Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Insomnia, Jun 3, 2017.
We can tag people? That's badass.
Insomnia, if there's a question, I'm missing it.
I messaged him in DMs and he told me I had to ask it publically or he wouldn't answer it. :/
Thank you for giving me permission to address your private message questions to me in the open forum. I want to stay within the rules of the forum by not disseminating those messages without your permission, so I appreciate you granting it me both here and via PM.
In your very first post, you laid out your narrative.
MaxOfMetal pointed out the falseness of pointing at Islam as the main source of terrorist threats.
You had some argument with that, and then falsely argued that although there are other attacks, they are astronomically smaller than those from Islamist groups.
When someone from Northern Ireland pointed out your error, you wiggled to redefine the terrorism of the IRA to protect your narrative.
When Max pointed out your mistaken sweeping generalizations from here through here, you disappeared for a bit, and then started doubling down on the whole Islam thing again.
(As an aside, although this was before your time here, another topic made a shift over time when it was revealed that Christian right-wing terrorist had attacked children in Norway. Again, just another example of how your narrative of "extreme vetting" and "Islamic terrorism" is unrealistic in generating a solution to violence.)
I'm just on page three of the topic, incidentally, where you've already argued with established facts, and then conveniently disappeared for a bit whenever you'd have to admit you were wrong. There are more examples of you either arguing with facts or conveniently dropping out, only to pop back up and ignore refutations of your narrative.
Regarding you wanting proof of my factual observation, thus it is demonstrated.
That'a only quarter of the way in, incidentally. There's more (a lot more) of the same, but that little taste should give you an idea why I'm confident you would have no success with the report button.
MaxOfMetal's 'rebuttal' doesn't really make sense. There are different strands of religions, and by that I mean there are hundreds. It depends on which part of the Qu'ran you take in preference to others. Evidently, the majority of Muslims take the more peaceful verses over the violent verses. But when the violent verses are taken in preference to the peaceful verses, then it's a problem, and the blame for the attack can be blamed on it's ideology, part of which falls on their interpretation on Islam, amongst other ideologies.
I will admit that my argument about others ideological terrorism being much smaller was due to my fault of not really thinking about ideologies other than far-right/white supremacy. I also did not know the extent of FARC's actions. I think the argument I was making at the time (although one I did not specify) is that with the IRA, their ideology was entirely one of borders/land. AFAIK, if the IRA had taken over NI, and so established full control of Ireland, they wouldn't have massacred Protestants or gays or non-believers.
Islamism, on the other hand, while does seek to implement a worldwide Islamic state, would commit genocide under that state. The IRA wouldn't have committed genocide under a united Ireland, at least, I haven't read any texts or seen prominent speakers calling for such things. You could appease the IRA by giving them NI, that would stop the armed conflict (I would've thought). But with Islamism, you can't appease them. They want to commit genocide against non-believers and homosexuals, you couldn't give them a piece of land and expect them to stop. I think bostjan put that in a more condensed form than I just did.
In regards to me disappearing for a bit...I didn't? I responded to Max's comments, you must've somehow missed them. Also, you saying 'then you started doubling down on Islam again' doesn't actually prove anything. If you could refute what I said, then fine, and I will admit most of the other things you mentioned were mistakes on my part, but you haven't provided any nuance that would suggest be 'doubling down on Islam' is incorrect.
What you seem to be harking on is the idea that I'm ignoring all the arguments against my claims, because I want to live in a little bubble and not have it popped. Well, quite frankly, you're demonstrably wrong. A fundamental understanding of mine has been shaken by this thread, and changed by argument quite strongly. That was the argument that humans have prejudices and THEN find things to justify them e.g. religion. So evidently I haven't shied away from those who question me, I've accepted when I was wrong.
I would also like to say that many of your arguments on here have been flawed too, particularly the argument that the Charlie Hebdo killers were motivated by racism. First of all, you didn't offer any evidence that suggested they were motivated by racism they faced. Second of all, you didn't answer my question as to why they didn't mention racism whatsoever during their attack. They even had a media interview whilst on the run, I believe, and didn't state any motivation by racism. Quite frankly, you've offered no proof that they were motivated by racism, and I've offered multiple forms of proof that they were motivated by Islamism. I understand your argument is 'they were drawn to extremism and Islam because they faced racism' - but you haven't given any proof of that. Also, you had what I see as a cheap shot by saying 'Given that there is Christian fundamentalism still working for the deaths of the LGBTQ and to kill abortion providers, no, those Christian fundamentalists are not Islam fundamentalists'. I never once suggested ALL extremism came from Islam, yet you twisted by words to make it seem like I was saying that, then never responded to the criticism of such a shoddy claim.
I think you're mis-remembering the conversations we've previously had in this thread. That argument, "Charlie Hebdo was motivated by racism," seems crazy to me, and I can't believe I'd have let that slide, so I went back and reread the thread. You brought up that attack in the final post of p.7 (though I think I have the forum set to 20 posts per page and not the default 10 so it might be 14 for you). Explorer didn't post for another day or two, and when he did, after we'd already discounted your argument that this was an attack prompted by religion, based on the fact that out of the hundreds of thousands to millions of people who could have made it to the offices, only about a dozen thought violence was an acceptable recourse, and the problem was sociopaths and not religion (plenty of Muslims were upset - virtually all expressed their protest in peaceful means).
When he DID post, his argument wasn't that the attack was racially motivated, but rather that discrimination they faced was likely a factor that made them more susceptible to radicalization:
...which I think is a pretty reasonable argument (emphasis mine). When you're being persecuted, and someone offers to stand up and protect you, you tend to look past a lot. In fact, a lot of first al Qaeda and next ISIS's strategy for building popular support within Islam is to fan anti-Islamic sentiments in the West, so that they can paint the west as waging a war against their religion to make Muslims more willing to turn to radical, violent means, out of a concern for existential survival. I thought this was pretty widely understood to be at the root of their strategy of launching overseas attacks, as pretty clearly if the're killing off a dozen or two westerners at a time they can't realistically expect a purely military victory...?
Not to put words into Explorer's mouth, but that's not really the argument he was trying to make, it seems to me, that the Charlie Hebdo wanted to kill French cartoonists because they were racist and hated French people.
But I asked for your proof that they faced racial discrimination. I seriously do not think that they wouldn't mention the supposed strong racism against them during the interview, or in any form of manifesto.
The combination of there being no proof that they faced racism, combined with the fact that they never stated they faced racism in any manifesto or interview, and then them saying that the motivation was to defend the Prophet (not to kill French people for racism) leads me to one conclusion: racism didn't radicalise them.
Also, your point about 'it can't be Islam because so many Muslims could've attacked their offices, yet didn't' doesn't really make sense to me, as I've already stated that Islam preaches both violence and peace, and people's personal nature leads them to one conclusion or another, whatever fits their (possibly subconscious) mental attitude.
There have been many, many instances of violent protest and very credible threats of violence against those who mock or depict the Prophet Muhammad, Charlie Hebdo is in no way unique. So to blame it on the brothers having faced racism which led them into Islam which gave them an 'excuse' for their hatred of the French (their interpretation seeing them as 'kuffar') seems ignorant of the dozens of other cases of critics and cartoonists being threatened with death from people from majority-Muslim countries, where they don't face systemic racism.
Also, another question, they didn't kill a visitor to Charlie Hebdo, as they said, and I'm paraphrasing 'You are an innocent woman, our religion forbids us from killing you'. If they hated French people, they most certainly would not have spared her, surely?
No, Islamic discrimination in the US and Europe is definitely NOT a thing. Never heard of it.
Seriously, beyond that, by the time Explorer had chimed in, we'd moved past the immediate attacks (and to your critique, if you argue that Islam can be a path towards peace AND violence, one that's in no way unique from any other religion, two the choice of path is just that, a choice, and three, if approximately 0.0001% of the people in an area theoretically able to attack chose to, then it's clearly an EXTREME minority, to the point where you have to wonder if it has anything to do with the religion, or if we'd be better off just calling a sociopath a sociopath) on to parallels between Islamic violence and violence perpetrated by other groups, and he wasn't even the first to point to the role of a majority discriminating against a minority in causing that minority to turn to violence. Going from that general discussion to "Charlie Hebdo attackers attacked because of racism" is a pretty gigantic leap, and again, I'd suggest going back and re-reading pages 7 through 9 of this conversation.
And, the point of my post, was the attack was NOT motivated by "we hate French people," and that the argument you're accusing Explorer of making is not the one he actually made. Seriously, go back and re-read the discussion - you either misunderstood a lot of it at the time, or you're remembering it wrong.
Except that Explorer explicitly stated that he was talking about racism towards Algerians, which he claimed the Kouachi brothers had experienced to such an extent, they felt compelled to embrace radical Islam. He offered no proof whatsoever that the Kouachi brothers had experience said racism, let alone to such an extent.
Also, it most certainly isn't 0.0001%, it's more like 4-5% who support ISIS alone (and that number itself is likely higher). That is a very large number indeed (I can back this up with stats from PRC, here: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/ . This is only for supporting ISIS, and is from a few select countries, not including UAE, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Qatar, Afghanistan, and various other Islamic majority countries, by the way, so the number of actual Islamic radicals is likely to be a lot higher).
Finally, and I quote directly from your previous comment: 'Not to put words into Explorer's mouth, but that's not really the argument he was trying to make, it seems to me, that the Charlie Hebdo wanted to kill French cartoonists because they were racist and hated French people.'
I don't know if that was a mistype, but what you just said there was that you think it's because they wanted to kill French cartoonists because they were racist and hated French people.
What you have just now stated is that it's NOT that they were racist against French people. So, what do you think the motivation for radicalisation and the subsequent attack was caused by?
No, you misunderstood to me. The phrasing could have been clearer, but "not to put words into Explorers mouth, but it seems to me that's not really the argument he was trying to make, that etc etc etc."
Again, go back and reread my post. Considering according to Wikipedia there are about 7.7 milliom Muslims in metropolitan France and maybe a dozen of them banded up and went on a killing spree in response to that cartoon - a percentage of 0.000156%, remarkably close to the 0.0001% of Muslims plausibly close enough to have done it that I straight-up guessed - I already told you I attributed this to a bunch of sociopathic assholes who are capable of convincing themselves that murdering people for any cause is justifiable. Otherwise, with Muslims representing about 11% of the metropolitcan French population, there would be a whole fuck of a lot more bodies than there were.
Now, to me, considering we're revisiting topics we've already covered and you're making extremely tenuous arguments to support your prior conclusions, I think you're clutching at straws.
Right, the inclusion of 'it seems to me, that...' is confusing.
Now, are you really trying to say that 0.0001% of Muslims in Paris are extremists by judging one single terror attack? Talk about small poll sizes. That's just not how statistics works, I can't really believe you just did that. 'Only 1 Muslim committed the Westminster attack, so therefore, only 0.0001% of London-based Muslims have extremist sympathies' - I desperately hope you understand why that makes no sense whatsoever.
Your argument is, again, undermined by the fact that a) there is no proof of mental illness in the brothers and b) that they spared a woman, as they said it was un-Islamic to kill them. I understand the argument you're trying to make, but you yourself are really clutching at straws now, by claiming something with no actual proof, and by creating an insanely flawed 'statistic'.
It seems like what's happening is some people in this thread are conflating non-criminal but sympathetic towards Muslim extremists with active Muslim extremist just waiting for his chance to terrorize
I don't mean to conflate them, apologies if I have done, but I'm trying to say that there are still a lot of extremists, whether they're active terrorists or not.
You're being insanely reductionist, to the point where it's almost a waste of time continuing this discussion.
1) There are 7.7 million Muslims in France. Of those 7.7 million Muslims - a pretty damned big sample, by most measures - only two responded by shooting up the office (I actually thought there were a dozen, but there were a dozen victims, not attackers, my bad). So, I'd say a reasonable conclusion, looking at the data, is that an infinitesimally small number of French Muslims thought the appropriate recourse was to shoot the cartoonists. Extrapolating to Westminister, if about 2.6 million Muslims live in England and we've seen less than a dozen of them engage in some sort of terrorist activity, I think it also is a reasonable conclusion that an infinitesimally small number of English Muslims believe terrorism is an appropriate course of action. Otherwise, this would happen a whole HECK of a lot more than it does. In other words, if we're looking for explanatory power, whether or not someone is a Muslim is, statistically speaking, a remarkably poor predictor of terrorism.
2) I thought this was pretty obvious, but I'd argue that shooting up a newspaper office is not the act of a mentally stable person. Hey, maybe I'm over-simplifying, but I don't think that whether or not they had a specific target negates the fact that these two had some pretty deep-seated mental issues.
Let's flip this, though, just in the spirit of friendly discourse. Do you think it's sane to shoot up a newspaper for running something you disagree with? If you were given a 2-in-7,700,000 chance of being successful in a particular outcome, would you consider that prudent?
Al Qaeda is a huge organization of about 5000 individuals. Boko Haram is about the same size, and just as dangerous. Jemaah Islamigah is also about that size. ISIS is much bigger, around 18k members, and the Taliban may be as large as 25k.
Out of 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, that puts 0.003% as the most violent of the extremists. Those numbers are approximate, but you get the idea. It's a small portion, but it is rapidly growing. Even if you include organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, who are more interested in domestic struggles, that estimate is still in the same ballpark.
60-70 thousand people worldwide who want nothing more than to kill you is a pretty scary thought, for sure. But how do you respond to that? You know? I think any sort of rash decision making in dealing with those extremists risks only creating more extremists if not done wisely. You can't kill a philosophy with conventional weaponry- you have to use logic and psychology in a situation like this. It's not all Muslims, by a longshot, but it IS one group of people with a similar belief system and similar values and a common disgust for the West.
I agree with all that, but we must also call out their supporters and facilitators as well.
We are. So are they.
Are we/they? because it seems to me like we've been pretty buddy-buddy with Saudi Arabia, and that doesn't seem to be changing.
You entirely assuming that no other Muslims agreed or sympathised with their cause, that the only reason more people didn't attack Charlie Hebdo is because they didn't do think it was right. The gigantic amount of other factors like money, connections to weapon dealers, time, the sheer guts to do something, these all contribute to it. You have to look at the opinion polls of people to actually get a view of what they believe...
Let me put it another way:
There's a terrorist who's been arrested in New Mexico and convicted to life in prison, and he's on his way from the courtroom to prison.
Just because no-one plants a roadside bomb or shoots up the van, doesn't mean that no-one relatively near the courtroom thought he deserved the death penalty, right?
I have no idea how you think that's how statistics works, but please, look at opinion polls. Your method just doesn't make logical sense in terms of determining how many radicals there are in Paris, and indeed if you used it across the entire world, how many radicals there are on Earth.
If someone is a "radical" but doesn't act on it, ever, because of reasons, are they really a threat?
People can have some terrible thoughts and opinions, but as long as they stay as such I don't see the immediate harm.
True, I'm sure they'll perpetuate the hate, but without action the chances of it lasting are much more slim.