Moderator:Forum Administrators
Yasna wrote:How much longer are we going to keep following this failed path of tolerating Islamism in our societies?
linguoboy wrote:What's your proposed alternative?
meidei wrote:Who exactly tolerates islamism?
The 1995 Rijeka bombing occurred on 20 October 1995 in Rijeka, Croatia, when an Islamic terrorist organization attempted to destroy a police station by driving a car with a bomb into the wall of the building. Twenty-seven employees in the police station and two bystanders on the street were injured
IpseDixit wrote:Personally one of the things that irk me in these situations is the simplistic response of those who say this is not Islam.
vijayjohn wrote:IpseDixit wrote:Personally one of the things that irk me in these situations is the simplistic response of those who say this is not Islam.
But maybe it's just a simplistic response to equally (if not more) simplistic accusations.
IpseDixit wrote:vijayjohn wrote:IpseDixit wrote:Personally one of the things that irk me in these situations is the simplistic response of those who say this is not Islam.
But maybe it's just a simplistic response to equally (if not more) simplistic accusations.
And what would be the simplistic accusations exactly?
meidei wrote:Who exactly tolerates islamism?
Or do you use islamism as a synonym to islam?
vijayjohn wrote:IpseDixit wrote:vijayjohn wrote:IpseDixit wrote:Personally one of the things that irk me in these situations is the simplistic response of those who say this is not Islam.
But maybe it's just a simplistic response to equally (if not more) simplistic accusations.
And what would be the simplistic accusations exactly?
For example, that Islam is "a religion of terror" (wtf is that even supposed to mean?). Also, see the "closed" views listed here.
We tolerate "Stone Age beliefs" from Christians, don't we?Yasna wrote:First, it would be nice to have some moral clarity about the beliefs and demands of Islamists. When they threaten violence against those who draw cartoons or burn a book, a lot of voices in politics and the media call out for more sensitivity towards Islam. These voices are essentially asking us to tolerate their Stone Age beliefs.
Which would fix what exactly? The vast majority of those who profess "Islamist beliefs" (however you think the state would end up defining those) never commit violence; those planning to commit violence would simply conceal their Islamist beliefs.Yasna wrote:Second, immigrants who openly admit to Islamist beliefs should be deported.
Aren't they? If France lets Saudis walk right in without even a preliminary interview, then it's the the first I'm hearing of it.Yasna wrote:Immigrants from high-risk countries like Saudi Arabia should be screened before entering the country.
We should stop engaging in military adventures in all sorts of places because it's a costly, ineffective, and immoral thing to do, regardless whether or not it "provokes Islamists". Discontinuing them specific in places where it offends Islamists is essentially conceding to their demands and encouraging others to adopt the same strategy.Yasna wrote:Third, we should stop provoking Islamists by engaging in military adventures in the Muslim world and constructing bases in their "holy lands".
IpseDixit wrote:vijayjohn wrote:IpseDixit wrote:vijayjohn wrote:IpseDixit wrote:Personally one of the things that irk me in these situations is the simplistic response of those who say this is not Islam.
But maybe it's just a simplistic response to equally (if not more) simplistic accusations.
And what would be the simplistic accusations exactly?
For example, that Islam is "a religion of terror" (wtf is that even supposed to mean?). Also, see the "closed" views listed here.
What do those have to do with the terrorist attack in Paris?
linguoboy wrote:a crackdown on "Islamism" would be playing right into the extremists' hands.
I dunno. You talked about "these situations," not about the terrorist attack in Paris specifically.
Which would fix what exactly? The vast majority of those who profess "Islamist beliefs" (however you think the state would end up defining those) never commit violence; those planning to commit violence would simply conceal their Islamist beliefs.
IpseDixit wrote:It's not just about commiting crimes though, there are also public figures like certain spiritual leaders who may never commit a crime but that create an atmosphere of hatred and that incite to or justify violent actions and crimes.
linguoboy wrote:We tolerate "Stone Age beliefs" from Christians, don't we?
Which would fix what exactly? The vast majority of those who profess "Islamist beliefs" (however you think the state would end up defining those) never commit violence; those planning to commit violence would simply conceal their Islamist beliefs.
Aren't they? If France lets Saudis walk right in without even a preliminary interview, then it's the the first I'm hearing of it.
We should stop engaging in military adventures in all sorts of places because it's a costly, ineffective, and immoral thing to do, regardless whether or not it "provokes Islamists". Discontinuing them specific in places where it offends Islamists is essentially conceding to their demands and encouraging others to adopt the same strategy.
ETA: I think Juan Cole has a good take on the incident. In his view, a crackdown on "Islamism" would be playing right into the extremists' hands.
linguoboy wrote:IpseDixit wrote:It's not just about commiting crimes though, there are also public figures like certain spiritual leaders who may never commit a crime but that create an atmosphere of hatred and that incite to or justify violent actions and crimes.
You mean like National Front politicians?
Yasna wrote:Or do you use islamism as a synonym to islam?
Return to “Politics and Religion”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests