Islamic Terrorism

[Yasna]

I'm saying we can't always keep innocent people from dying and we definitely have very strong priorities when it comes to which people we let die and how many. More people die in this country from lack of medical insurance than from terrorism of any stripe (Islamist or not), yet we won't adopt universal health care because that would be "socialist". Most recommended gun-control measures fall far short of the kind of measures you're proposing, yet two years after 20 children died at Sandy Hook Elementary, we haven't adopted a single one of them.

You're preaching to the choir. I can't tell you how astonished and disappointed I was that Sandy Hook didn't become a turning point in the gun control debate. But just because saving innocent lives from gun violence has turned out to be politically unfeasible, doesn't mean we shouldn't take action in a domain like Islamic terrorism where political will is emerging.

What you're recommending is another tradeoff between liberty and security. I'm not categorically opposed to those--I accept traffic laws, for instance (and would be in favour of much stricter ones). But before I surrender my freedoms I want to know it's--to borrow some legal jargon--the least intrusive means of satisfying a societal imperative. Saving innocent lives is a very laudable goal. It should be a top priority for any society. But is targeting Islamists and increasing surveillance of the population as a whole really the "least intrusive" way of achieving it?

There are of course all the other measures like promoting assimilation that must be taken, but that doesn't seem like nearly enough at this point in the game.

[vijayjohn]

That's the best you can come up with? Compare it with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terrorist_attacks

I rest my case.

OK, whatever. Not sure what that's supposed to prove.

So basically you're saying that Islam is stuck in the middle ages. I agree.

Nope. I'm saying it has nothing to do with Islam and that Islam is no more stuck in the Middle Ages than Christianity is. A lot changed in the West after Westerners began colonizing the rest of the world.

Isn't that pretty obvious?

Apparently not to everyone. Linguoboy is questioning it over in the International Relations thread.

AFAICT, he's saying we don't know what these two people's specific motivations were, but I don't see anybody questioning that the attack had to do with Islamism.

[Saim]

But just because saving innocent lives from gun violence has turned out to be politically unfeasible, doesn't mean we shouldn't take action in a domain like Islamic terrorism where political will is emerging.

This "emerging political will" is to scapegoat immigrants, as far as I can tell.

[Ludwig Whitby]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/20 ... 41867.html

Surprize, surpize, they were islamists after all.

[Varislintu]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/20 ... 41867.html

Surprize, surpize, they were islamists after all.

Someone was doubting that?

[Marah]

Yes, many think there was a plot because some elements don't make any sense. One of the terrorists forgot his ID card in the car he used for instance. Who takes their ID card and manage to forget it in the car when they plan a terrorist attack? wtf?

Some also thought that it was a retaliation of Israel against France's recognition of the State of Palestine...

[Lietmotiv]

Who takes their ID card and manage to forget it in the car when they plan a terrorist attack? wtf?

Stress, pression, and everything.

Some also thought that it was a retaliation of Israel against France's recognition of the State of Palestine...

Israel is the only democratic and pro-european state in the Middle East, my friend. And Israel is sorounded by enemies.
So when someone says anything against Islam, politically correct liberals like you call him racist, and when politically correct guys like you say something about Israel, I have all the right to call you nazis!

[Marah]

Stress, pression, and everything.

That's convenient. They were trained jihadists. They planned their attack very well and didn't seem afraid nor particularly nervous in the videos and recordings we have of them. Yet they manage to wake up in the morning and think "Shit, I almost forgot my ID card, I'm going to take it with me, you never know!". And then, they manage to forget it in the car.

Then, there's also the issue of the rear-view mirrors http://img.over-blog-kiwi.com/1/04/43/0 ... 000000.jpg this is a picture taken from the video in which they execute one of the policemen.
And this is a picture of the car 5 minutes later, where they left it. The rear-view mirrors are now black.
http://img.over-blog-kiwi.com/1/04/43/0 ... 000000.jpg
Maybe it doesn't mean anything but it's weird though.

I understand that some people have doubts, my friend.

Israel is the only democratic and pro-european state in the Middle East, my friend. And Israel is sorounded by enemies.
So when someone says anything against Islam, politically correct liberals like you call him racist, and when politically correct guys like you say something about Israel, I have all the right to call you nazis!

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Cont ... ti-Semitic

[Yserenhart]

That's the best you can come up with? Compare it with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terrorist_attacks

I rest my case.

I tallied up those deaths: 8293 people killed since 1980. Given that the list also includes things like the Beslan school incident, and the hostages in Sydney last year, I think the number actually being killed in the name of Mohammed is lower.

I also went ahead and counted up the number of civilian deaths attributable directly to the coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan: I got from the lowest numbers 18420, and from the highest 23312. If we go ahead and assume about half are from air-strikes, and half from ground forces; then assume that half of the US ground forces have weapons with those scopes, then between 4605 and 5828 people have been killed in the name of Jesus since 2003; which may well be an underrepresentation, given it doesn't consider other potential ways people were killed in the name of Jesus. That's 55,53% to 70,28% of the deaths in the name of Mohammed, in less than half (34,29%) the time.

So yes, there seems to be tolerance for violence perpetrated in the name of Christianity. Just because more people have died in the name of Mohammed doesn't mean deaths in the name of Jesus cease to exist.

Related: I drew this last night, and put it up with the caption "No idea is above criticism; so long as that criticism allows the idea to grow into something better, instead of backing it into a corner and attacking it mercilessly."

Something perhaps everyone should think about.

[Saim]

Yserenhart I think it's simplistic to attribute the West's imperialistic actions in the Islamic world to Christianity. It's more about geostrategic and economic interests than about Jesus as a symbol. In fact, Western imperialists tend to appeal more to defense of "Western civilization and values".

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Cont ... ti-Semitic

I thought me studying Hebrew made me a Judeophile but I guess my dislike of walls, checkpoints, militaries and so on makes me an anti-Semite. Good to know.

I suppose the whole Jewish left that criticizes many of Israel's actions is also anti-Semitic. Indeed, one of my favourite Hebrew songs is critical of Israel, or to be more precise, extreme Jewish nationalism and the Israeli right.

Israel is the only democratic and pro-european state in the Middle East, my friend.

When did you become European? I thought you were Eurasian?

[Massimiliano B]

@ Yserenhart

Do coalition forces kill in the name of Jesus???

[Johanna]

@ Yserenhart

Do coalition forces kill in the name of Jesus???

George W. Bush talked an awful lot about God when pushing for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Yserenhart]

Israel is the only democratic and pro-european state in the Middle East, my friend. And Israel is sorounded by enemies.
So when someone says anything against Islam, politically correct liberals like you call him racist, and when politically correct guys like you say something about Israel, I have all the right to call you nazis!

Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, and Kuwait are all major non-NATO allies of the US, and thus by extension can be considered not to be against Europe. Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria all have EU association agreements, and therefore can be considered to support the EU, and by extension Europe. Yemen has a different agreement with the EU, and therefore obviously isn't anti-Europe. Turkey wants to join the EU, and Cyprus is part of the EU, and so again obviously aren't anti-Europe. Oman helped free British seamen captured by Iran in 2007, and Qatar hosts a joint US-Britain base, so they seem to be ok with Europe. Saudi Arabia and UAE seem to be friendly enough to the West. Iraq is happily working with the West against IS, so I guess they aren't anti-Europe. Which just leaves Iran. One nation that perhaps doesn't like Europe as much as we might want it to.

Many of the things that people here say against Islam or Muslims is racist, not nearly as much said against Israel is calling for the extermination of Jews.However, you may of course go ahead and call someone a nazi if they criticise a nation that has a policy of keeping part of another country as essentially a large, open-air prison; committing what potentially could count as attempted genocide; undertaking war-crimes; and illegally occupying more and more of another nation's territory.

[Yserenhart]

Yserenhart I think it's simplistic to attribute the West's imperialistic actions in the Islamic world to Christianity. It's more about geostrategic and economic interests than about Jesus as a symbol. In fact, Western imperialists tend to appeal more to defense of "Western civilization and values".

I wasn't attributing the actions in the Islamic world to Christianity, I was merely pointing out that a rather large number of civilian deaths could be counted as in the name of Christianity, due to the use of weapons with bible verses on them. Likewise, a number of the deaths in the article linked to by Yasna are considered due to Islamic terrorism due to the perpetrators being Muslim, even though there may be other factors that are far more important. It was part of a reply chain to the claim by Yasna that no Christians tolerate killing in the name of Christianity.

@ Yserenhart

Do coalition forces kill in the name of Jesus???

If you count using weapons inscribed with bible verses as killing in the name of Jesus, yes.

[Lietmotiv]

When did you become European? I thought you were Eurasian?

I live in Europe and have double citizenship (one of which EU citizenship), which makes me European.
I also love Europe and share its principles. Just for quoting some surveys doesn't mean I am for Eurasian Union.

I thought me studying Hebrew made me a Judeophile but I guess my dislike of walls, checkpoints, militaries and so on makes me an anti-Semite. Good to know.

Of course, walls, chekpoints, militaries is awful. Whereas terrorism (killing innocent people, women, children), no women rights in the name of a religion is good. As well as killing journalist cause they offend your religion. Good to know. I'm not talking about all European Muslims, of course, there are many who integrated and feel related to the country they live in. I'm talking about those who hate the country they live in, who hate democracy and freedom (whether they kill others or just share these ideas).

[Massimiliano B]

@ Yserenhart

Do coalition forces kill in the name of Jesus???

Geroge W. Bush talked an awful lot about God when pushing for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Is George (I think you don't mean "Geroge") W. Bush a religious leader? No, he is not.

[Massimiliano B]

@Yserenhart


From Wikipedia(http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trijicon ... ontroversy):



"Tom Munson, director of sales and marketing for Trijicon, said the practice of including the references was started nearly 30 years previously by the company's founder, devout Christian Glyn Bindon, who died in a 2003 plane crash."

Was Glyn Bindon a religious leader? What is the official position of the Christian Churches about that?

[Saim]

I thought me studying Hebrew made me a Judeophile but I guess my dislike of walls, checkpoints, militaries and so on makes me an anti-Semite. Good to know.

Of course, walls, chekpoints, militaries is awful. Whereas terrorism (killing innocent people, women, children), no women rights in the name of a religion is good.

No, it's not.

I condemn terrorism. It's disgusting and only leaves grief and destruction. Islamism is a vile, supremacist ideology that wants to pit Islam agains the rest of the world.

I also condemn patriarchy in the Muslim world and am 100% in favour of the liberation of Muslim women. I've been to Pakistan several times and the treatment of women there is appalling.

I'm not sure what walls, checkpoints and militaries have to do with getting rid of terrorism and patriarchy. How exactly will giving some folks lots of guns and building a wall around others make violence decrease and get men to treat women better?

[Lietmotiv]

I'm not sure what walls, checkpoints and militaries have to do with getting rid of terrorism and patriarchy. How exactly will giving some folks lots of guns and building a wall around others make violence decrease and get men to treat women better?

In Israel it's a matter of national security, and I bet you know it. When you live surounded by enemies who sent you bombs once in a while or organise terrorist attacks in your busses/schools, you have to protect yourself. Not to mention, that some of Israel's neighbours want not only the state of Israel to disappear, but also all the Israeli and Jewish people in the world.

[Johanna]

Do coalition forces kill in the name of Jesus???

George W. Bush talked an awful lot about God when pushing for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Is George W. Bush a religious leader? No, he is not.

Why does that matter? He's Christian and he talked about it being God's will and things like that, and he was the driving force behind the invasion of those countries. Sure, the individual military man or woman fighting there might not be religious and instead doing it for any other reason, but that doesn't take away the fact that the guy sending them there was explicitly invoking the Christian god.

Doing something in the name of a religion or a deity doesn't require more than saying that it's in its name, you don't have to be a religious leader for that.