence to protect their belief system (perceived as being under attack for many decades now) does not equate all of Islam.

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Unfortunately the Islamists have declared war on us.
    And war is evil if for no other reason that one is required to take sides.
    And I choose my own people.
    What do you do?
    This is a dangerous path, Victor, because how do you decide who are your people and who are not? Are your people then only non-Muslims even though there are clearly Muslims who do not support these violent means? What about the non-Muslims who do not agree with your views?

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    1.) If you think the regime of Saddam Hussein was preferable to what is currently in place, I would recommend you study its history and characteristics. Also, the ineptitude of the occupation phase notwithstanding, the medium and long-term consequences of the Iraqi invasion are most likely better (in the utilitarian sense) for the Iraqis than the continuation of the previous regime (which would eventually have been followed by a civil war unrestrained by outside military intervention, anyway). Frankly, American nationalism is a better reason to hate the Iraq war than humanitarian concern for its citizens.
    This is a poor argument. Let's compare a horrible dictator with foreign occupation that has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, regression in terms of development and poor access to resources (health, education) and oil for a country that exports the stuff (abominable). Are these the only two options we should offer the Iraqis -- Saddam or the occupation???


    This soapbox has nothing to do with spreading hatred, but rather is a means of defending human liberty and encouraging much-needed reform within the Muslim world-reform which cannot take place so long as Shariah law, and the core beliefs which sustain it, is in place.
    This reflects limited understanding of the Muslim world. Not all Islamic countries follow Shariah law and I'm not sure I understand the connection between Shariah which really affects individual rights under it with the perceived terrorist acts against the West. Wahabbism is the extreme sect that is best connected to terrorism across the West but also in South Asia. That is only one part of Islam which is diverse in itself in the way it is followed around the world. There is no single set of core beliefs so railing against them is just poorly informed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Our next door neighbour is the largest muslim country in the world - Indonesia.

    We full supported Indonesia in their struggle for independence from the Dutch. And we fought with Indonesians against the Japanese invasion in WW II. And after the tsunami, without thought or hesitation, we gave muslim Indonesians one thousand million dollars as a gift to relieve their suffering.
    How wonderful of your country! Look, I'm not going to take this opportunity to generalize about a country in the opposite direction. That would be as misinformed as your view which fails to recognize that religious and communal problems plague Australian society like any other that has dealt with immigration and poor integration into society. Shall we be so quick to forget the anti-Muslim riots only a few years ago? Please do not equate the state with individuals. The state has left a lot to be desired too, particularly under the former government.

  2. #102
    Senior Member Galusha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7?
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Victor: You might like this article:

    Largest Muslim Country

    Ergophobe: THANK YOU.

    The Rest of You:
    1. Go read A History of Iraq by Charles Tripp. It's well-researched, logical, and from an outside perspective of the country, of which I see mostly the latter in this thread.

    2. Why the hell is this thread in the "Religion" section instead of "Politics"?
    Last edited by Galusha; 07-24-2009 at 03:57 PM.

  3. #103
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    This reflects limited understanding of the Muslim world. Not all Islamic countries follow Shariah law and I'm not sure I understand the connection between Shariah which really affects individual rights under it with the perceived terrorist acts against the West. Wahabbism is the extreme sect that is best connected to terrorism across the West but also in South Asia. That is only one part of Islam which is diverse in itself in the way it is followed around the world. There is no single set of core beliefs so railing against them is just poorly informed.
    The goddamn computer lost the previous post I had spent about 45 minutes composing, so I'll keep it brief this time:

    Some Islamic countries are comprised of unorthodox populations (such as sub-saharan Muslims-with the notable exceptions of Northern Nigeria and Somali populated areas-, and parts of Indonesia), or secularized "cultural" Muslims (such as the former Soviet Turkestan) or are controlled by secular despots who attempt to forcibly moderate certain aspects of Shariah law (such as in Tunisia). Nonetheless, orthodox Muslims believe that the Earth must be subjugated under Islamic law, and that Jihad is an acceptable, and under certain conditions mandatory, means of carrying out this expansionistic divine mission-it is concerning the details of this last point that orthodox Muslims disagree with Islamic terrorists, a matter of means rather than ends. This is the same dynamic as the relationship between segregationist/ white supremacist beliefs and the KKK in the old South, in which the larger population serves as a de-facto support network, ideological incubator, and recruitment pool for the terrorist organizations. Added to this dynamic is the belief that the decline of the Muslim world is due to its failure to advance Shariah law, and that strict adherence to religious dictates well empower the Muslim world against the dar-al harb, or the "House of War" (i.e. us).


    Regarding Christian versus Muslim extremism:

    Orthodox Islamic interpretations are constrained by a long-standing and explicit doctrine (I'll look up the name after making sure the infernal computer actually prints my post) in which later Koranic passages (in terms of origin rather than placement, an EXTREMELY important distinction) supercede contradictory earlier passages. It is these later passages that are the most illiberal and henious, while the earlier, nullified passages are much more pluralistic. In contrast, the Christian Bible has many more contradictory passages (some are terrible, others are ideal for classical liberal ends), and no dominant formula through which to weigh and interprate them. Consequently, it is MUCH easier for institutional Christianity to change and adapt to new circumstances, and likewise easier for religiously inclined Christians to embrace "liberal" (in terms of core civil liberties and the relationship between religion and state, not personal morality) interpretations of Christianity without cognitive dissonance* drastically interfering. I would argue that dominant interpretations of Christianity could be characterized as "liberal", in marked contrast to dominant interpretations of Islam.

    *Yes, I have definate Constructivist leanings

    Edit: That doctrine of Islamic interpretation is known as either "naskh" or "tafsir"
    Last edited by lowtech redneck; 07-23-2009 at 10:42 PM. Reason: more to add, mispelling

  4. #104
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Galusha View Post
    Victor: (for the largest Muslim country being Indonesia)- If you're going to make easily verifiable statements like that, at least glance at Wikipedia first. This statement is just incorrect (similar to many of your others).
    Victor is right, Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country in the world, and one with a Muslim majority. I wouldn't trust Wikipedia - it is often wrong.

    2. Why the hell is this thread in the "Religion" section instead of "Politics"?
    I couldn't agree with you more!! I was looking for it under there AGAIN just now.

  5. #105
    The Architect Alwar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    Really?
    I wasn't being specific enough. I was referring to directly using religion as justification and motivation for aggression, which we haven't seen formally in the west for awhile (like Bush on national television saying lets attack Iraq because Jesus wants us to). Adam Curtis directed a good documentary called "The Power of Nightmares" that traces the origins of Muslim "extremism." Many Arab nations were moderate and on the verge of joining the first world, including Iraq, Iran, and Egypt until some US shenanigans in the region took place.

  6. #106
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alwar View Post
    I wasn't being specific enough. I was referring to directly using religion as justification and motivation for aggression, which we haven't seen formally in the west for awhile (like Bush on national television saying lets attack Iraq because Jesus wants us to). Adam Curtis directed a good documentary called "The Power of Nightmares" that traces the origins of Muslim "extremism." Many Arab nations were moderate and on the verge of joining the first world, including Iraq, Iran, and Egypt until some US shenanigans in the region took place.
    Okay, thanks for the clarification and for the documentary suggestion. It sounds great (I looked it up). We are on the same page with US intervention leading to extremism as backlash. I would still argue that Bush likely did say things to that effect when among religious circles or at least encouraged those views among churches that supported him. Blair, on the other hand, clearly stated that 'God would judge the Iraq war' which was pointing to a religious justification there. Bush himself used his religious beliefs to justify many of his political decisions from very early in his career.
    CNN.com - Blair: God will judge Iraq war - Mar 4, 2006

    Here's a pretty fascinating article about Rumsfeld including biblical quotes in war briefings to appeal to the former President.
    Iraq war briefings headlined with biblical quotes, reports US magazine | World news | guardian.co.uk

    *off to find The Power of Nightmares on Netflix*

  7. #107
    The Architect Alwar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    Okay, thanks for the clarification and for the documentary suggestion. It sounds great (I looked it up). We are on the same page with US intervention leading to extremism as backlash. I would still argue that Bush likely did say things to that effect when among religious circles or at least encouraged those views among churches that supported him. Blair, on the other hand, clearly stated that 'God would judge the Iraq war' which was pointing to a religious justification there. Bush himself used his religious beliefs to justify many of his political decisions from very early in his career.
    CNN.com - Blair: God will judge Iraq war - Mar 4, 2006

    Here's a pretty fascinating article about Rumsfeld including biblical quotes in war briefings to appeal to the former President.
    Iraq war briefings headlined with biblical quotes, reports US magazine | World news | guardian.co.uk

    *off to find The Power of Nightmares on Netflix*
    You can watch it online in the link, you can even download the ISO and burn it on a 4GB DVD.

    Wasn't aware of the Blair comment, should have been outrage in the UK over that bullshit. I keep hearing about this "clash of civilizations" rhetoric but one wonders why the most extremist Muslim nation on the planet--Saudi Arabia, is also the United States' biggest Arab ally. I'll let others speculate on why lol.

  8. #108
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Galusha View Post
    Victor: (for the largest Muslim country being Indonesia)- If you're going to make easily verifiable statements like that, at least glance at Wikipedia first. This statement is just incorrect (similar to many of your others). You might like this article:

    2. Why the hell is this thread in the "Religion" section instead of "Politics"?
    I have personally counted every muslim in Indonesia and I can tell you it is tha biggest job in te world.

    And as for 2. - Islam is a political religion. Islam doesn't teach the separation of mosque and State - indeed quite the opposite.

    And as a matter of personal explanation - I support all democratic muslims who subscribe to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In exactly the same way I support all democratic people who support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    And at the moment I am supporting a second and larger mosque for my home town, Canberra.

  9. #109
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    And at the moment I am supporting a second and larger mosque for my home town, Canberra.
    By holding up the pillars for them, Samson?

  10. #110
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    By holding up the pillars for them, Samson?
    A little more mundane - I am helping with the planning and approval.

Similar Threads

  1. Is Sex the Primary Motive for Islamic Terrorism?
    By Crabs in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 11-25-2015, 11:57 AM
  2. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 02-09-2015, 05:46 PM
  3. The Role of Law and the Idea of Majority Rules
    By ByMySword in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 01-29-2009, 07:01 PM
  4. Silent Victor and the Therapy Thread
    By Mole in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 12-01-2008, 10:49 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO