Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Terrorist attack in USA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Mihais View Post
    And that itself is an unsustainable accident.Liberalism is only a part of the Western tradition.Our foremost values are diversity of opinion,freedom and competition amongst ourselves.
    Modern day liberalism is the ideological equivalent of what was the Roman Empire in geopolitics.A behemoth waiting to crumble.In the history of the Europeans,it was a blimp.The tribal confederations of Indo-Europeans,the city states,the feudal kingdoms,the religious unity,the East Roman model of Church and state together have all been equally valid and lasted for long periods of time.

    We don't rule the world by being one huge herbivore.We rule it by being numerous small predators
    .
    Exactly so.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mihais View Post
      Our foremost values are diversity of opinion,freedom and competition amongst ourselves.
      Isn't that essentially what Liberalism is, in the classical sense? Not the modern American connotation.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
        I'm not sure what exactly 'moderate' Islam is, moderate is a relative term. A majority of Muslims across the globe believe in totalitarianism (sharia law), suppression of women, criminal disfigurement, the death sentence for homosexuality, adultery, apostasy and of course Fasaad fi al-ardh, spreading mischief. I rather suspect 'moderates' in the way westerners view moderation are a small minority. When you view Islam as a political movement it becomes abhorrent to all but the most extreme westerners, yet we are expected to respect and genuflect to it because it's called a religion.
        In that sense there are almost no 'moderates' in Islam. I am not surprised that a majority of people in muslim countries hold to beliefs that seem extremely backward and sometimes even disgusting from a Western perspective. But holding those beliefs does not make one a radical Islamist or Jihadist. An Islamist is someone who advocates immediate violence or revolution to overthrow the state and take power in the name of their interpretation of Islam. Believing in harsh punishments of Sharia Law alone does not make a muslim a jihadist, simply an ultra conservative muslim. As long as he doesn't try to impose this by violence in a non-islamic country he is not a threat.

        It is true that conservative or traditional Islam does overlap with Islamism in some cases; it also provides a breeding ground for new radicals and sometimes moral and other support for the Jihadists. But I don't think a majority of muslims fall into this camp, even if they are traditionalists in the context of your post.

        In a loose analogy, Islam is to Islamism what pan German-ism or Nordic-ism is to Nazism. Nazism didn't come out of a vaccum, it drew on centuries of certain aspects of German and European thought and philosophy and anti-semitism, but expressed in a more virulent form. Its the same with Islamism.

        Rather than 'moderate' we might simply say non Islamist or Jihadist more accurately.
        Last edited by InExile; 17 Dec 15,, 08:40.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by astralis View Post
          remember, the catalyst for religion being -downgraded- (not removed) from the public sphere in the West was something known as the Thirty Years' War, which devastated all Europe. the Protestant Reformation actually vastly increased the slaughter, until the fanatics had killed themselves off and everything was wrecked.
          Christianity has been pretty successful at totally marginalizing any theological interpretation of the Bible that can advocate violence on the scale of the religious wars or the Crusades for instance. There are verses in the Old Testament that rival the Koran in violence and gruesomeness but most Christians say those are no longer relevant in the light of the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament.

          Would it be harder for Islam to marginalize those teachings of the Koran that advocate conquest, supremacism and jihad in the context of the modern world? I suspect it would be harder in light that muslims consider the Koran to be the absolute word of God.

          On the other hand Islamic nations and empires in the past have managed to balance the requirements of the Koran with the need of co-existence with their neighbors and minority subjects. There have been periods in history where Islamic societies were relatively more tolerant, peaceful and successful, where Jews and Christians lived in peace as compared with Christian Europe mired in the dark ages.
          Last edited by InExile; 17 Dec 15,, 09:24.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by InExile View Post
            Christianity has been pretty successful at totally marginalizing any theological interpretation of the Bible that can advocate violence on the scale of the religious wars or the Crusades for instance. There are verses in the Old Testament that rival the Koran in violence and gruesomeness but most Christians say those are no longer relevant in the light of the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament.

            Would it be harder for Islam to marginalize those teachings of the Koran that advocate conquest, supremacism and jihad in the context of the modern world? I suspect it would be harder in light that muslims consider the Koran to be the absolute word of God.

            On the other hand Islamic nations and empires in the past have managed to balance the requirements of the Koran with the need of co-existence with their neighbors and minority subjects. There have been periods in history where Islamic societies were relatively more tolerant, peaceful and successful, where Jews and Christians lived in peace as compared with Christian Europe mired in the dark ages.
            Islam is based on obedience,Christianity on discerning.Both early Christians and later periods ones agreed that the Bible should not be taken literally when in obvious conflict with the material world,but a deeper meaning must be sought.As for the myth of Islamic societies advanced,peaceful and tolerant there are a few major objections.First it wasn't quite so.Second even the supporters of this idea admit it was so only for a limited period of time.Third,it had little to do with Islam per se,but the reminiscences of Persian and Christians in the islamic lands.
            Those who know don't speak
            He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

            Comment


            • mihais,

              Islam is based on obedience,Christianity on discerning.
              these are gross exaggerations. there were and are elements of both in each religion. can't see much "discerning" in the Christianity of the Spanish Inquisition, for instance. the Byzantine emperor and the Pope argued over whom was the vice-regent of God on earth, with disobedience to the vice-regent tantamount to being disobedience to God. (thus the power of excommunication.)

              early Christians and later periods ones agreed that the Bible should not be taken literally when in obvious conflict with the material world,but a deeper meaning must be sought
              much of Revelations was taken to be actual prophecy, harbinger of the end-times. early Christians DID take the Bible literally, because the Christian religious tradition was a descendant of Judaism (for instance: fasting several days in a week). the whole point of early Christianity was that the afterworld was far more important than the material world, because the afterworld was forever.

              that's why Romans thought early Christians to be fanatics; previous religions didn't -celebrate- martyrdom that early Christians eagerly sought out.

              As for the myth of Islamic societies advanced,peaceful and tolerant there are a few major objections.First it wasn't quite so.Second even the supporters of this idea admit it was so only for a limited period of time.Third,it had little to do with Islam per se,but the reminiscences of Persian and Christians in the islamic lands.
              ugh, not a myth either. there were schools devoted to rationalism (Mu'tazila school).

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%CA%BFtazila

              many Islamic scholars kept better records of old Greek writings than the Byzantines did; Islamic mathematicians like Omar Khayyam made huge advances in al-jabr, aka algebra.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khayyam

              let's not make sweeping generalizations. no, Islam is not exclusively a religion of peace, but it's also not exclusively a religion of war. same thing with Christianity.

              -right now- Islam has a more serious issue with militarization than Christianity, and a lot of that is due to trillions of dollars of oil money flowing into an extremely strict interpretation/school thanks to the House of Saud.
              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

              Comment


              • Originally posted by InExile View Post
                In that sense there are almost no 'moderates' in Islam. I am not surprised that a majority of people in muslim countries hold to beliefs that seem extremely backward and sometimes even disgusting from a Western perspective. But holding those beliefs does not make one a radical Islamist or Jihadist. An Islamist is someone who advocates immediate violence or revolution to overthrow the state and take power in the name of their interpretation of Islam. Believing in harsh punishments of Sharia Law alone does not make a muslim a jihadist, simply an ultra conservative muslim. As long as he doesn't try to impose this by violence in a non-islamic country he is not a threat.

                It is true that conservative or traditional Islam does overlap with Islamism in some cases; it also provides a breeding ground for new radicals and sometimes moral and other support for the Jihadists. But I don't think a majority of muslims fall into this camp, even if they are traditionalists in the context of your post.

                In a loose analogy, Islam is to Islamism what pan German-ism or Nordic-ism is to Nazism. Nazism didn't come out of a vaccum, it drew on centuries of certain aspects of German and European thought and philosophy and anti-semitism, but expressed in a more virulent form. Its the same with Islamism.

                Rather than 'moderate' we might simply say non Islamist or Jihadist more accurately.
                PEWs site is extremely valuable for information. Support for suicide bombing for instance is high, in the minority, and declining.

                http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/...-extremism-11/

                The numbers however, even weighted by the extremely (in context with the rest of Muslims) pacifist Indonesians, gives us support for suicide bombing 'often/sometimes against civilian targets to defend Islam from its enemies' in the range of 1 in 5. That's 1 in 5 mainstream Muslims worldwide. I will say it again. Islam is not a religion, it is a political movement that claims its mandate from a deity, and fully 20 % of its members justify extreme violence and murder of civilians some of the time to further its aims.
                Once upon a time, Islam was a movement like Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism etc. those movements morphed over time. Christianity has become in the main a relatively harmless, splintered faith based religion, progressively more divorced from politics. Islam has become far more political and extreme, especially over the last hundred years. The book remains the same, its followers not. There is no correlation I can find now for Andalusia, not even Indonesia.
                In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                Leibniz

                Comment


                • pari,

                  Once upon a time, Islam was a movement like Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism etc. those movements morphed over time. Christianity has become in the main a relatively harmless, splintered faith based religion, progressively more divorced from politics.
                  in Europe, yes. in the US, no. political (largely evangelical) Christianity has become far more organized in the last forty years.

                  Islam has become far more political and extreme, especially over the last hundred years.
                  more accurately, over the last fifty. and again, that's a direct result of trillions of dollars flowing into the Wahhabi sect from oil money and the internal politics of the House of Saud. those trillions have been used to proselytize their extreme beliefs across the world, supplanting many native sects in places as far as away as the Netherlands, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Malaysia.

                  but why should WE define Wahhabi beliefs as that of Islam? they are certainly a part of islam, it's true, and an extremely influential one due to the money involved. but I'd rather not do their propaganda work for them by stating that their beliefs represent the totality of an entire religion.
                  There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                  Comment


                  • Asty,

                    I might also add that as a religion, Islam is arguably even more fragmented than Christianity since there are (with the unique exception of the Ayatollah) virtually no popelike figures or elaborate bureaucracies a la Vatican. What we're seeing right now is the culmination of an identity crisis not unlike the religious wars following the Protestant reformation in Europe.

                    Will Islam continue the route of sect diversification, where interpretations of the faith become synthesized with modern values---as was the case with modern Christianity---or will it succumb to the allure of a united Caliphate?
                    "Draft beer, not people."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                      PEWs site is extremely valuable for information. Support for suicide bombing for instance is high, in the minority, and declining.

                      http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/...-extremism-11/

                      The numbers however, even weighted by the extremely (in context with the rest of Muslims) pacifist Indonesians, gives us support for suicide bombing 'often/sometimes against civilian targets to defend Islam from its enemies' in the range of 1 in 5. That's 1 in 5 mainstream Muslims worldwide. I will say it again. Islam is not a religion, it is a political movement that claims its mandate from a deity, and fully 20 % of its members justify extreme violence and murder of civilians some of the time to further its aims.
                      Once upon a time, Islam was a movement like Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism etc. those movements morphed over time. Christianity has become in the main a relatively harmless, splintered faith based religion, progressively more divorced from politics. Islam has become far more political and extreme, especially over the last hundred years. The book remains the same, its followers not. There is no correlation I can find now for Andalusia, not even Indonesia.
                      Well, one can expect 1 in 5 people in any society to be nuts. I mean, just have to look at Trump's poll numbers.

                      Joking aside, I agree that number is disturbingly high. But I will say that the number of active jihadists and their helpers and active backers is much lower, probably in the hundreds of thousands world wide to perhaps a few million with the backers. There have been probably about 30,000 muslims who have traveled to join ISIS; thats roughly the number of Americans who identify as White Supremacists or neo Nazis. So supporting suicide bombings in the abstract, while deplorable, does not mean that hundreds of millions of muslims are potential jihadists.

                      The other point is that while Islam might be considered a political movement in some respects; it is most definitely still a religion, providing the spiritual needs and an important part of the identity of a quarter of the world's population. It is too much to expect that muslims would renounce Islam completely, the way the Germans eradicated Nazism entirely from their society after the second world war when the scale of the moral and national catastrophe brought by the Nazis was undeniable.

                      Radical Islamism in the form espoused by ISIS is the vilest ideology on this planet since the end of WW2 and needs to be destroyed. However, the only long term solution to eradicating Islamic terrorism totally is when muslims totally reject radical Islamism and jihad the way the Germans eradicated Nazism from their midst. But its not realistic to expect muslims to reject their religion en masse; thats why it is important to stress the difference between the religion and Islamism. Additional pressure should be brought to bear on the Saudi's to crack down on Wahabism; and to close down the network of Madrasas
                      Last edited by InExile; 18 Dec 15,, 05:10.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                        pari,



                        in Europe, yes. in the US, no. political (largely evangelical) Christianity has become far more organized in the last forty years.
                        I view religion as a mental virus, there's plenty of others around but religions target peoples faith and superstitions and so can be particularly long lasting and virulent.
                        Christianity has in the main been tamed in the west by peoples mental immune systems over time, generations of wars and the outcomes. We still see residuals of this in places like Ireland but until I see evidence of a Protestant/Catholic/Atheist conflict on the level of previous conflicts, or a majority of Christians introducing specific Christian dogma into your federal laws I'll remain far more sanguine than you as to their threat.
                        Originally posted by astralis
                        more accurately, over the last fifty.
                        Most accurately since Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab in the mid 1700's. When Ibn Saud retook Riyadh in 1902 he then spread his control over the entire Arabian peninsula by 1932, and with it established Salafist doctrine. The oil money you refer to has helped spread the doctrine but that simply accelerated the growth of conflict, it didn't create it.
                        Originally posted by astralis

                        and again, that's a direct result of trillions of dollars flowing into the Wahhabi sect from oil money and the internal politics of the House of Saud. those trillions have been used to proselytize their extreme beliefs across the world, supplanting many native sects in places as far as away as the Netherlands, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Malaysia.
                        That it has accelerated the growth of conflict, yes. That it created the growth, no. The Sunni/Shia rift has been going on since the time of Muhammad as has violent jihad against the rest of the world, the oil money simply altered the balance. You'll note that the various PEW polls we've linked to don't differentiate between sunni and shia, at the least a plurality of those polled supported measures and political beliefs that are anathema to western civilisation.
                        It's a political movement, not a religion. Instead of blaming Salafist oil money for the spread of virulent Islam, why not ponder why virulent Islam has become accepted as far afield as the Netherlands, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Malaysia. Could it be infection from this particular strain of mental virus makes those infected prone to extremism?

                        Originally posted by astralis
                        but why should WE define Wahhabi beliefs as that of Islam? they are certainly a part of islam, it's true, and an extremely influential one due to the money involved. but I'd rather not do their propaganda work for them by stating that their beliefs represent the totality of an entire religion.
                        Islam, whether Salafist, Sunni or Shia is refining itself and mutating quite independently and uncaringly of whatever Obama, Merkel or Cameron say, nor how much money gets thrown at them from one side or the other.
                        Last edited by Parihaka; 18 Dec 15,, 05:46.
                        In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                        Leibniz

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by InExile View Post
                          Well, one can expect 1 in 5 people in any society to be nuts. I mean, just have to look at Trump's poll numbers.

                          Joking aside, I agree that number is disturbingly high. But I will say that the number of active jihadists and their helpers and active backers is much lower, probably in the hundreds of thousands world wide to perhaps a few million with the backers. There have been probably about 30,000 muslims who have traveled to join ISIS; thats roughly the number of Americans who identify as White Supremacists or neo Nazis. So supporting suicide bombings in the abstract, while deplorable, does not mean that hundreds of millions of muslims are potential jihadists.
                          Agreed. there is however a large enough number to cause ongoing extreme security concerns throughout the world.
                          Originally posted by InExile

                          The other point is that while Islam might be considered a political movement in some respects; it is most definitely still a religion, providing the spiritual needs and an important part of the identity of a quarter of the world's population. It is too much to expect that muslims would renounce Islam completely, the way the Germans eradicated Nazism entirely from their society after the second world war when the scale of the moral and national catastrophe brought by the Nazis was undeniable.
                          This is where we differ. Islam, like IMHO all the major religions, exploits peoples religious beliefs to impose political beliefs, with all the attendant power to the hierarchy.
                          Originally posted by InExile
                          Radical Islamism in the form espoused by ISIS is the vilest ideology on this planet since the end of WW2 and needs to be destroyed. However, the only long term solution to eradicating Islamic terrorism totally is when muslims totally reject radical Islamism and jihad the way the Germans eradicated Nazism from their midst. But its not realistic to expect muslims to reject their religion en masse; thats why it is important to stress the difference between the religion and Islamism. Additional pressure should be brought to bear on the Saudi's to crack down on Wahabism; and to close down the network of Madrasas
                          You might as well ask the Pope to renounce Catholicism and become Greek orthodox.
                          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                          Leibniz

                          Comment


                          • pari,

                            Christianity has in the main been tamed in the west by peoples mental immune systems over time, generations of wars and the outcomes. We still see residuals of this in places like Ireland but until I see evidence of a Protestant/Catholic/Atheist conflict on the level of previous conflicts, or a majority of Christians introducing specific Christian dogma into your federal laws I'll remain far more sanguine than you as to their threat.
                            yes, Christianity has surely evolved. but the point is that these are beliefs that change over time, and are not immutable. Islam now is not the same as Islam of the 19th century or the 15th century or the 7th century.

                            Most accurately since Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab in the mid 1700's. When Ibn Saud retook Riyadh in 1902 he then spread his control over the entire Arabian peninsula by 1932, and with it established Salafist doctrine. The oil money you refer to has helped spread the doctrine but that simply accelerated the growth of conflict, it didn't create it.
                            absent the huge inflow of oil money, it'd simply be another sect among thousands-- a sect among sand thieves at that.

                            remember, as late as the 1960s there were women wearing mini-skirts in Kabul and Persia. the political leaders of the Arab world-- Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq-- in the 1960s were nationalists, with their opposition being socialists or communists.

                            That it has accelerated the growth of conflict, yes. That it created the growth, no. The Sunni/Shia rift has been going on since the time of Muhammad as has violent jihad against the rest of the world, the oil money simply altered the balance. You'll note that the various PEW polls we've linked to don't differentiate between sunni and shia, at the least a plurality of those polled supported measures and political beliefs that are anathema to western civilisation.
                            how much did the Sunni-Shia conflict matter when the Ottoman Empire and Persia were around? for that matter, how much did it matter in the 1950s when the Kingdom of Iraq and Persia were around?

                            the Sunni-Shia conflict was pretty much a dead issue until it was deliberately revived in the 1970s-1980s through a confluence of the Sauds and Khomeini, both fanning religious war to solidify their political control.

                            It's a political movement, not a religion. Instead of blaming Salafist oil money for the spread of virulent Islam, why not ponder why virulent Islam has become accepted as far afield as the Netherlands, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Malaysia. Could it be infection from this particular strain of mental virus makes those infected prone to extremism?
                            Islam is both, Salafist Islam even more so than the other sects. it's not hard to imagine "why" the Wahhabi sect has become accepted so far afield; when you have trillions to draw on for charities, education, and other aspects that many of the states don't cover (either because of non-integration of immigrants or because the state is failing), it's not really a surprise, is it.

                            Islam, whether Salafist, Sunni or Shia is refining itself and mutating quite independently and uncaringly of whatever Obama, Merkel or Cameron say, nor how much money gets thrown at them from one side or the other.
                            certainly not. words matter, as does money. power matters as well.

                            if no one opposes an extremist sect or forces them to at least tamp down, then guess what, they will continue to fill vacuums of power. that's how ISIS got started in the first place-- not because they're "more Islamic", but simply because there was a vacuum of power and there were a handful of extremely determined, war-experienced individuals funded by private Saudi backers.
                            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                              how much did the Sunni-Shia conflict matter when the Ottoman Empire and Persia were around? for that matter, how much did it matter in the 1950s when the Kingdom of Iraq and Persia were around?
                              It mattered immensely, especially in the context of Ottoman-Safavid conflicts. And 'Persia' hasnt gone anywhere. Iran is the correct name of the country as it had been known to Iranians. Shi'a clerics have been playing a role in Iranian politics for hundreds of years, either as backers of the state or as dissenters, they were just kept in check by the state before they eventually usurped the state for themselves. Their Islamic fanaticism and supramicism however has centuries of history to it little different to that of the Islamic Republic of today. In fact, in many ways the Islamic Republic is more tame than the cleric inspired Islamic mob violence of the past in Iran.
                              Last edited by 1980s; 19 Dec 15,, 16:26.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                                many Islamic scholars kept better records of old Greek writings than the Byzantines did; Islamic mathematicians like Omar Khayyam made huge advances in al-jabr, aka algebra.
                                And sorry, please dont call Khayyam an 'Islamic' scholar. We (Iranians) know him much better than to call him "Islamic". He certainly was not at all, "Islamic".

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X