ergophobe
Allergic to Mornings
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,210
- MBTI Type
- ENFP
- Enneagram
- 7w6
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
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.
The relationship between any religion and violence is a rather complicated and paradoxical issue.
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?
Judaism, again, may be invoked for violence, see Israel.
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.
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.
I would just like to stop and acknowledge the cricket analogy - thank you, thank you. It just makes me SO happy
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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
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.
The relationship between any religion and violence is a rather complicated and paradoxical issue.
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?
Judaism, again, may be invoked for violence, see Israel.
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.
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.
I would just like to stop and acknowledge the cricket analogy - thank you, thank you. It just makes me SO happy
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
