UK General Election 2017

[Idaho]

A good point worth making:
66% of people recently said that british FP is in some part responsible for terrorist atrocities such as manchester.
but, about the same proportion tell chatham house each year that they support britain as a great power.

How do we marry these two apparent contradictions?

Easy, their may well be a link between our FP and terrorism, but it is a price worth paying for the role people wish their country to play.

You have to wonder who benefits and who loses from terrorism. As a strategy for making the electorate change course on foreign policy, it's counterproductive. States use the fear to push for greater powers and to extend ambitions abroad. The background hum of fear is a boon to right wing parties and arms companies.

[Husar]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...loan-benefits/

So, apparently he used his student loan to fund trips to Libya.

You know, the Libya without Gaddaffi?

The one you fixed, yes.
I wonder why he didn't learn about democratic values there given that Britain fixed it for him as Pannonian likes to point out.

[Pannonian]

This incident should be an eye opener for anyone neutral who didn't believe that there are those who will blame Britain for all the ills in the world, even where someone raised by the state decides to kill children at a concert.

[Husar]

In this particular case, according to Abedi's sister, it was US foreign policy that made her brother want to attack Britain. What the hell are we supposed to do about that?

Distance yourself from their actions very loudly, criticize them and declare to the world that you want no part in this and won't trade military technology and intelligence with them anymore as long as they do this. You know, like everyone demands that the muslims do to absolve themselves from blame when their (perceived) "allies" do something terrible.

This incident should be an eye opener for anyone neutral who didn't believe that there are those who will blame Britain for all the ills in the world, even where someone raised by the state decides to kill children at a concert.

Or an eye opener for those who did not want to believe that some Brits turn into a broken record because they cannot wrap their head around the idea that their country may make mistakes. "Raised by the state" is really funny in this context, since you either blame the British state yourself now or try to use an upbringing as an argument that counts as the worst possible upbringing in most other countries.

In your argument with Montmorency you keep talking about all your muslim friends who turned out fine, but ignore how an upbringing in London and Manchester or even in different parts of a town can be very different and lead to fundamentally different world views. You're trying to simplify the argument to the point that it does not reflect the real world anymore when you propose that all British (muslim) children receive the same upbringing and can be directly compared.

[Gilrandir]

Fun facts:
1) 60% of Muslim in the UK witnessed or experienced discrimination against Muslims in 2015
2) 63% experienced subtle discrimination, where they were talked down to, called stupid or had their opinions minimised or devalued.
3) More than 50% said they've been overlooked, ignored or denied service in restaurants, transports and public offices.
4) 75% said they've experienced strangers staring at them.

All of these are to be taken seriously ONLY IF it can be proved that 1) the perpetrators KNEW THEY WERE DEALING WITH MUSLIMS and 2) knowing they were dealing with Muslims was the chief motif behind their behavior. Otherwise it will sound like 100% of European women in bathing suits having a walk in Riyadh downtown claim they were stared upon or were denied services in reataurants because they were Christians.

[Sarmatian]

Er, no. In schools, Muslim kids suffer bullying, not because they're Muslims, but because they're kids. That's what kids do. They fix on anything remotely different, and tease or bully based on that. It's part of the process of growing up, learning to interact with others.

That's bollox. Teacher suggesting in class that everyone should wear T-shirts representing Mohamed to piss of Muslim among other drivel. Kid goes home after that class, gets stopped by a few older kids, who, aside from flinging a few typical racial insults like "Paki" proceed to call him a terrorist and slap him around.

Just a normal part of growing up.

I work in education in a region where there are over 20 different ethnic groups. I know the difference between kids picking on each other and serious discrimination. This was not harmless.

And as for "Not that easy to accept your new nation as a home."; he was born here. The moment his mother spat him out, this was his nation. Unless you're suggesting that the country he was born in and which raised him is not his nation, but is overridden by some other nation.

Being born somewhere doesn't make really make you a part of that society. If you're denied service in public offices, if you're talked down to, if you hear politicians saying that you should be driven out of the country, that you're a danger to society, if you get bullied and beaten up because of that, if you're discriminated against at work... you're not going to feel at home there.

People who have not been discriminated against usually don't have the faintest idea how it feels.

[Pannonian]

That's bollox. Teacher suggesting in class that everyone should wear T-shirts representing Mohamed to piss of Muslim among other drivel. Kid goes home after that class, gets stopped by a few older kids, who, aside from flinging a few typical racial insults like "Paki" proceed to call him a terrorist and slap him around.

Just a normal part of growing up.

I work in education in a region where there are over 20 different ethnic groups. I know the difference between kids picking on each other and serious discrimination. This was not harmless.



Being born somewhere doesn't make really make you a part of that society. If you're denied service in public offices, if you're talked down to, if you hear politicians saying that you should be driven out of the country, that you're a danger to society, if you get bullied and beaten up because of that, if you're discriminated against at work... you're not going to feel at home there.

People who have not been discriminated against usually don't have the faintest idea how it feels.

I apologise. It turns out Abedi was bullied as a kid.

Friends recalled that he was not very devout as a younger teenager, and was teased about his prominent ears and given the nickname Dumbo.

A traumatic experience I'm sure, and which turned him into what he became.

One friend said Abedi started fights in the street for no reason, while another told of an incident in which he punched a female classmate in the head, saying “he could have killed her”, because he didn’t approve of what she was wearing.

And because people keep missing this point despite my repeating it numerous times.

Jomana Abedi said her brother had been driven by a desire to seek “revenge” for US military attacks in the Middle East.

[Furunculus]

You have to wonder who benefits and who loses from terrorism. As a strategy for making the electorate change course on foreign policy, it's counterproductive. States use the fear to push for greater powers and to extend ambitions abroad. The background hum of fear is a boon to right wing parties and arms companies.

It [can] be counterproductive:
It was extremely productive in 2004 in Spain in getting the country to withdraw from Iraq.
Less so in Britain, and i imagine the same can be said of france.
The reaction depends on [your] conception of your country's role in world affairs.
The chatham house foriegn policy poll conducted every year (i think), is illuminating.

In this particular case, according to Abedi's sister, it was US foreign policy that made her brother want to attack Britain. What the hell are we supposed to do about that?

Sure, but from the point of view of whether we should continue to have an activist foriegn policy, does it matter what the motivations of one little nutcase is? Surely it is simply too micro to the macro conception of our world role?

[Pannonian]

It [can] be counterproductive:
It was extremely productive in 2004 in Spain in getting the country to withdraw from Iraq.
Less so in Britain, and i imagine the same can be said of france.
The recation depends on [your] conception of your country's role in world affairs.
The chatham house foriegn policy poll conducted every year (i think), is illuminating.

Abedi bombed kids in Manchester to force the US to withdraw from Syria.

[Husar]

All of these are to be taken seriously ONLY IF it can be proved that 1) the perpetrators KNEW THEY WERE DEALING WITH MUSLIMS and 2) knowing they were dealing with Muslims was the chief motif behind their behavior. Otherwise it will sound like 100% of European women in bathing suits having a walk in Riyadh downtown claim they were stared upon or were denied services in reataurants because they were Christians.

They are still valid regarding how muslims perceive their reception in Britain. There's always some excuse for how the racists can be racist because the muslims make it so easy to perceive them as evil, but the other way around it's somehow the muslims' fault that they perceive a lot of Britons to be racist? It easily turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy on both sides, especially when the response to this perception is very aggressive. Yes, of course the response by muslims is often wrong, terrorism and rioting in the streets just don't help, but neither do racists policy proposals, spitting on foreign-looking people and all the other little things racists may do to make them feel not accepted.

Now what a lot of people seem to think is that the more powerful side should be the first to break the circle and extend a hand. Muslims make up 4.4% of the population of the UK, clearly they are the more powerful side here.

[Pannonian]

They are still valid regarding how muslims perceive their reception in Britain. There's always some excuse for how the racists can be racist because the muslims make it so easy to perceive them as evil, but the other way around it's somehow the muslims' fault that they perceive a lot of Britons to be racist? It easily turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy on both sides, especially when the response to this perception is very aggressive. Yes, of course the response by muslims is often wrong, terrorism and rioting in the streets just don't help, but neither do racists policy proposals, spitting on foreign-looking people and all the other little things racists may do to make them feel not accepted.

Now what a lot of people seem to think is that the more powerful side should be the first to break the circle and extend a hand. Muslims make up 4.4% of the population of the UK, clearly they are the more powerful side here.

Should we take action against kids who tease other kids for having big ears?

[Husar]

Should we take action against kids who tease other kids for having big ears?

Of course.

[Sarmatian]

I apologise. It turns out Abedi was bullied as a kid.

A traumatic experience I'm sure, and which turned him into what he became.

And because people keep missing this point despite my repeating it numerous times.

You can play ignorant all you want. I'm talking about a trend. Whether this one case falls into that category or not is irrelevant.

You may also note that it appears his parents weren't really democrats oppressed by Gaddafi, but religious fundamentalists disapproving of a mostly secular regime. They were given refugee in UK. And then a coalition which included UK directly intervened to oust Gadaffi.

So, in this case at least, we can talk about direct consequences of UK's foreign policies.

[Pannonian]

You can play ignorant all you want. I'm talking about a trend. Whether this one case falls into that category or not is irrelevant.

You may also note that it appears his parents weren't really democrats oppressed by Gaddafi, but religious fundamentalists disapproving of a mostly secular regime. They were given refugee in UK. And then a coalition which included UK directly intervened to oust Gadaffi.

So, in this case at least, we can talk about direct consequences of UK's foreign policies.

I can't disagree on the direct consequences of the UK's foreign policies bit. I've said for a while that our best bet, if we are to intervene at all, is to prop up dictators rather than instigate democracy. Democracy in that region tends towards Islamism. Dictatorship, as brutal as the individual cares to be, is the most effective bulwark against Islamism in that region. If there's already a dictator there repressing the Muslim population, count ourselves lucky that we don't need to get our hands dirty to reach this state of affairs. Although people like Abedi may decide to kill our kids anyway to effect change in arseholeland, with apologists saying that it's our fault for intervening/not intervening (cross off as appropriate).

[Pannonian]

You can play ignorant all you want. I'm talking about a trend. Whether this one case falls into that category or not is irrelevant.

You may also note that it appears his parents weren't really democrats oppressed by Gaddafi, but religious fundamentalists disapproving of a mostly secular regime. They were given refugee in UK. And then a coalition which included UK directly intervened to oust Gadaffi.

So, in this case at least, we can talk about direct consequences of UK's foreign policies.

Another primary source on why ISIS hates the west, as opposed to your high horse theoretical moralism. I'll link to a secondary article, but you can google the mag itself. The original is the official ISIS mag.

Why We Hate you and Want to Fight You

1. Because you are disbelievers
"We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices."

2 . Because you are liberal
"We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited while banning many of the things He has permitted, a matter that doesn’t concern you because you Christian disbelief and paganism 32 separate between religion and state, thereby granting supreme authority to your whims and desires via the legislators you vote into power."

3. Because some of you are atheist
"In the case of the atheist fringe, we hate you and wage war against you because you disbelieve in the existence of your Lord and Creator."

4. For your crimes against Islam
"We hate you for your crimes against Islam and wage war against you to punish you for your transgressions against our religion."

5. For your crimes against Muslims
"We hate you for your crimes against the Muslims; your drones and fighter jets bomb, kill, and maim our people around the world, and your puppets in the usurped lands of the Muslims oppress, torture, and wage war against anyone who calls to the truth."

6. For invading our lands
"We hate you for invading our lands and fight you to repel you and drive you out. As long as there is an inch of territory left for us to reclaim, jihad will continue to be a personal obligation on every single Muslim."

"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."

Yup, even if we were to stop intervening in the middle east, they would still hate us and find reason to attack us (NB. An act of terrorism? Most definitely. Muslims have been commanded to terrorize the disbelieving enemies of Allah."). So the only way to satisfactorily accommodate them is to convert to the ISIS-brand of Islam. Do the moralists still think we're not sufficiently accommodating them?

[Sarmatian]

I can't disagree on the direct consequences of the UK's foreign policies bit. I've said for a while that our best bet, if we are to intervene at all, is to prop up dictators rather than instigate democracy. Democracy in that region tends towards Islamism. Dictatorship, as brutal as the individual cares to be, is the most effective bulwark against Islamism in that region. If there's already a dictator there repressing the Muslim population, count ourselves lucky that we don't need to get our hands dirty to reach this state of affairs. Although people like Abedi may decide to kill our kids anyway to effect change in arseholeland, with apologists saying that it's our fault for intervening/not intervening (cross off as appropriate).

I'm not trying to be an apologist, especially not for terrorists. My opposition stems from the fact that I'm tired of simple solutions for complex problems. There are a plethora of factors at play here. Singling out one arbitrarily and trying to deal with it is not going to give us a solution. Especially as singling out isn't conducted under any logical standards but is influenced by cultural stereotypes and biases.

Like we're discussing cancer, and someone says "let's stop eating bacon" and then someone "no, we should ban all cars", and then proceed to argue who's right. Both (unhealthy diet and air pollution) have an effect on ones chances to get cancer, but even if both solutions were applied, people would still get cancer.

So, we need try for a more comprehensive solution, realize that it will take a long time for it to take effect and even then won't rid the world of terrorism completely. We also take into account which possible solutions are unacceptable due to our values. For instance Americans hold their right to bear arms in high regard. That means they will have to deal much more often with some kids going to their grandad's arsenal, borrowing a bunch of military weapons and go on a killing spree in their own school.

Another primary source on why ISIS hates the west, as opposed to your high horse theoretical moralism. I'll link to a secondary article, but you can google the mag itself. The original is the official ISIS mag.

Yup, even if we were to stop intervening in the middle east, they would still hate us and find reason to attack us (NB. An act of terrorism? Most definitely. Muslims have been commanded to terrorize the disbelieving enemies of Allah."). So the only way to satisfactorily accommodate them is to convert to the ISIS-brand of Islam. Do the moralists still think we're not sufficiently accommodating them?

I have no reason to doubt the contents of the article, but I see two major issues with your conclusion.

1) You're equating propaganda with policy. If that were true, we'd see terrorist attacks in Lima, Caracas and Quito with the same frequency as we see attacks in Paris, London and Berlin.
2) You're equating Muslims and Isis. That makes no sense. It's a logical fallacy. Steve is evil -> Steve is a man -> all men are evil. It simply doesn't follow.

[Pannonian]

I'm not trying to be an apologist, especially not for terrorists. My opposition stems from the fact that I'm tired of simple solutions for complex problems. There are a plethora of factors at play here. Singling out one arbitrarily and trying to deal with it is not going to give us a solution. Especially as singling out isn't conducted under any logical standards but is influenced by cultural stereotypes and biases.

Like we're discussing cancer, and someone says "let's stop eating bacon" and then someone "no, we should ban all cars", and then proceed to argue who's right. Both (unhealthy diet and air pollution) have an effect on ones chances to get cancer, but even if both solutions were applied, people would still get cancer.

So, we need try for a more comprehensive solution, realize that it will take a long time for it to take effect and even then won't rid the world of terrorism completely. We also take into account which possible solutions are unacceptable due to our values. For instance Americans hold their right to bear arms in high regard. That means they will have to deal much more often with some kids going to their grandad's arsenal, borrowing a bunch of military weapons and go on a killing spree in their own school.

I have no reason to doubt the contents of the article, but I see two major issues with your conclusion.

1) You're equating propaganda with policy. If that were true, we'd see terrorist attacks in Lima, Caracas and Quito with the same frequency as we see attacks in Paris, London and Berlin.
2) You're equating Muslims and Isis. That makes no sense. It's a logical fallacy. Steve is evil -> Steve is a man -> all men are evil. It simply doesn't follow.

If you reckon I'm approaching this in too simplistic a manner, then note what Haras Rafiq says in that video I posted. You're illustrating his point, as are the other apologists. There is a simple paradigmatic first step which you and others avoid, as he notes many people do.

[Montmorency]

1) You're equating propaganda with policy. If that were true, we'd see terrorist attacks in Lima, Caracas and Quito with the same frequency as we see attacks in Paris, London and Berlin.

You can't really say so on the basis. South America would be a difficult operating environment (they would have to build it from scratch) and neither allied Muslims nor Europeans would be too impressed to see a soldier of God gunning down Quechuan villagers. What's the payoff?

Importantly, attacks in Europe by Al Qaeda and ISIS footsoldiers can be counted on one's fingers, while in North Africa they take place with regularity, because North Africa is the most natural operating environment, logistically and culturally. Meanwhile, local groups throughout Africa and Asia have conducted attacks on non-Muslims in their regions for years.

Don't get me wrong - the current security situation is lax enough that the first attacks could be fairly devastating, since Latin American states are not oriented toward that threat. Yet I don't see any incentive for Islamists to branch into Latin America, or any endogenous support base they can work with to do so. Cartels vs. Islamists then would be a nice prospect, if the two weren't busy doing illicit commerce with each other.

[Pannonian]

You can't really say so on the basis. South America would be a difficult operating environment (they would have to build it from scratch) and neither allied Muslims nor Europeans would be too impressed to see a soldier of God gunning down Quechuan villagers. What's the payoff?

Importantly, attacks in Europe by Al Qaeda and ISIS footsoldiers can be counted on one's fingers, while in North Africa they take place with regularity, because North Africa is the most natural operating environment, logistically and culturally. Meanwhile, local groups throughout Africa and Asia have conducted attacks on non-Muslims in their regions for years.

Don't get me wrong - the current security situation is lax enough that the first attacks could be fairly devastating, since Latin American states are not oriented toward that threat. Yet I don't see any incentive for Islamists to branch into Latin America, or any endogenous support base they can work with to do so. Cartels vs. Islamists then would be a nice prospect, if the two weren't busy doing illicit commerce with each other.

See Haras Rafiq's primary point in that video.

[Gilrandir]

Steve is evil -> Steve is a man -> all men are evil. It simply doesn't follow.

It is about time to realize it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No. Muslim kids will suffer discrimination and bullying because they are Muslims. And every time anti-Muslim hysteria rises, they're gonna suffer more of it.

Then they will come home, turn on the tv and there will be panel of experts discussing how Muslim are dangerous, how they can never be integrated, how they need to be force converted, expelled, imprisoned, tortured etc... They will then move on to internet and find even more abuse, comparing them with rats and hyenas, explaining how they are subhumans, barbaric, encounter suggestions that Muslims should be cleansed from one or more places, hashtags #killallmuslims and so on.

Not that easy to accept your new nation as a home.

Fun facts:
1) 60% of Muslim in the UK witnessed or experienced discrimination against Muslims in 2015
2) 63% experienced subtle discrimination, where they were talked down to, called stupid or had their opinions minimised or devalued.
3) More than 50% said they've been overlooked, ignored or denied service in restaurants, transports and public offices.
4) 75% said they've experienced strangers staring at them.

None of this really excuses mass murder, of course, but let's stop pretending everything is fine and dandy.

According to many of my students of African descent, they cope with the same exact....stuff.....from many whites in the USA, and at about the same percentages. They become political activists and sometimes get involved in riots. They do not blow up crowded markets or youth concerts.

[Sarmatian]

You can't really say so on the basis. South America would be a difficult operating environment (they would have to build it from scratch) and neither allied Muslims nor Europeans would be too impressed to see a soldier of God gunning down Quechuan villagers. What's the payoff?

Exactly. If your decision making process is influenced by payoff, it means there's a logical process behind it. If it weren't they'd be killing all Christians everywhere in the world indiscriminately.

Or, if you want another example - Russia was not a target for the Middle Eastern terrorists prior to their involvement in Syria. After that, they've had a few attacks. Likewise, Caucasus Muslims performed regular terrorist attacks in Russia but were almost completely avoiding western European countries.

According to many of my students of African descent, they cope with the same exact....stuff.....from many whites in the USA, and at about the same percentages. They become political activists and sometimes get involved in riots. They do not blow up crowded markets or youth concerts.

Not nearly to the same extent.

I'm not offering an excuse for the attack, or saying it is UK's fault. I was just refuting the idea that Muslims have it so good in UK.

In this case, an argument could be made that it is UK's fault, not because the way Muslim are treated in the country, but because of their intervention in Libya, but even that is a stretch.

According to that article, Abedi was a seriously damaged individual.

[Pannonian]

Exactly. If your decision making process is influenced by payoff, it means there's a logical process behind it. If it weren't they'd be killing all Christians everywhere in the world indiscriminately.

Or, if you want another example - Russia was not a target for the Middle Eastern terrorists prior to their involvement in Syria. After that, they've had a few attacks. Likewise, Caucasus Muslims performed regular terrorist attacks in Russia but were almost completely avoiding western European countries.



Not nearly to the same extent.

I'm not offering an excuse for the attack, or saying it is UK's fault. I was just refuting the idea that Muslims have it so good in UK.

In this case, an argument could be made that it is UK's fault, not because the way Muslim are treated in the country, but because of their intervention in Libya, but even that is a stretch.

According to that article, Abedi was a seriously damaged individual.

And that argument is refuted by ISIS itself, who emphasise that the foreign intervention argument is largely irrelevant. See Haras Rafiq for the principle point of the problem.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not nearly to the same extent.

I'm not offering an excuse for the attack, or saying it is UK's fault. I was just refuting the idea that Muslims have it so good in UK.

In this case, an argument could be made that it is UK's fault, not because the way Muslim are treated in the country, but because of their intervention in Libya, but even that is a stretch.

According to that article, Abedi was a seriously damaged individual.

I would say that Blacks in the US probably have it much worse than Muslims in the UK. Anti-Muslim prejudice (as opposed to general British racism) is a very modern thing, essentially post 9/11, a lot of it comes out of early statements made by the Muslim Council of Great Britain which essentially refused to condemn fellow Muslims. This reticence did eventually break down, largely I think as the MCB was taken over by a younger generation. Nonetheless it has left the impression that most Muslims will not turn against "fellow Muslims" to protect non-Muslims from terrorism.

The prejudice is one born of recent experience, not a long-nursed hatred.

[Pannonian]

I would say that Blacks in the US probably have it much worse than Muslims in the UK. Anti-Muslim prejudice (as opposed to general British racism) is a very modern thing, essentially post 9/11, a lot of it comes out of early statements made by the Muslim Council of Great Britain which essentially refused to condemn fellow Muslims. This reticence did eventually break down, largely I think as the MCB was taken over by a younger generation. Nonetheless it has left the impression that most Muslims will not turn against "fellow Muslims" to protect non-Muslims from terrorism.

The prejudice is one born of recent experience, not a long-nursed hatred.

The primary problem is as Haras Rafiq describes, and it extends to non-Muslims with corollary problematic results. The problem is that Muslims are practicing a form of Islam. That's the primary problem. A related problem is when people refuse to recognise this, with the corollary problem that it makes it easier for Muslims to deny that this is the problem. If you look everywhere else but that to avoid recognising that it is a Muslim problem and deriving from Islam, then it makes it easier for Muslims, who are the source of the problem and the only long term solution to the problem, to avoid recognising it.

[Husar]

The primary problem is as Haras Rafiq describes, and it extends to non-Muslims with corollary problematic results. The problem is that Muslims are practicing a form of Islam.

The what?
Haras Rafiq practices "a form of islam" himself, is he part of the the problem himself? And why would you cite him them?
Surely you mean "a form of islamist salafi jihadist Islam" because that is what Rafiq said.

[Pannonian]

The what?
Haras Rafiq practices "a form of islam" himself, is he part of the the problem himself? And why would you cite him them?
Surely you mean "a form of islamist salafi jihadist Islam" because that is what Rafiq said.

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

[Sarmatian]

The primary problem is as Haras Rafiq describes, and it extends to non-Muslims with corollary problematic results. The problem is that Muslims are practicing a form of Islam. That's the primary problem. A related problem is when people refuse to recognise this, with the corollary problem that it makes it easier for Muslims to deny that this is the problem. If you look everywhere else but that to avoid recognising that it is a Muslim problem and deriving from Islam, then it makes it easier for Muslims, who are the source of the problem and the only long term solution to the problem, to avoid recognising it.

It is very dangerous to go down this road, because once you reach the conclusion that Muslims are the problem, a conclusion "no Muslims - no problems" isn't very far away.

It is a problem of perverted interpretation of Islamic teachings. Many Christian African countries treat gays appallingly - incarcerations, torture, murder. They cite Christian doctrine as the reason and justification. Why are people afraid to say that the problem is in the Christianity itself? We can't move on until we accept that. Ethiopia is predominantly a Christian country, yet Female Genital Mutilation is widespread there - when are we going to admit that Christianity is the problem?

If anyone would say that, people would assume he's crazy. Because it is Christianity. But Islam is okay. Lump them all together. It doesn't matter it's less than 0.01%. Islam is at fault and they are all dangerous.

[Pannonian]

It is very dangerous to go down this road, because once you reach the conclusion that Muslims are the problem, a conclusion "no Muslims - no problems" isn't very far away.

It is a problem of perverted interpretation of Islamic teachings. Many Christian African countries treat gays appallingly - incarcerations, torture, murder. They cite Christian doctrine as the reason and justification. Why are people afraid to say that the problem is in the Christianity itself? We can't move on until we accept that. Ethiopia is predominantly a Christian country, yet Female Genital Mutilation is widespread there - when are we going to admit that Christianity is the problem?

If anyone would say that, people would assume he's crazy. Because it is Christianity. But Islam is okay. Lump them all together. It doesn't matter it's less than 0.01%. Islam is at fault and they are all dangerous.

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.

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

[Montmorency]

Exactly. If your decision making process is influenced by payoff, it means there's a logical process behind it. If it weren't they'd be killing all Christians everywhere in the world indiscriminately.

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.