Investigators Seek Motive Behind Tennessee Shooting Rampage [Archive]

Sarmatian

07-17-2015, 11:16

What could it be? (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/17/us-usa-shooting-tennessee-idUSKCN0PQ1WY20150717) :laugh4:

If, by some crazy twist of fate, it is determined that this was yet another radicalized muslim, the juxtaposition versus the Charleston shooting will be fascinating. The latter yielded an onslaught of criticism against the supposed southern culture that spawned the shooter, with calls - including from members of this forum - for a wholesale eradication of any and all cultural institutions that remain from the Confederacy. Will the same cultural critique be directed towards Islam in the US after so many attacks, and so many more failed attempts? I'll be crossing my fingers, but not holding my breath.

The key difference is that fundamentalist committing these attacks have been fed the perverted version of Islam, while the core component of Southern rebellion was slavery.

Protecting state rights has been an ongoing thing in the US of A since the independence and projecting it on the rebellion is trying to ennoble what was really about treason and slavery.

rory_20_uk

07-17-2015, 11:19

A lovely strawman in the initial post.

Banning the ISIS flag would be a similar comparison as opposed to all reference to a religion - or along with the Confederate flag we'd be banning Christianity which the South managed to warp to view an entire race as being subhuman - from love they neighbour to own they neighbour.

~:smoking:

Montmorency

07-17-2015, 11:27

Huh, the shooter was also a handsome kid.

Hideous beard he grew since then.

HopAlongBunny

07-19-2015, 03:45

Rather, what motivates anyone to murder on behalf of a "cause"?

Fragony

07-19-2015, 06:13

Maybe, just maybe, it isn't true that there is only one thing that doesn't has anything to do with it, and that the islam has everything to do with it, despite islamapoligists saying that simply isn't true. Ignoring that it is. What was his motive, I really wonder lol of course not islam, inconceivable. If all of us were so bad at getting hints we would be extinct in a hundreds years because nobody would get laid.

PanzerJaeger

07-20-2015, 07:25

The key difference is that fundamentalist committing these attacks have been fed the perverted version of Islam

Are you running for political office, or does this tired cliche actually still resonate in some parts of the world?

All I'm saying is that in the US we just spent the last month raging against a culture that hasn't existed for over 150 years, but there's been not a critical word about Islamic culture written in mainstream media outlets. If we can connect Dylann Roof's slaughter in Charleston to Robert E Lee's slaughter of Union soldiers at Chancellorsville, surely we can see how a patriarchal, intolerant, and misogynist culture can breed violence and repression.

Brenus

07-20-2015, 07:49

"The key difference is that fundamentalist committing these attacks have been fed the perverted version of Islam, while the core component of Southern rebellion was slavery. " Not often I agree with Pz, but the Islamic Terrorists are not perverting Islam. They just read what is written and apply.
So, for me there is no difference between the pro-slavery South (which, may I remind, based the acceptance of slavery in the Bible) and ISIS.
Tenets of Christianity became acceptable by civilised societies because Christianity abandoned most of the most offensive and brutal parts of its writings, thanks to the Enlightenment.
Religions by definition are racists/segregationists, are against universal human right (as rights to be saved is reserved to the believers of the said faith), and as based on bronze-age tribes ideologies and actions, have nothing against genocides, invasions of someone else territories under pretext God(s) give it to them, rapes, slaughters and slavery. All these things we now agree are not nice.

Papewaio

07-20-2015, 12:31

surely we can see how a patriarchal, intolerant, and misogynist culture can breed violence and repression.

I agree.

I preferred the country the old superman came from Truth, Justice and the American way wasn't so ironic...

Sarmatian

07-20-2015, 17:16

Are you running for political office, or does this tired cliche actually still resonate in some parts of the world?

I would have expected this kind of answer from rednecks, but I generally take that most people here do have a passion and a basic understanding of history. Those with basic understanding of history have no excuse for not knowing how tolerant and progressive Islam can be. The west didn't become more tolerant because of Christianity, but rather when we stopped to listening those weird guys in robes. When we thought religion was important we committed genocides, exterminated entire cultures and happily slaughtered each other to decide whose branch of Christianity was the coolest.

Islam is in many ways a copy/paste of Judaism and Christianity, sprinkled with some Arab Paganism.
Everything is there, from hate the unbeliever to trust blindly in merciful God and he will be there for you. Don't trust in him and you'll go to hell. God is almighty, all-powerful and omnipresent.

And, as with Christianity, it's all about the interpretation. Does it say anywhere in the Quran that women have to be covered up completely? No - it says that one shouldn't desire another man's woman. Men being men, they interpreted it in a way that suits them - let's transfer responsibility to women, and make them cover up, 'cause I really can't resist me some of that shapely tushy, m'kay...

Muslim societies can be secular. For proof, I point out overwhelmingly Muslim but mostly secular and tolerant ex Soviet central Asian republics. Kazakhstan is a much better example than Turkey in this regard, as it has a far greater ethnic and confessional diversity, yet there is almost no violence. The little violence that happens is directed against Jehovah Witnesses and similar groups which actively proselytize.

In the end, there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. Even if there is a 100,000 standing ready to commit terrorist acts, that is still less than 0,001%. So, I believe my comment about "the perverted version of Islam" is entirely rational, accurate and germane.

All I'm saying is that in the US we just spent the last month raging against a culture that hasn't existed for over 150 years, but there's been not a critical word about Islamic culture written in mainstream media outlets. If we can connect Dylann Roof's slaughter in Charleston to Robert E Lee's slaughter of Union soldiers at Chancellorsville, surely we can see how a patriarchal, intolerant, and misogynist culture can breed violence and repression.

It was not about southern culture but about specific symbols associated first and foremost with racism, slavery and rebellion. Removing those symbols wasn't about eradicating the southern culture, just like removing the swastika wasn't really about eradicating German culture.

I assume there's more to southern culture than the ACW, and, if there isn't, than it should be eradicated.

Fragony

07-20-2015, 17:27

Sarmatian

07-20-2015, 21:41

How about a deathtoll's daily, today over 20 in Turkey, yesterday over 30 in Nigeria, the day before that, oh screw it it's too much work to keep track, what was it, 200 or so I forgot where, somewhere in Africa. Islam is not a religion it's a mental disorder

edit, forgot, yesterday also more than a hundred in Baghdad, so easy to forget if things are a daily routine

All terrorist attacks put together since Islam was founded didn't cause as many civilian deaths as American invasion of Iraq. Or Muslim indiscriminately murdered by European colonial powers.

Fragony

07-21-2015, 06:19

Who caused most deaths in Iraq, not the coalition but religious groups who hate eachother, without going in into wether or not war was a mistake that fact remains.

Brenus

07-21-2015, 06:50

Sarmatian

07-21-2015, 08:13

"Or Muslim indiscriminately murdered by European colonial powers." Or European indiscriminately murdered by Muslim (mainly Turkish but not only) colonial powers, as you well know being in Balkans.
I wouldn't put colonial/conquest wars in this debate. France didn't invade Algeria because it was Muslim country. France took Algeria in constructing the 2nd Colonial Empire. France will invade what will become Indochina as well, and theses countries were not Muslim (and still not).

As far as imperialism goes, Turkish rule in the Balkans was infinitely more fair than just about any European colonial rule.

It is not about Europeans invading Muslim countries, it is about Europeans invading countries, period. For several centuries, up to two-three generations ago it was quite normal to murder indiscriminately for material gain of the state or some wealthy individual or companies.

It was organized murder and oppression on a vast scale, sanctioned or organized by the state, by the cultural elites.
On the other end, you've got some fringe, miniscule elements of a religion committing murders. And we are sane and they have a mental disorder.

I hate terrorism as much as anyone, but holding 1,200,000,000 people responsible for the actions of a few people is quite ludicrous.

Fragony

07-21-2015, 08:19

Indiscriminatly yes, what's in a word. For gain sure. But not because of religion. So indiscriminately indeed. And please don't bring the crusades to the discussion that is so... well so long ago

Sarmatian

07-21-2015, 11:34

Indiscriminatly yes, what's in a word. For gain sure. But not because of religion. So indiscriminately indeed. And please don't bring the crusades to the discussion that is so... well so long ago

So massacring civilian population is okay when it's done for material gain but crazy when done out of religious reasons?

Check.

Greyblades

07-21-2015, 13:17

Way to willfully misrepresent his words there skippy.

Gilrandir

07-21-2015, 13:46

The west didn't become more tolerant because of Christianity, but rather when we stopped to listening those weird guys in robes. When we thought religion was important we committed genocides, exterminated entire cultures and happily slaughtered each other to decide whose branch of Christianity was the coolest.

The USSR stopped listening to guys in robes and started exterminating them, especially in 1920-1930s. It also can boast of ethnic cleansings (= removing whole nations from their homes) and slaughtering the dissident. So moving away from religion doesn't automatically make a society more tolerant.

Muslim societies can be secular. For proof, I point out overwhelmingly Muslim but mostly secular and tolerant ex Soviet central Asian republics. Kazakhstan is a much better example than Turkey in this regard, as it has a far greater ethnic and confessional diversity, yet there is almost no violence.

I don't think Khazakhstan is a good example, because after the collapse of the USSR there were ethnic tensions between the Turkic and the Slavic communities which eventually made thousands of the latter leave the country for Russia and Ukraine.
Now such things are not heard about any more, yet in case Russia (Zhirinovsky already does it on occasion) propels its interest ethnic tensions (possibly with a religious admixture - if ISIS takes a hand) will be awake in no time.

Pannonian

07-21-2015, 14:23

As far as imperialism goes, Turkish rule in the Balkans was infinitely more fair than just about any European colonial rule.

It is not about Europeans invading Muslim countries, it is about Europeans invading countries, period. For several centuries, up to two-three generations ago it was quite normal to murder indiscriminately for material gain of the state or some wealthy individual or companies.

It was organized murder and oppression on a vast scale, sanctioned or organized by the state, by the cultural elites.
On the other end, you've got some fringe, miniscule elements of a religion committing murders. And we are sane and they have a mental disorder.

I hate terrorism as much as anyone, but holding 1,200,000,000 people responsible for the actions of a few people is quite ludicrous.

And yet it was the British who did most in the history of mankind to end the practice of slavery around the world, and a large proportion of the former British empire still retains cultural and in some cases even political links with their former imperial oppressors. And it's notable that workable liberal democracies are more prevalent in areas formerly oppressed by the nasty British. How many functional liberal democracies are there in the former Ottoman empire? Probably only Turkey, and that because of some fervently Europhilic bloke back in the mists of time.

Sarmatian

07-21-2015, 14:31

The USSR stopped listening to guys in robes and started exterminating them, especially in 1920-1930s. It also can boast of ethnic cleansings (= removing whole nations from their homes) and slaughtering the dissident. So moving away from religion doesn't automatically make a society more tolerant.

Sure, instead of religion we can pervert an ideology. The fact remains that when Europeans were more religious they were also more violent. And, no, it doesn't have anything to do with crusades, as Frags says, we can look at Thirty Years War, a nice pan European conflict and in reality a mass slaughter of those following different branch of Christianity.

I don't think Khazakhstan is a good example, because after the collapse of the USSR there were ethnic tensions between the Turkic and the Slavic communities which eventually made thousands of the latter leave the country for Russia and Ukraine.
Now such things are not heard about any more, yet in case Russia (Zhirinovsky already does it on occasion) propels its interest ethnic tensions (possibly with a religious admixture - if ISIS takes a hand) will be awake in no time.

There's bound to be some tensions in a collapsing country with a ruined economy. It's a wonder it haven't been worse and it's kind of a testament to my point.

And yet it was the British who did most in the history of mankind to end the practice of slavery around the world, and a large proportion of the former British empire still retains cultural and in some cases even political links with their former imperial oppressors.

So? Russia subjugated and oppressed all Muslim states in central Asia, and they keep cultural and political links and the mixed population lives generally in peace.

It doesn't really make sense to hold a grudge indefinitely or we'd never get anything done.

And it's notable that workable liberal democracies are more prevalent in areas formerly oppressed by the nasty British.

Well, "workable" isn't really easily definable, but the proper democracies built on western models today are those countries that were pretty much empty when British appeared, like Australia, Canada or USA.

In all other places, where there's been a big population, British track record isn't that great. Even in India there are massive human right abuses, from child labour to mutilation, religious violence and so. Burma isn't any better. Do I need to mention Pakistan or Afghanistan? In Singapore they chop your head of if you have a joint. Sub Saharan Africa is filled with dictatorships... British loved to rekindle old rivalries and encouraged conflict between natives when it suited their interest.

So, no, regardless of what Brits like to think, Britain hasn't been a more just overlord than France or Netherlands.

How many functional liberal democracies are there in the former Ottoman empire? Probably only Turkey, and that because of some fervently Europhilic bloke back in the mists of time.

Hungary, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro, Albania, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Greece, Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Israel, Jordan...

Pannonian

07-21-2015, 14:36

Sure, instead of religion we can pervert an ideology. The fact remains that when Europeans were more religious they were also more violent. And, no, it doesn't have anything to do with crusades, as Frags says, we can look at Thirty Years War, a nice pan European conflict and in reality a mass slaughter of those following different branch of Christianity.

It was a post-30YW yet still religious Europe that developed what Ataturk described as the one civilisation. Religious arguments were behind the pushes for equal treatment of Man, better treatment of the weak beyond what we needed to, etc.

Gilrandir

07-21-2015, 14:42

The fact remains that when Europeans were more religious they were also more violent.

With Russians it was vice versa.

There's bound to be some tensions in a collapsing country with a ruined economy. It's a wonder it haven't been worse and it's kind of a testament to my point.
It isn't. In other republics (including those of Central Asia) such tensions were not reported. I know that at the end of 1980s flats in Alma-Ata were sold for next to nothing or even abandoned by their Slavic owners.

Sarmatian

07-21-2015, 15:12

It was a post-30YW yet still religious Europe that developed what Ataturk described as the one civilisation. Religious arguments were behind the pushes for equal treatment of Man, better treatment of the weak beyond what we needed to, etc.

Because it's all about the interpretation. Christianity can be violent and tolerant, just like Islam.

With Russians it was vice versa.

Hardly. Even though Russian nationalists like to think that, Imperial Russia was just as oppressive as USSR later was.

It isn't. In other republics (including those of Central Asia) such tensions were not reported. I know that at the end of 1980s flats in Alma-Ata were sold for next to nothing or even abandoned by their Slavic owners.

Well, if Kazakhstan is the worst central Asian republic in that regard, it illustrates my point even better.

Pannonian

07-21-2015, 15:15

So? Russia subjugated and oppressed all Muslim states in central Asia, and they keep cultural and political links and the mixed population lives generally in peace.

It doesn't really make sense to hold a grudge indefinitely or we'd never get anything done.

How long did the old CIS last?

Well, "workable" isn't really easily definable, but the proper democracies built on western models today are those countries that were pretty much empty when British appeared, like Australia, Canada or USA.

In all other places, where there's been a big population, British track record isn't that great. Even in India there are massive human right abuses, from child labour to mutilation, religious violence and so. Burma isn't any better. Do I need to mention Pakistan or Afghanistan? In Singapore they chop your head of if you have a joint. Sub Saharan Africa is filled with dictatorships... British loved to rekindle old rivalries and encouraged conflict between natives when it suited their interest.

So, no, regardless of what Brits like to think, Britain hasn't been a more just overlord than France or Netherlands.

And how does Britain compare with the Ottomans?

Hungary, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro, Albania, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Greece, Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Israel, Jordan...

So how does that lot compare with the US, India, the former dominions, etc.? Where do the former Ottoman territories rank in the lists of open government and low government corruption? Hang on, while I scroll down the list until I get to the last page. Israel is pretty much the only high ranking country in those lists, and I doubt even the most fanatical Ottomanophile (barring the odd Serb) would give the Ottomans any credit for that one. Especially when the argument of building from nothing has already been put to avoid giving Britain any credit for Canada, Australia and so on.

Sarmatian

07-21-2015, 15:54

How long did the old CIS last?

CIS is still alive and well. It may or may not be replaced with EEC later.

And how does Britain compare with the Ottomans?

I don't give Ottomans credit for any of those countries, especially as most of those countries liberated themselves between a century or more ago. I just used your measuring stick.

But, if you want to push it, all countries subjugated by the Ottomans, kept their local customs, language, religion. They had access to education and more or less important government positions. Their rights and businesses were protected. They weren't taxed excessively and the central government made sure that all regions can develop.
Most of that started crumbling when the empire started crumbling, though.

Which is all generally in stark contrast with British administration of India or American colonies, for example.

So how does that lot compare with the US, India, the former dominions, etc.? Where do the former Ottoman territories rank in the lists of open government and low government corruption? Hang on, while I scroll down the list until I get to the last page. Israel is pretty much the only high ranking country in those lists, and I doubt even the most fanatical Ottomanophile (barring the odd Serb) would give the Ottomans any credit for that one. Especially when the argument of building from nothing has already been put to avoid giving Britain any credit for Canada, Australia and so on.

Building from nothing covers USA also, not just Australia and Canada. Open government and government corruption aren't the only important things. One can look at countries where most forced child labour is...

15761

and say that a huge chunk of those countries with the worst record have been former British colonies.

Also, where is Uganda and other former British African colonies on that list?

Pannonian

07-21-2015, 18:53

Sarmatian

07-21-2015, 20:16

If you reckon Russia and the Ottoman empire compare favourably with western Europe and western Europeanised countries, then I'm thankful that I live in western Europe and you can be thankful that you live in the former Ottoman empire. If I ever move anywhere, I hope I'll be moving elsewhere in western Europe or somewhere else high up in the list of countries with open government and low corruption, and preferably not anywhere that has ever been part of the Ottoman empire.

What, if I say anything negative about UK you're gonna get insulted?

I'm a history geek, I like to talk about history. I don't think any of those things matter today (in most cases), I just posted various examples that prove you're wrong. No, Britain wasn't a "nice colonial power", it was just a colonial power, period. There's really no such thing as good or nice imperialism/colonialism.

That doesn't mean I'd rather live in Lebanon than Canada.

Brenus

07-21-2015, 20:52

"But, if you want to push it, all countries subjugated by the Ottomans, kept their local customs, language, religion." :laugh4: First, that is pushing a lot. Second, that is true for all Colonial powers.:yes: And they have to provide Slaves every year, and pay the price to stay alive...
Once again, we can't compare a colonial expansion with Djihads or Crusades, even if both were as well for political and territorial gains.
All Empires did oppressed their possessions from Slavery to "ethnocid" close to genocide as in Belgium Congo or America (South, Central and North).
To be fair, some treatment was given to their own populations... Ireland was starved to death as India was, or the Boers, so Muslims were no more a target to abject treatment than others. Same can be said for Muslim population under Muslim rulers.
As Russia is concerned, Nicolas II ordering to shoot at angry crowds wanting bread show how much "religious" Russia under a good Autocrat was benevolent. Not speaking of few Czars as Ivan The Terrible...
And France had good Religious wars as well: around 2,000,000 victims (lowest estimate), which is the same amount than the Napoleonic wars...

Sarmatian

07-21-2015, 21:20

To be fair, some treatment was given to their own populations... Ireland was starved to death as India was, or the Boers, so Muslims were no more a target to abject treatment than others. Same can be said for Muslim population under Muslim rulers.
As Russia is concerned, Nicolas II ordering to shoot at angry crowds wanting bread show how much "religious" Russia under a good Autocrat was benevolent. Not speaking of few Czars as Ivan The Terrible...

I don't really agree with the first part of your post but we've already strayed too far from the original topic so I won't comment on that.

The bottom line - westerners (or Christians if you wish) committed much more violence all over the world and caused much more deaths than Muslims.

That is an answer to the mantra Frags here (and many other elsewhere) repeat constantly that Islam is an inherently violent religion.

Pannonian

07-21-2015, 21:56

I don't really agree with the first part of your post but we've already strayed too far from the original topic so I won't comment on that.

The bottom line - westerners (or Christians if you wish) committed much more violence all over the world and caused much more deaths than Muslims.

That is an answer to the mantra Frags here (and many other elsewhere) repeat constantly that Islam is an inherently violent religion.

Right now, at this moment, western Europeanised descendants of the Christian kingdoms produce far more desirable places to live in than the Muslim descendants of the Ottoman empire. To the point where the founder of the direct successor to the Ottoman empire declared that the European civilisation was the only civilisation in the world. Whatever the inherence of the respective religions, I'd far rather live in western Europe than in the former Ottoman empire, and I'd like the former and the latter to have as little to do with each other as possible. I don't care about the moral height or depth of each; I just want to live in my world, while they can go and live in theirs.

Sarmatian

07-21-2015, 22:12

Right now, at this moment, western Europeanised descendants of the Christian kingdoms produce far more desirable places to live in than the Muslim descendants of the Ottoman empire. To the point where the founder of the direct successor to the Ottoman empire declared that the European civilisation was the only civilisation in the world. Whatever the inherence of the respective religions, I'd far rather live in western Europe than in the former Ottoman empire, and I'd like the former and the latter to have as little to do with each other as possible. I don't care about the moral height or depth of each; I just want to live in my world, while they can go and live in theirs.

Ottoman Empire from the start was influenced a lot by Greco-Roman legacy so it's not wonder he said that, especially as the new Turkish state was confined to just Anatolia and relieved of the burden of trying to govern Arabic, Persian, Egyptian and Berber areas...

In the end, that's a fair point you're making, but I believe we can agree that we (western governments to be precise) are not really leaving them alone to live in their world.

Gilrandir

07-22-2015, 05:52

Hardly. Even though Russian nationalists like to think that, Imperial Russia was just as oppressive as USSR later was.

Comparing the scale of victims, I would say that the Empire falls utterly short of the USSR.

Well, if Kazakhstan is the worst central Asian republic in that regard, it illustrates my point even better.
As you may have noticed, I didn't dispute your point, which is basically correct. I exposed inadequacy of the evidence/proof you chose to exemplify it with.

If I ever move anywhere, I hope I'll be moving elsewhere in western Europe or somewhere else high up in the list of countries with open government and low corruption, and preferably not anywhere that has ever been part of the Ottoman empire.
On the low corruption in the UK:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/07/london-estate-agents-caught-on-camera-russian-buyer
And on the UK as a perennial stalwart bulwark of democracy and freedom:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/18/europe/uk-queen-nazi-salute-footage/
Brenus will find a proper name for the adult teaching infants to do such things.

Greyblades

07-22-2015, 06:31

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/18/eu...alute-footage/
Brenus will find a proper name for the adult teaching infants to do such things.
Wow, a child imitating a nazi salute in the years before their atrocities became public knowledge, how democracy destroying.

Fragony

07-22-2015, 06:56

Sarmatian

07-22-2015, 08:05

Yes Islam is an inheritanly violent relgion,

How can you consider Islam an inherently violent religion when it is a really a mishmash of Judaism and Christianity, sprinkled with some Arab paganism?

A monotheistic religion with a holy book, a God who is demanding your unquestionable obedience, merciful God if you're proper, vengeful if you're not, piety rewarded after death, wickedness punished after death, worldly possessions unimportant, urge to convert the heathens, same commandments, same prophets, same standards of "pious life", same sins, rejection of idols yada yada yada...

I mean, there's even the second coming of Jesus in Islam, who will come back to fight the Anti Christ. In the very early stages of Islam, Muslim were doing their prayers in Christian churches.

Fragony

07-22-2015, 08:15

How can you consider Islam an inherently violent religion when it is a really a mishmash of Judaism and Christianity, sprinkled with some Arab paganism?

Daily news should do

Sarmatian

07-22-2015, 08:32

Daily news should do

I give up.

Fragony

07-22-2015, 09:23

I give up.

Let's make it weekly then, no mass murder of infidels today so far but it's still early, they are probably sleeping

Gilrandir

07-22-2015, 11:03

Wow, a child imitating a nazi salute in the years before their atrocities became public knowledge, how democracy destroying.
It is not the child who is to blame, but those who teach her. And the way Hiltler was moving to power and slogans he proclaimed were well known even then.

Greyblades

07-22-2015, 12:09

Pannonian

07-22-2015, 13:01

On the low corruption in the UK:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/07/london-estate-agents-caught-on-camera-russian-buyer
And on the UK as a perennial stalwart bulwark of democracy and freedom:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/18/europe/uk-queen-nazi-salute-footage/
Brenus will find a proper name for the adult teaching infants to do such things.

I suppose Ukraine is the place to turn to if you want an example of a bulwark against Nazism, or an example of a wholly incorruptible government. How many Ukrainians served in the SS? Tens of thousands, wasn't it, with some of the worst units being Ukrainian? How many British served in the SS? Less than 50, wasn't it? And most of those cried off when it came to actually doing anything.

Government corruption perception results for 2014. Britain is 14th in the world with a score of 78, firmly in the first world category and ahead of some other indisputably first world countries, including France and the US. Ukraine is 142nd in the world with a score of 26, lowest ranking of all the major former Soviet states. If put into sub-Saharan Africa, which has the lowest general scores in the regions listed, Ukraine would be classed in the lowest third.

https://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results

Methinks I prefer living in western Europe.

Fragony

07-22-2015, 13:54

Had to google 'Barbados', that's an oddball in the top 20

Sarmatian

07-22-2015, 13:58

The problem with this is that it a perception. It gives a good overview but shouldn't be taken as gospel.

Fragony

07-22-2015, 14:13

We can read

Sarmatian

07-22-2015, 14:30

We can read

Sorry, Mr. Plural.

Fragony

07-22-2015, 15:19

Sorry, Mr. Plural.

Just because it's big doesn't mean I got more than one

Pannonian

07-22-2015, 22:39

The problem with this is that it a perception. It gives a good overview but shouldn't be taken as gospel.

Your general whereabouts on the list is a pretty good indication of where you are as a country. Well off countries are at the top, worse off countries at the bottom. And within each grouping, which is greatly influenced by your geographical whereabouts, there are certain factors which are apparent as well. For example, a look at the top of the list shows that homogenous populations are higher up the list than heterogenous populations. Among the heterogenous countries, the UK ranks highest. However, among the heterogenous countries, it also has the lowest proportion of non-European population. Objectively speaking, France and the US have probably done better than the UK to get the scores they did (particularly the US, given its size and varied systems of government). Similarly, Serbia is part of a group consisting of the former Yugoslav states. As it was the hub of that group of states, it's lower down than some due to population movement and integration. But it's well within the group, so it's not doing too badly relative to its location.

Sarmatian

07-22-2015, 23:13

Your general whereabouts on the list is a pretty good indication of where you are as a country. Well off countries are at the top, worse off countries at the bottom. And within each grouping, which is greatly influenced by your geographical whereabouts, there are certain factors which are apparent as well. For example, a look at the top of the list shows that homogenous populations are higher up the list than heterogenous populations. Among the heterogenous countries, the UK ranks highest. However, among the heterogenous countries, it also has the lowest proportion of non-European population. Objectively speaking, France and the US have probably done better than the UK to get the scores they did (particularly the US, given its size and varied systems of government). Similarly, Serbia is part of a group consisting of the former Yugoslav states. As it was the hub of that group of states, it's lower down than some due to population movement and integration. But it's well within the group, so it's not doing too badly relative to its location.

I don't disagree.

I was thinking more a situation when a Country A was in a really, really bad shape, but improved a lot and moved to being in a just bad shape, people may subjectively rate it higher than it should be as they focus on the huge improvement and not assess the situation properly. It works other way around.

Also, awareness of corruption level in other countries is important in making the assessment, especially those countries your country is more involved with. For instance, Serbia is gravitating towards EU, we're doing most our business with EU and we're naturally much more aware in the situation in EU than other regions. That makes me compare corruption levels in Serbia with corruption level in UK, Germany, France or Scandinavia and say that situation in Serbia is terrible. If Serbia were in Asia, I'd be comparing the situation with that in China,Vietnam, India and Myanmar and say that corruption in Serbia isn't that bad.

It's very subjective. It's good for getting a rough idea but that's just about it.

Hooahguy

07-23-2015, 01:08

Not really relevant to this particular discussion but I need a platform to rant for a second.

All this :daisy: about the flag not being lowered is total bull:daisy:. Nobody who is complaining about the flag not being immediately lowered gives a rats :daisy: about fallen soldiers, they are just getting political points, nothing more. The outrage is all so manufactured that it sickens me.

Husar

07-23-2015, 05:16

Let's make it weekly then, no mass murder of infidels today so far but it's still early, they are probably sleeping

LOL

How hard is it to understand that the last soandso many years of violence perpetrated by some extremists don't prove that anything is inherent to a religion that has been around for more than a thousand years? You're basically taking the view of the extremists and saying they are correct. Why don't you tell the non-violent muslims that they should kill you if they want to follow their religion properly? Maybe you can even convince them with your superior understanding of Islam.

Among the heterogenous countries, the UK ranks highest.

Define heterogenous country. Why is the UK one while Sweden and the Netherlands are not?

Brenus

07-23-2015, 07:39

“How hard is it to understand that the last so and so many years of violence perpetrated by some extremists don't prove that anything is inherent to a religion that has been around for more than a thousand years? You're basically taking the view of the extremists and saying they are correct.” How hard is to understand that extremists justify rightly their actions are on line with the Holy teaching. So it is inherent to a religion. Is it compulsory? No (let's pretend). However it not a sin to burn people alive or to throw homosexuals from building or to kill Jews and so and so because the Prophet himself did it or it is clearly written in the Holly scriptures.
For these reason, pretending that these actions are not religious is plainly wrong.

“Why don't you tell the non-violent muslims that they should kill you if they want to follow their religion properly?” Err, they are. Killing Jews, agnostics, atheists, relapses and pagans is clearly a command, but much of the Muslims, being human beings, just choose to ignore this command. In theory that makes them bad Muslim, but as it makes them better human beings, they live with it.
However, this points out THE problem. They are better human beings by living against the teaching of the Holly Book.

So, we have two problems:
Denying that violence is inherent to religion (I picked Muslim one, I could have done the same with the 2 other monotheistic religions) is a cul-de-sac, as everyone reading the book(s) can see it is not true.
Second, to be a better human being goes against the Message(s) of God allegedly provided by the Holly Book(s).
Let’s go for the Christian faith:
The only way out of it is to reform and pretend that God change is message (so good-bye God as all knowledge etc.) and to “forgot” bad passages in the book but in maintaining the “bibleish” of the Holly Books that can’t be contested even if you just do this.
And that where Religions have problems. Some do.
A new-born Christian just told me that the Bible is partly rubbish, partially history, partially word of God mixed with pure propaganda. She de facto rejects the meaning of the Gospel, but refuses to go until the end of the logic. Fine with me, as I can understand a desire to believe in a God who wouldn’t be a maniac genocidal one.
But her view doesn’t mean that Slavery is not a Christian value, so rape, slaughter and genocide as the Bible clearly shows God allowing it, even told the warriors to do exactly this. So pretending that slavery or genocide is not inherent, part of, the Holly Book, foundation of Christianity is untrue.
What is true is Christians (if you kick out the Army of the Lord in Uganda) reject nowadays slavery. As it is not compulsory to have slaves in order to be good Christian, they can. But they can’t say that to be a slaves’ owner is against Christian’s principles.

Fragony

07-23-2015, 07:53

Why don't you tell the non-violent muslims that they should kill you if they want to follow their religion properly?

I don't have to they aready know it. They just don't do it. Moderate muslims ignore parts of the Quran because they feel it belongs in a different time

Montmorency

07-23-2015, 07:56

Textual positivism is false, so by misunderstanding why in fact those who are wrong are wrong, you become wronger-than-wrong.

Fragony

07-23-2015, 12:40

LOL

wellll, they woke up, yesterday 20, just read it. How many today I will probably read it tomorow. Tomorrow is probably going to be a very normal day so people are going to get blown up

Husar

07-24-2015, 04:18

I don't have to they aready know it. They just don't do it. Moderate muslims ignore parts of the Quran because they feel it belongs in a different time

So they think of themselves as bad muslims?

wellll, they woke up, yesterday 20, just read it. How many today I will probably read it tomorow. Tomorrow is probably going to be a very normal day so people are going to get blown up

People get shot every day in the USA, any comments on what barbarians Americans are? Or maybe on how capitalism and freedom are barbaric ideas?

Fragony

07-24-2015, 05:56

I guess that makes sense to you, how it does I don't understand but feel free to relativate

Strike For The South

07-24-2015, 16:39

More shootings in Lafyette.

Quick ban more symbols.

Brenus

07-24-2015, 18:08

Quick ban weapons...

Greyblades

07-24-2015, 18:13

Quick, dig up more graves.

a completely inoffensive name

07-24-2015, 21:36

Quick, defund mental health services.

Kadagar_AV

07-25-2015, 00:19

How can you consider Islam an inherently violent religion when it is a really a mishmash of Judaism and Christianity, sprinkled with some Arab paganism?

A monotheistic religion with a holy book, a God who is demanding your unquestionable obedience, merciful God if you're proper, vengeful if you're not, piety rewarded after death, wickedness punished after death, worldly possessions unimportant, urge to convert the heathens, same commandments, same prophets, same standards of "pious life", same sins, rejection of idols yada yada yada...

I mean, there's even the second coming of Jesus in Islam, who will come back to fight the Anti Christ. In the very early stages of Islam, Muslim were doing their prayers in Christian churches.

Christianity has gone through a LOT of reforms, the French revolution that saw democracy take root, later influences that pushed a more humane agenda, yadda yadda yadda...

Islam has not. Islam is the same ****ed up desert living tribal religion it was more than a thousand years ago.

Also, contrary to christianity, islam is a political ideology as well as a religious belief. Where Jesus said "Give to the government what the government expects" (my definition but also the upheld one), Islam has no such ideas about separation between state and religion.

In Islam, the religion IS the state.

That's why it is more than fair to accuse Islam of being inherently evil. The fact that it was created by a warmongering pedophile REALLY, like, REALLY doesn't help the muslims adapt to western civilized society much either.

a completely inoffensive name

07-25-2015, 00:41

In 1015 Muslim countries were preserving knowledge from the Greeks and were even applying experimental data to build upon and challenge said knowledge. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Optics)

Fragony

07-25-2015, 07:11

so?

a completely inoffensive name

07-25-2015, 08:20

so?
So kad is being wrong, as usual. You know frag, just because you hate modern Islamic political fundamentalism (who doesn't), doesn't mean you have to hate Islam as it was practiced across thousands of years of human history.

Fragony

07-25-2015, 08:54

Fair enough

Sarmatian

07-25-2015, 12:49

Also, contrary to christianity, islam is a political ideology as well as a religious belief. Where Jesus said "Give to the government what the government expects" (my definition but also the upheld one), Islam has no such ideas about separation between state and religion.

In Islam, the religion IS the state.

That is entirely false. "Render unto Caesar..." means basically don't refuse to pay taxes to earthly government, a concept existing in Islam.

In fact, one of the reasons why rulers found it easy to embrace Christianity is precisely because of the concept of Divine Right - while before some ruler held to power through force or threat of force, now there was a divine concept that legitimized his rule. He was no longer a strongman, but someone sanctioned by divine power to rule over the common people and made it a sin to challenge his rule.

Not to mention that later Roman/Byzantine Emperors maintained a principle that their rule over entire Christian world was legitimate because they were viceroys of God on Earth.

Gilrandir

07-25-2015, 15:36

At the time the association between the gesture and the nazis was not set; American students were doing the same salute when doing the morning pledge of allegiance. That the queen was filmed doing the same when a child says absolutely nothing either about her, her parents or her country that comes even close to the point you are failing to make.

It seems to me you are failing to see the point I'm making.

I suppose Ukraine is the place to turn to if you want an example of a bulwark against Nazism, or an example of a wholly incorruptible government. How many Ukrainians served in the SS? Tens of thousands, wasn't it, with some of the worst units being Ukrainian? How many British served in the SS? Less than 50, wasn't it? And most of those cried off when it came to actually doing anything.

Government corruption perception results for 2014. Britain is 14th in the world with a score of 78, firmly in the first world category and ahead of some other indisputably first world countries, including France and the US. Ukraine is 142nd in the world with a score of 26, lowest ranking of all the major former Soviet states. If put into sub-Saharan Africa, which has the lowest general scores in the regions listed, Ukraine would be classed in the lowest third.

Methinks I prefer living in western Europe.

No problem, be my guest. But you, as well as Greyblades above, fail to see what I mean.

Your knee-jerk reaction is some thing like

- Excuse me, your shoe string went loose. Take care you don't step on it and trip over.
- Oh shut up. Mind your own shoes and strings.

What I want to you to do is to realize that in many respects the UK is not a lily-white impeccable democracy with unimpeachable reputation, both in the (recent) past and the present (as you seem to believe). You take ill any hints it might be otherwise adopting the style "You are fool yourself". And snobbery and isolationism you display is a poor help to own up to the truth.

I don't dispute that the UK has lower corruption than Ukraine or that more Ukrainians were fighting in SS divisions than Brits.
Yet let me remind you that if the leader of Britain (on behalf of those who voted for him and those who didn't) had behaved differently in Munich 1938, Ukrainians wouldn't have served in SS divisions.

A new-born Christian just told me that the Bible is partly rubbish, partially history, partially word of God mixed with pure propaganda. She de facto rejects the meaning of the Gospel, but refuses to go until the end of the logic.

Many smokers realize how pernicious their habit is, yet they don't go all the way the logic leads them and quit. The same with drugs, alcohol, gambling and McDonald's.
Human ways sometimes defy common sense.

As far as religious rites are concerned, some people follow them "to be on the safe side", if it turns out there really is something out there after death. Others do it because they like celebrating something. Still others because their environment do and they don't want to be looked askance upon.

Moreover, Bible (as well as other Holy books) are written by humans, so they are fraught with prejudices, mistakes, misconceptions and exaggerations. Any sensible believer must take them cum grano salis.

That is entirely false. "Render unto Caesar..." means basically don't refuse to pay taxes to earthly government, a concept existing in Islam.

And this is one more thing people are extremely fond of indulging in - interpreting Bible words. Partly because it gives tham a chance to say "No, you don't understand it" - and look sagacious.
There are no right or wrong interpretations of any scriptures - anyone can find in them what he likes and thinks correct and others can't prove him wrong because THEY DIDN'T WRITE IT. Only the author can.

Kadagar_AV

07-25-2015, 17:35

In 1015 Muslim countries were preserving knowledge from the Greeks and were even applying experimental data to build upon and challenge said knowledge. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Optics)

So?

So kad is being wrong, as usual. You know frag, just because you hate modern Islamic political fundamentalism (who doesn't), doesn't mean you have to hate Islam as it was practiced across thousands of years of human history.

So because the Arabs helped preserve ancient writings in their desert tribal culture, we should today, 2015 somehow not see Islam as an inherently evil political ideology and lunatic religion?

What in your reasoning has anything to do with how Islam effects the world and their followers today?

I mean, I can DIRECTLY see how, say, Sweden was before we had loads of Muslims, and now AFTER we have accepted a lot of Muslims...

Suddenly free speech is threatened, women are severly harassed, disrespected and raped, way WAY more general chaos in society. So if Islam is so inherently "good", how come it seems to take any society with muslims in it down the drain?

Fragony

07-26-2015, 03:26

Fair enough as well, I would first blame multiculturalists though. They are ruining Sweden by taking in the worst of the worst because they have something to prove.

Gilrandir

07-26-2015, 09:58

So if Islam is so inherently "good", how come it seems to take any society with muslims in it down the drain?
Some originally perfect ideas when implemented get derailed and end up in a mess. The most vivid example is the communist idea vs the way it was implemented in the USSR.

Kadagar_AV

07-26-2015, 15:30

Fair enough as well, I would first blame multiculturalists though. They are ruining Sweden by taking in the worst of the worst because they have something to prove.

True.

Some originally perfect ideas when implemented get derailed and end up in a mess. The most vivid example is the communist idea vs the way it was implemented in the USSR.

Some originally perfect ideas, sure... But let's face it, Islam wasn't an originally perfect idea... It is the ramblings of a desert living tribal pedophile warmonger from more than a thousand years ago.

lars573

07-26-2015, 16:18

That is entirely false. "Render unto Caesar..." means basically don't refuse to pay taxes to earthly government, a concept existing in Islam.

In fact, one of the reasons why rulers found it easy to embrace Christianity is precisely because of the concept of Divine Right - while before some ruler held to power through force or threat of force, now there was a divine concept that legitimized his rule. He was no longer a strongman, but someone sanctioned by divine power to rule over the common people and made it a sin to challenge his rule.

Not to mention that later Roman/Byzantine Emperors maintained a principle that their rule over entire Christian world was legitimate because they were viceroys of God on Earth.
Actually Divine right is a pre-chrisitan idea. Part of Diocletian's plan for stability after the crisis of the 3rd century. He propagated the idea that he was appointed by Jupiter to rule. Constantine, like early Christians oft did, scratched out the pagan god and scribbled in Jesus/Jehovah. Not to mention 2000 years of Chinese Imperial government was based on divine right. Religion in the specific has zero to do with how effective divine right is, but rather the large scale acceptance of a religion or religion-like philosophy that exposes divine right.

Gilrandir

07-27-2015, 14:28

Some originally perfect ideas, sure... But let's face it, Islam wasn't an originally perfect idea... It is the ramblings of a desert living tribal pedophile warmonger from more than a thousand years ago.

It wasn't a perfect idea, but it wasn't that bad, at least as far as tolerance of faith was concerned, in comparison to other confessions. I would refer you to Steve Runciman's "History of crusades" Volume I. He argues that the arrival of the First crusade wasn't welcomed by different Christian (mostly Orthodox) and Judaic congregations of Outremer since under Fatimids they had enjoyed all the religious rights and freedoms available in the Middle Ages.

Kadagar_AV

07-27-2015, 14:43

It wasn't a perfect idea, but it wasn't that bad, at least as far as tolerance of faith was concerned, in comparison to other confessions. I would refer you to Steve Runciman's "History of crusades" Volume I. He argues that the arrival of the First crusade wasn't welcomed by different Christian (mostly Orthodox) and Judaic congregations of Outremer since under Fatimids they had enjoyed all the religious rights and freedoms available in the Middle Ages.

Yeah... Still completely not related to the piece of **** religion and ideology it is today.

Society has MOVED ON, while Islam is still medieval desert tribal paedophilic hogwash...

Husar

07-27-2015, 15:15

Yeah... Still completely not related to the piece of **** religion and ideology it is today.

Society has MOVED ON, while Islam is still medieval desert tribal paedophilic hogwash...

Can you explain why it was so tolerant and comparatively enlightened during the middle ages if it is inherently not like that?

Can you explain why you say "still" after acknowledging that it was not always like that? You acknowledge that it was different (more enlightened) in medieval times, then you say it is "still medieval", you are contradicting yourself. How can you even say that the medieval ways of Islam were not related to what it is today when you claim that it was, is and always will be the way it is today?

Or do you just have talking points that you repeat endlessly without any kind of explanation or reasoning?

Gilrandir

07-27-2015, 15:41

Can you explain why you say "still" after acknowledging that it was not always like that? You acknowledge that it was different (more enlightened) in medieval times, then you say it is "still medieval", you are contradicting yourself.

Well, good for Middle Ages doesn't mean good for XXI century. I would say that while Christianity was gradually moving to more tolerance and less influence upon the society, Islam took an opposite course. Why it happened is a question for the more learnt in Muslim-lore.

Fragony

07-27-2015, 15:58

Really good book on that question https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad:_The_Trail_of_Political_Islam Bit dry though

edit, the wiki is completily incorrect, he takes it back much further, 1920, what the wiki says is a different book

Kadagar_AV

07-27-2015, 17:36

Can you explain why it was so tolerant and comparatively enlightened during the middle ages if it is inherently not like that?

Can you explain why you say "still" after acknowledging that it was not always like that? You acknowledge that it was different (more enlightened) in medieval times, then you say it is "still medieval", you are contradicting yourself. How can you even say that the medieval ways of Islam were not related to what it is today when you claim that it was, is and always will be the way it is today?

Or do you just have talking points that you repeat endlessly without any kind of explanation or reasoning?

Yes, I can explain it to you.

What was comparatively "tolerant and enlightened" some 1400 (!!!!!!!!!!!) years ago has little to no resemblance to what is considered enlightened, or tolerant, today.

So "still" makes perfect sense. They are STILL where they were some 1400 years ago, whereas the rest of the world (most parts) have moved on.

As to the bolded part, reading comprehension please? I have never claimed it was more tolerant back then that it is now, from the outset I have argued that it is exactly the same **** as it was back then.

BACK THEN it might have been enlightened in comparison to its times... But again, that was 1400 years ago.

So no, I in no way contradict myself.

In short: Islam is the ramblings of a desert living tribal pedophile warmonger from more than a thousand years ago. I wrote it already.

Fragony

07-27-2015, 18:06

I know you don't like it when I defend your position but 3 2 1

Kads is just right and you all know it

just did it, scuzi

HopAlongBunny

07-27-2015, 20:50

Maybe it's not "Islam"!!!! Might it better be described as individuals making choices:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-you-don-t-understand-about-suicide-attacks/

Kadagar_AV

07-27-2015, 22:20

Maybe it's not "Islam"!!!! Might it better be described as individuals making choices:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-you-don-t-understand-about-suicide-attacks/

The problem with Islam is that a whole lot of individuals are making poor and ill-informed choices.

Let's put it this way...

We have a young man, with a lot of problems in his life. You know, kind of like everyone.

Now, he opens his eyes up for religion.

A) He gets influenced by Jainism, that stress the importance of life, and their utmost followers sweep the floor in front of them as they walk... As to not kill some being...

B) He gets influenced by Islam, who stress the importance of Jihad and a (SEXUAL!!!! 72 virgins) reward in heaven if he fight and kill for it. Whose utmost followers blow themselves up to kill others.

Which case is more likely to have innocents killed?

Please, like PLEASE, stop blaming the stupid young guys, the world is full of them, and will always be full of them.

Kadagar_AV

07-29-2015, 00:22

/thread won.

Brandy Blue

07-29-2015, 03:17

Maybe it's not "Islam"!!!! Might it better be described as individuals making choices:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-you-don-t-understand-about-suicide-attacks/

I would summarize the article as follows:

1: some people are suicidal
2: Islam says that suicide is an unforgivable sin
3: Islam says that being martyred for your faith gets you into heaven no matter what.
4: Therefore Islam steers people away from ordinary suicide and toward suicide attacks.
5: The solution: Get out the word that Islam has got it wrong. They aren't noble martyrs. They're just people who think that their choice to kill themselves will be forgiven if they take others with them.

Sounds to me like the author hasn't exonerated Islam at all. Or did I misunderstand?