Now, these are not terrorists, right? Just your average muslim refugees...

[Gilrandir]

She doesn't practise it at all. But making a point out of abandoning it is more trouble than it's worth, she will get harrased, people will come at her parents door and ask them why they don't correct her.

Do you mean one has to blow a horn and ring a bell to proclaim one abandons worshipping? I thought one just stops going to mosque and others will understand.

Yes, there are loonies in all religions, because Religions attract loonies like honey bees.

Let's officially proclaim all monasteries lunatic asylums and churches psychatric clinics and have done with it.
Only I can name half a dozen other things which attract loonies: computer games, football, Communist party, casinos, Seliger conventions, gangsta rap (heavy metal thirty years ago, Beatles 60 years ago), G-7 meetings, social networks, horse track, drugs, anti-vaccine movement.... What are we to do with all of them?
It is like I said: people bring their attitude with them to whatever field you may mention. If this inherent attitude is violent, they will succed in distorting any originally perfect idea (like Communism). So one is to critisize people not the games they play.

So unless we become poor or make Putin nuke our continent they will continue to come here even if we burn all our hippies at the stakes.

Oh no. Not Putin again. Do you remember that Sarmatian... wait, you say there's the mysterious "us". Then proceed. I shouldn't really "meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger".

Then maybe he should say "Some muslims sure have a habit of terrorism."

Let us put it this way: Not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims.

[Montmorency]

So one is to critisize people not the games they play.

Well, both actually, but in the proper context. For example:

Let us put it this way: Not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims.

The Muslim world numbers in the billions of individuals, and it is in civil war.

That's the key here.

Think the European Wars of Religion mediated by contemporary globalization and technological influence on society.

Ultimately the religion itself proves a trivial factor here (that is, the problem of Muslim terrorism).


Think about this:

Why did the Puritans succeed economically? If you take the Weberian approach, because their religious culture influenced their economic practices.

That's all well and good, and I would agree to a large extent. "Illusions have causal influence", after all.

However, now consider this question:

Why did the Puritans go to America?

Was it because of their religion in any meaningful way? Probably not. It's not like they had anywhere else to go. Geography and politics is the answer to this question, not religion.

[Gilrandir]

Well, both actually, but in the proper context. For example:



The Muslim world numbers in the billions of individuals, and it is in civil war.

That's the key here.

Think the European Wars of Religion mediated by contemporary globalization and technological influence on society.

Ultimately the religion itself proves a trivial factor here (that is, the problem of Muslim terrorism).


Think about this:

Why did the Puritans succeed economically? If you take the Weberian approach, because their religious culture influenced their economic practices.

That's all well and good, and I would agree to a large extent. "Illusions have causal influence", after all.

However, now consider this question:

Why did the Puritans go to America?

Was it because of their religion in any meaningful way? Probably not. It's not like they had anywhere else to go. Geography and politics is the answer to this question, not religion.

A disclaimer: in case someone didn't get it - my conclusion on muslims vs terrorists was a sarcasm.
What I meant by people and games: religion (as well as any other social practice and activity) can move people both to good and bad things. There no sense in blaming religion (or any other social ptactice) in what people do.

[Husar]

Oh no. Not Putin again. Do you remember that Sarmatian...

You couldn't just quietly enjoy that, could you?

wait, you say there's the mysterious "us". Then proceed. I shouldn't really "meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger".

Of course there is a mysterious "us", if there is no "us" then there are no immigrants "here".

[Montmorency]

No, but it is important - as are all aspects of culture, right? The point is to avoid trivialization. Sociologically-speaking, how do elements of cultural contribute to behavior? Also, how do elements of social structure contribute to behavior? How do structure and culture interact?

It's very intellectually-lazy to just declare that everything Muslims do is determined by their religion(s), and that therefore everything that Muslims do which I don't like is determined by their religion(s). On the other hand, painting all humans as "unique individuals and special snowflakes" is just a libertarian delusion.

The best way to approach it, all-in-all, is to note some basic facts that most would agree with:

1. The world is too globalized for societies to avoid or ignore each other.
2. The conflicts of individual Muslim societies, as with most societies through history, are strongly local or regional.
3. The Muslim world as a whole is experiencing more instability than any other segment of the world.
3.a. There are conflicting influences of individualism and collectivism, democracy and totalitarianism in politics.
3.b. Economic inequality is present, and economic inequality leads to political unrest and mobilization.
3.c. Technology enhances communication, mobilization, and information transfer.
3.d. There are major sectarian divides within and between Muslim societies that overlap with differences in intra-society social power and inter-society economic and political power.
4. Religious identities can strongly mediate other identities during times of turmoil or stress.

What do we get when we combine all of this?

[Montmorency]

TLDR: Muslim terrorism both within the Muslim world and against the West is largely a product of internal struggles and transitions in that world. And a problem situation affecting billions in a specific set of ways, in this day and age, is a global issue with global consequences. Muslim terrorism can only disappear if and when these issues are worked out.

Unfortunately, due to the size of the problem and interconnectedness of the contemporary world, the issues cannot be worked out without major accompanying changes throughout all societies across the world - European society, Chinese society, American society, etc.

Sorry to break it to the thread, but there are no easy solutions, and certainly not anything like "Keep Muslims out of the West".

[Fragony]

Where's the terrorism in throwing people off a refugee boat in the middle of nowhere?
Who is grasping at straws here?
It's murder and they're being prosecuted, they didn't even have any weapons and failed once the others united against them. The extrapolation from a few extremists to all muslims is just stupid. If I were to find all the murder cases of New York (328 in 2014!) and claim that "New Yorkers sure have a habit of murder" it would be just as stupid.

It's right there, 'extrapolation to all muslims'. Kads never did such a thing, it's unfair.

[Gilrandir]

You couldn't just quietly enjoy that, could you?

I have to live up to Sarmatian's description of me - remember - The Nitpicker.
If there is any need I will switch on the Weaseler-Out or CheapShooter mode.
For Sarmatian not to hear us (imagine I'm whispering): we can't discuss it here - it may derail the thread.

[Husar]

It's right there, 'extrapolation to all muslims'. Kads never did such a thing, it's unfair.

He did when he said "Muslims sure seem to have a habit of terrorism.". That's a generalization based on the acts of a few.

I have to live up to Sarmatian's description of me - remember - The Nitpicker.
If there is any need I will switch on the Weaseler-Out or CheapShooter mode.
For Sarmatian not to hear us (imagine I'm whispering): we can't discuss it here - it may derail the thread.

One could also claim that you derailed the thread when your pride couldn't just swallow his request and ignore it.

[Gilrandir]

One could also claim that you derailed the thread when your pride couldn't just swallow his request and ignore it.

I believe that in a discussion one has to defend one's stance (otherwise it is not a dicussion but imposing one's views and pushing others around) while no one can force anyone to swallow anything they like at their bidding.
But there is good news for you and Sarmatian: the thread survived!!!

[Fragony]

He did when he said "Muslims sure seem to have a habit of terrorism.". That's a generalization based on the acts of a few

It's also simply true, but it's still not saying that all muslims are like that, as you make it appear lime what is said

[Husar]

It's also simply true, but it's still not saying that all muslims are like that, as you make it appear lime what is said

"The dutch sure seem to have a habit of wearing wooden shoes." is also a correct statement then and "The Americans sure seem to have a habit of shooting innocent people.". How about "The Germany sure seem to have a habit of being nazis." or "The jews sure seem to have a habit of hoarding money and murdering Palestinians."? All correct and harmless statements? Kadagar sure seems to have a habit of making statements that are then misunderstood.

[Kadagar_AV]

Geez what confusion...

I meant exactly what I said, muslims have a terrorism problem that they among themselves do too little about... I don't know how it is in other countries, but at least here in Sweden the muslim extremists are respected and allowed in mosques, and younger muslims often view the extremists as "the cool clique"...

Maybe there is an absolute OUTRAGE in the muslim world when muslims terrorize others... Maybe?

I for one sure haven't seen it though.

In England a poll recently showed that IIRC 75% of English muslims want sharia laws... So it's not exactly a "small group" or "minority" of muslims who are lunatic, it's the vast majority of them, even amongst the ones dwelling in western countries.

Are all muslims terrorists? Of course not, never have I said or even thought it.

Does the muslim community have a terrorism problem at large, that they do too little about in and of themselves, yes, I absolutely think so.

[Fragony]

"The dutch sure seem to have a habit of wearing wooden shoes." is also a correct statement then and "The Americans sure seem to have a habit of shooting innocent people.". How about "The Germany sure seem to have a habit of being nazis." or "The jews sure seem to have a habit of hoarding money and murdering Palestinians."? All correct and harmless statements? Kadagar sure seems to have a habit of making statements that are then misunderstood.

Kads is just being realistic and calls a spade a spade. Islamapolgists just keep looking for relativation. The worst thing about that is that you probably know you are bullshitting yourself.

[Kralizec]

In England a poll recently showed that IIRC 75% of English muslims want sharia laws... So it's not exactly a "small group" or "minority" of muslims who are lunatic, it's the vast majority of them, even amongst the ones dwelling in western countries.

Source please? I'm not saying that you're lying, but poll results are often misunderstood. Frag once referred to a Dutch poll where 80% (more or less) of Dutch muslims supposedly said that they sympathise with IS. This was in fact a deliberate misquotation by Geert Wilders of an opinion poll taken just after the start of the uprising in Syria, before anybody even heard of IS(IS). The question of the poll actually was 'do you support the Syrian opposition'.

[Fragony]

Source please? I'm not saying that you're lying, but poll results are often misunderstood. Frag once referred to a Dutch poll where 80% (more or less) of Dutch muslims supposedly said that they sympathise with IS. This was in fact a deliberate misquotation by Geert Wilders of an opinion poll taken just after the start of the uprising in Syria, before anybody even heard of IS(IS). The question of the poll actually was 'do you support the Syrian opposition'.

I nuanced that myselve mind you, IS wasn't there at the time, only the fight agaist Assad, no foul play, if you look for the post you will see me saying the same thing.

[Husar]

We could look at Pew Research:
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/t...iety-overview/

Overwhelming percentages of Muslims in many countries want Islamic law (sharia) to be the official law of the land, according to a worldwide survey by the Pew Research Center. But many supporters of sharia say it should apply only to their country’s Muslim population.

Moreover, Muslims are not equally comfortable with all aspects of sharia: While most favor using religious law in family and property disputes, fewer support the application of severe punishments – such as whippings or cutting off hands – in criminal cases. The survey also shows that Muslims differ widely in how they interpret certain aspects of sharia, including whether divorce and family planning are morally acceptable.

It doesn't cover the UK however, the most recent polls I could find about the UK are shocking though:

40% - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...law-in-UK.html
37% - http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/j...religion/print
30-40% - http://chersonandmolschky.com/2014/0...ria-law-world/

Not exactly 75% but 40% is close I guess. The last link has central Europe at 65% on average in the summary, a document I found from a german ministry earlier didn't see a huge potential for extremism among german muslims however. Which parts of Sharia people want or whether they all interprete it in the same way or whether they even want it to apply to non-muslims is however hard to convey with a single percentage number.

[Sarmatian]

Kads is just being realistic and calls a spade a spade. Islamapolgists just keep looking for relativation. The worst thing about that is that you probably know you are bullshitting yourself.

Problem is that both you and Kads are refusing to look at actual statistics. For example, when it comes to Intentional Murder rates, first 20 countries are all predominantly Christian.

It has much more to do with poverty and education than with religion.

[Kadagar_AV]

Problem is that both you and Kads are refusing to look at actual statistics. For example, when it comes to Intentional Murder rates, first 20 countries are all predominantly Christian.

It has much more to do with poverty and education than with religion.

Eh...

Have I ever... I mean like... Ever... Left out the ethnical or cultural perspective?

I would argue quite the contrary, that if it's one person on these boards who have shine some lights on these issues it would be me

[CrossLOPER]

Have I ever... I mean like... Ever...

Most of your posts are overly dramatic and take an innocently defensive stance whenever you are not trying to be edgy, so it is hard to really pick out what is what.

[Kadagar_AV]

Most of your posts are overly dramatic and take an innocently defensive stance whenever you are not trying to be edgy, so it is hard to really pick out what is what.

Just... Take the words at face value?

It sounds like an easy thing to do, but I have noticed that people are vehemently against it, as most are coded by media to react to cues instead of thinking themselves.

My words mean exactly what I mean to tell... If YOU start to read things into it, it's your problem (and I will deem you an idiot because of it), not mine.

[Husar]

Just... Take the words at face value?
[...]
My words mean exactly what I mean to tell... If YOU start to read things into it, it's your problem (and I will deem you an idiot because of it), not mine.

That's exactly the problem, so then I read this:

Muslims sure seem to have a habit of terrorism.

And you say they have a habit of, which means: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/habit

customary practice or use
[...]
a dominant or regular disposition or tendency; prevailing character or quality

and I say it's rubbish because it is not a prevailing characteristic of muslims to use terrorism.
And then we get this:

I meant exactly what I said, muslims have a terrorism problem [...]

Which is a statement I would rather agree with (not counting the part I left out) but not exactly the same as having a habit no matter how long you claim to be consistent or accurate in what you say.

[Fragony]

Most of your posts are overly dramatic and take an innocently defensive stance whenever you are not trying to be edgy, so it is hard to really pick out what is what.

Really easy, it's called being realistic.

[CrossLOPER]

Really easy, it's called being realistic.

This is a subjective statement.

[Kadagar_AV]

They have a habit of...

They have a problem with...

Was that the origin of your confusion Husar?

Regardless, I hope I explained my perspective perfectly clear now at least :)

[Fragony]

This is a subjective statement.

Not liking you personally is realistic as well.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, these are overloaded boats in the most part, and most folks don't handle such things like Guggenheim.

Typically, the persons most like you are the ones you protect, those least like you the first to be tossed. That's been true of most cultures throughout history -- terrorism doesn't enter into it particularly.



The real answer is for the EU to send an occupying force to Libya in order to establish security while a stable, institutionalized democracy takes control of the country.

[Brenus]

"The real answer is for the EU to send an occupying force to Libya in order to establish security while a stable, institutionalized democracy takes control of the country." We tried it before, didn't work. It is call colonialism.
US didn't believed Europe and tried it as well. Didn't work.

Solution: Developp the countries, stop free trade and free pillaging. We won't do it, Monsantos, Shell, ESSO and others big companies need markets and cheap labor.

[Sarmatian]

It sounds like an easy thing to do, but I have noticed that people are vehemently against it, as most are coded by media to react to cues instead of thinking themselves.

At face value, this means: Anyone who disagrees with me is an indoctrinated drone.

[CrossLOPER]

Not liking you personally is realistic as well.

No need to get emotional.

You views are subjective. A more appropriate term would be myopic. You constantly complain about how Islam is an evil problem and cite countless anecdotes and second hand narratives. You take in events and fit them to support your views. You seem to be incapable of really dissecting issues and rely on generalizations and circumstances and posit them as undisputed fact.

Most of the arguments you've had over the years boil down to meme-like constructs where racists try to "prove" the inferiority of blacks by posting pictures of mudhuts somewhere in the middle of African tribeland and then post a marvelous European baroque structure from its period, completely ignoring the horrid squalor most citizens lived in during that time period.

Point is, its seems to me that you aren't seeing the big picture.