UK General Election 2017

[Husar]

And another example of that non-Muslim problem he talked about.

You don't seem to get either his or my argument yourself. Sad!

Where exactly does he beg you to throw him out of the country because he practices a form of Islam?

[Sarmatian]

Why don't you listen to his comments? His group is as close as you'll get to a modernist Muslim think tank in the UK. His comments are backed up by the official ISIS mouthpiece that I quoted from, that addresses the arguments being made by the moralists here and elsewhere. You're making theoretical arguments that evade the primary evidence and arguments from experts.

It is quite a stretch to call a magazine primary evidence and take it at face value, because it just as well could be propaganda. You wouldn't take Soviet official explanation for intervention Afghanistan, or Russian for intervention in Syria or American for intervention in Panama.

But let's put that aside, and say you're right. ISIS is interested in fighting west regardless of what west does. West is blameless. You're still committing a logical fallacy of equating Muslims with ISIS.

And about the Ethiopia thing: there's a name for your argument.

That doesn't apply here for several reasons:
1) I'm not a Muslim
2) I'm not trying to divert attention from the initial argument
3) That fallacy makes no sense in this case because it doesn't deal with accuracy or truthfulness of statements, only whether the initial statement was answered or whataboutism was employed. If two wife beaters argue and the first one says "you're a wife beater" and the second one answers with "you're a wife beater", the second one is guilty of this particular logical fallacy. Still doesn't change the fact that they're both wife beaters.

[Pannonian]

It is quite a stretch to call a magazine primary evidence and take it at face value, because it just as well could be propaganda. You wouldn't take Soviet official explanation for intervention Afghanistan, or Russian for intervention in Syria or American for intervention in Panama.

But let's put that aside, and say you're right. ISIS is interested in fighting west regardless of what west does. West is blameless. You're still committing a logical fallacy of equating Muslims with ISIS.


That doesn't apply here for several reasons:
1) I'm not a Muslim
2) I'm not trying to divert attention from the initial argument
3) That fallacy makes no sense in this case because it doesn't deal with accuracy or truthfulness of statements, only whether the initial statement was answered or whataboutism was employed. If two wife beaters argue and the first one says "you're a wife beater" and the second one answers with "you're a wife beater", the second one is guilty of this particular logical fallacy. Still doesn't change the fact that they're both wife beaters.

Have you listened to the comments from Rafiq? You take exception to equating Muslims with ISIS. Listen to his comments then. Like I said, his group is as close as you'll get to a modernist Muslim think tank in the UK, and one that has had the ear of the PM in the past. What about him do you think lacks credibility? If he doesn't lack credibility, why don't you address his argument?

You don't seem to get either his or my argument yourself. Sad!

Where exactly does he beg you to throw him out of the country because he practices a form of Islam?

And Husar, as is typical of him, busily constructs his straw man.

[Pannonian]

But why? Even if they did have an ambition to attack Christians indiscriminately - even if this were their only ambition, which they don't claim it to be - far better to do so in Africa and Eurasia than South America. Their stated principle does not oblige them to evenly distribute attacks geographically or by population.

The official ISIS rag states that our liberalism is one of the main reasons why they attack us, and will continue attacking us (explicitly refuting the possibility that our foreign policies may substantially contribute to our status as targets). And Sarmatian dismisses their official comments by saying it could be propaganda, and thus his own argument, unfounded on primary evidence, should prevail.

[Montmorency]

Have you listened to the comments from Rafiq? You take exception to equating Muslims with ISIS. Listen to his comments then. Like I said, his group is as close as you'll get to a modernist Muslim think tank in the UK, and one that has had the ear of the PM in the past. What about him do you think lacks credibility? If he doesn't lack credibility, why don't you address his argument?

What do you think his argument is, exactly? Are you referring to something other than the posted interview?

The official ISIS rag states that our liberalism is one of the main reasons why they attack us, and will continue attacking us (explicitly refuting the possibility that our foreign policies may substantially contribute to our status as targets). And Sarmatian dismisses their official comments by saying it could be propaganda, and thus his own argument, unfounded on primary evidence, should prevail.

You are right in the sense that IS is founded upon the premise of direct war with - well, everyone, but particularly Europe and America.

But IS isn't the only organization out there, and while IS has been bleeding out in their blaze of glory, Al Qaeda is calmly expanding to fill whatever vacuum will remain. Their Long War/Management of Savagery doctrine may prove more worrisome than IS' blunt approach, since it is specifically designed to subvert and manipulate Western foreign policies.

[Pannonian]

What do you think his argument is, exactly? Are you referring to something other than the posted interview?

You are right in the sense that IS is founded upon the premise of direct war with - well, everyone, but particularly Europe and America.

But IS isn't the only organization out there, and while IS has been bleeding out in their blaze of glory, Al Qaeda is calmly expanding to fill whatever vacuum will remain. Their Long War/Management of Savagery doctrine may prove more worrisome than IS' blunt approach, since it is specifically designed to subvert and manipulate Western foreign policies.

Rafiq's argument is that, until we recognise that this is a Muslim problem founded on Muslims practicing a form of Islam, then we'll never get anywhere towards finding a lasting solution, as it allows Muslims (and he's talking about the UK here, as his group is only concerned with Muslims in the UK) to ignore that fundamental problem. Non-Muslim attempts to excuse Muslims from this gives Muslims the excuse they want to say that this is none of their business. What ISIS represents isn't something that isn't really Islam. It is founded on something that is part of Islam, and history shows that Muslims can readily turn to that. That's not them not being Muslims; them joining or supporting ISIS is indeed Muslim, and denying it makes it easier to deny the problem and allow the problem to persist.

His group's stated challenge is to find a way for Muslims in Britain to be part of Britain. So Sarmatian's and Husar's jibes about wanting to deport Muslims are wide of the mark.

[Sarmatian]

Have you listened to the comments from Rafiq?

No, I must have missed that post. A link?

And Sarmatian dismisses their official comments by saying it could be propaganda, and thus his own argument, unfounded on primary evidence, should prevail.

Would you accept Russian official comments on their involvement in Ukraine as readily as you accepted this? We have an entire system in place that checks and rechecks "official statements" of our own politicians, precisely because we know we mustn't take them at face value.

If you don't like the Russian example, take Kurdish terrorists. They're targeting Turkey, not Austria.
Like it or not, there's a political goal tied to terrorist attacks. That doesn't mean there aren't some moral (from their point of view) reasons as well, but they're not 100% irrational as presented by you (and almost all of western media). So, yes, I'm taking that particular story with a grain of salt.

[Pannonian]

No, I must have missed that post. A link?



Would you accept Russian official comments on their involvement in Ukraine as readily as you accepted this? We have an entire system in place that checks and rechecks "official statements" of our own politicians, precisely because we know we mustn't take them at face value.

If you don't like the Russian example, take Kurdish terrorists. They're targeting Turkey, not Austria.
Like it or not, there's a political goal tied to terrorist attacks. That doesn't mean there aren't some moral (from their point of view) reasons as well, but they're not 100% irrational as presented by you (and almost all of western media). So, yes, I'm taking that particular story with a grain of salt.

If we're talking about why ISIS attack the west, are we then to ignore what ISIS say, and instead generate our own explanation independent of anything they say? See my numerous posts about the increased tendency to dismiss primary sources close to the subject as biased, in favour of another narrative that one prefers.

[Husar]

And Husar, as is typical of him, busily constructs his straw man.

What strawman? You keep insinuating that I'm trying to shift blame from muslims in general just because he said islamism is the root problem.
I got that he thinks muslim communities should do more and westerners should not say "it has nothing to do with Islam" or "terrorists are not muslims". What you don't seem to grasp is that I never said that and yet you keep accusing me of doing it. You're still acting like a broken record.

You said it would be ideal to throw out all muslims but at least all muslims immigration should be stopped. You use Rafiq to support your point, so where does he agree with you on that? If you're merely trying to prove that Islam is part of the problem, then you're just Captain Obvious fighting windmills.

[Montmorency]

If we're talking about why ISIS attack the west, are we then to ignore what ISIS say, and instead generate our own explanation independent of anything they say? See my numerous posts about the increased tendency to dismiss primary sources close to the subject as biased, in favour of another narrative that one prefers.

It's pretty clear Sarmatian is saying that primary sources need context and complementary investigation to be best utilized, something I hope you don't wish to dispute.

[Pannonian]

It's pretty clear Sarmatian is saying that primary sources need context and complementary investigation to be best utilized, something I hope you don't wish to dispute.

When we're talking about motives, what better source is there than the horse's mouth?

[Pannonian]

A couple of questions.

Q: If you dismiss the quoted article as biased ISIS propaganda, how do you determine a better source to explain their motives?
Q: On what grounds do you dismiss what Haras Rafiq has said?

[Montmorency]

When we're talking about motives, what better source is there than the horse's mouth?

The horse's feet?

Q: If you dismiss the quoted article as biased ISIS propaganda, how do you determine a better source to explain their motives?

You can look at further primary documents, observed actions of the group, reports of defectors, insiders, spies, and other observers (which count as primary sources)...

Am I to understand that you are saying that a single primary source can tell us everything we need or can know about a subject?

Q: On what grounds do you dismiss what Haras Rafiq has said?

I don't see that I have.

[Pannonian]

The horse's feet?

You can look at further primary documents, observed actions of the group, reports of defectors, insiders, spies, and other observers (which count as primary sources)...

Am I to understand that you are saying that a single primary source can tell us everything we need or can know about a subject?

I don't see that I have.

Do other primary sources contradict that article?

[Montmorency]

Do other primary sources contradict that article?

I don't see anything contradicting the notion that IS hates "us", but you can't use this document in explaining or studying specific IS actions.

The document as a source is incomplete, not useless. Can't you see the distinction.

[Pannonian]

I don't see anything contradicting the notion that IS hates "us", but you can't use this document in explaining or studying specific IS actions.

The document as a source is incomplete, not useless. Can't you see the distinction.

But that document specifically addresses a number of points, and one in particular (explicitly emphasised in case we think otherwise), which are still being put forward, including by the leader of the UK's opposition.

"What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

"The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."

What other primary sources contradict this? Is this point not being made clear enough?

[Montmorency]

I repeatedly said that the specific motivation of IS to attack the West existentially is not contradicted.

Please read my words, not your own mind.

[Fragony]

Well I got my own mind and I don't think anything will happen

[Pannonian]

I repeatedly said that the specific motivation of IS to attack the West existentially is not contradicted.

Please read my words, not your own mind.

I hope others will stop pointing to foreign policy as the reason why ISIS attacks the west. Or indeed, any reason except that we're different from how they want us to be, and they won't stop until we follow their prescribed way of life.

[Sarmatian]

Montmorency explained my position better than I could have, so thank you mate.

I hope others will stop pointing to foreign policy as the reason why ISIS attacks the west.

THE reason, probably not. But A reason surely.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A couple of questions.

Q: If you dismiss the quoted article as biased ISIS propaganda, how do you determine a better source to explain their motives?
Q: On what grounds do you dismiss what Haras Rafiq has said?

The first question is a vital one for historians and journalists alike. Remember, no matter how "spun" the first-person source may be, it generally provides an accurate sense of how they WANT to be viewed. That, of itself, does tell you something. Obviously, relying solely on first person sources has its limitations. Caesar's discussion of the culture of Long-haired Gaul was hardly a complete treatment and was written for the Roman middle classes -- his electorate.

[Pannonian]

Montmorency explained my position better than I could have, so thank you mate.

THE reason, probably not. But A reason surely.

"What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

"The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."

[Husar]

I hope others will stop pointing to foreign policy as the reason why ISIS attacks the west. Or indeed, any reason except that we're different from how they want us to be, and they won't stop until we follow their prescribed way of life.

It doesn't have to be the reason ISIS in particular attacks us. But that still leaves it as a reason for people to join ISIS, for other groups to attack us or for some of the more moderate people to become radicalized or be hesitant in defending us. Just because they mindlessly hate us, we don't have to become their best recruiting argument or even violate our own morals. I'm well aware that there are things we cannot do anything about or where people will blame us irrationally, but if we give up trying to do the right thing, well, especially then we got ourselves to blame, no? And we could make the situation worse than it is.

[Pannonian]

It doesn't have to be the reason ISIS in particular attacks us. But that still leaves it as a reason for people to join ISIS, for other groups to attack us or for some of the more moderate people to become radicalized or be hesitant in defending us. Just because they mindlessly hate us, we don't have to become their best recruiting argument or even violate our own morals. I'm well aware that there are things we cannot do anything about or where people will blame us irrationally, but if we give up trying to do the right thing, well, especially then we got ourselves to blame, no? And we could make the situation worse than it is.

Then I refer you to Haras Rafiq, whose group is dedicated to making things better for Muslims in Britain. Do you have a better idea of how things are for Muslims in Britain, how things go bad, and how things can be made better? If you're so confident about demolishing my sources, what alternative sources do you have?

[Sarmatian]

"What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

"The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."

I don't need primary sources if empirical data show your hypothesis is, at very least, incomplete.

Why isn't ISIS attacking Serbia? It's closer to them, there are millions of Muslims living either in the country or in the near vicinity of the country, security isn't nearly as good as in western countries... Or other countries in the area - Montenegro, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania...

There obviously are more factors at play rather than just:
1) not Muslim country
2) proximity
3) how easy it is to carry out an attack

[Sarmatian]

"What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

"The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."

I don't need primary sources if empirical data show your hypothesis is, at very least, incomplete.

Why isn't ISIS attacking Serbia? It's closer to them, there are millions of Muslims living either in the country or in the near vicinity of the country, security isn't nearly as good as in western countries... Or other countries in the area - Montenegro, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania...

There obviously are more factors at play rather than just:
1) not Muslim country
2) proximity
3) how easy it is to carry out an attack

[Husar]

Then I refer you to Haras Rafiq, whose group is dedicated to making things better for Muslims in Britain. Do you have a better idea of how things are for Muslims in Britain, how things go bad, and how things can be made better? If you're so confident about demolishing my sources, what alternative sources do you have?

I wasn't demolishing your sources, what Rafiq says is quite interesting.
What I challenged was your conclusion that all muslims should be expelled or all immigration stopped and I asked where Rafiq mentions this as a solution? And just because he does not see your foreign policy as they key factor in radicalization of individuals, that does not mean it was and is perfect.

[Idaho]

I hope others will stop pointing to foreign policy as the reason why ISIS attacks the west. Or indeed, any reason except that we're different from how they want us to be, and they won't stop until we follow their prescribed way of life.

ISIS are a construction of foreign policy. They are the end product of a number of groups funded and armed over the last few decades (principally) by the US and Saudi Arabia.

Seeing them as an organic grassroots movement of ordinary Muslims is laughable. Yes when asked certain questions the average Muslim on the street will give fairly ISIS neutral answers sometimes (cue big daily mail headlines and the right wing rubbing themselves to a foamy conclusion) but ISIS are demonstrably a foreign and extreme ideology. If they weren't then we wouldn't just be seeing the odd lone nutter committing murder.

[Pannonian]

ISIS are a construction of foreign policy. They are the end product of a number of groups funded and armed over the last few decades (principally) by the US and Saudi Arabia.

Seeing them as an organic grassroots movement of ordinary Muslims is laughable. Yes when asked certain questions the average Muslim on the street will give fairly ISIS neutral answers sometimes (cue big daily mail headlines and the right wing rubbing themselves to a foamy conclusion) but ISIS are demonstrably a foreign and extreme ideology. If they weren't then we wouldn't just be seeing the odd lone nutter committing murder.

I refer you to the primary sources. What sources are you deriving your conclusions from?

[Sarmatian]

Why are you fixating on primary sources? Empirical evidence trump (no pun intended) primary sources. They always have.

If a primary source state than 1 000 000 people lived in an ancient city, and archeologists dig up that ancient city and conclude that no more than a 100 000 could have lived there, we naturally conclude that the primary source is wrong.

You're an intelligent man, I'm dumbfounded that you can not grasp this, even taking into account emotional weight of the issue for you.