Bastille day truck crash
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="604453" data-time="1470762560">
<div>
<p>That was a civil war, the Serbs got what they wanted - an independant Serbia. Why would they carry on commiting terror? The IRA stopped being terrorists when they got what they wanted. As did the Stern Gang, the Yogoslav partisans etc. The Kurds in Turkey pulled back massively when peace talks began. Segment Iraq into 3 federal states with a safe area full of Sunni's with jobs etc you'd virtually destroy ISIS overnight.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Thats not what happened was it? The serbs had to leave Kosovo which is not what they wanted, it was either that or there'd be more bombing. Which is used to excuse jihadists waging war on us , we bomb them [be as vague as possible when using this one] so they attack us.</p>
<p>There was an upside for everyone though as Yugo production was stopped forever after the factory got flattened.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="604379" data-time="1470739717">
<div>
<p>I 100% agree with your overall point.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And I very much agree with Ali (and usually with her REALLY right wing husband). Where I veer off is the idea that Islam is getting worse, and that Islam is the only issue here. There's more reform now - and reform at high levels, than at any time in the history of the religion.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Places like Iran especially womens rights have moved massively forward in 20 years. Islam is still horribly backweard, but its a mistake to assume its not modernising because ISIS are cutting peoples heads off. "All the evidence" - what? ISIS? 30 years ago airlines were regularly hijacked, Iran & Iraq were at war killing milliions etc. The idea this is the worst thats happened and hence evidence of a downwards spirial speaks to zero understanding of recent history.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The rise of ISIS has less to with militant Islam than it has to do with a civil war in Iraq caused by the staggeringly bad government. If you wanted to stop ISIS & could have either imposed a federal government in Iraq that split Sunni / Shia / Kurd zones & ensured the Sunni felt safe & had good governance or de-Islamed the whole country, the former would have worked. The latter wouldn't have done shit. Same in places like Yemen where the uprising AQ have exploited is down to water being withheld from regions the government doesnt like. Egypt may well have a huge uprising in the next 5 years, but it has zero to do with Islam & everything to do with 40% youth unemployment, tho' unquestionably groups like the Muslim Brotherhood will use it & bit'll be branded an Islamist uprising.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Both of those conflicts are civil wars that AQ & ISIS have stepped into to provide an alternative to dying. And oddly people have gone with them. Huge numbers of ISIS fighters are genuine Jihadi's, but far more are guys with no job, who can't feed their families & whose family have been attacked by Badr Brigade thugs, so they got offered $200 a month to join ISIS, and did. Strip away ISIS & AQ you still have civil wars, you just dont have a label. In effect you have Rwanda where Tutsi & Hutu butchered each other.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>So I guess my point would be - Islam, contrary to common belief is modernising (too slowly, but still moving forward), but "missionary beheaded!" is always going to get more clicks than "Grand Mufti calls for tolerance of gays". And the extremely bad shit happening in several contries has more to do with economics & abysmall government (and even, trigger here, climate change) than it has to do with Islam. </strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm not defending Islam, its a terrible religion and in an ideal world it & all other religions could go, but thats a farcical fantasy, so instead the solution is to support those reforming (and they are there) & remove the conditions that allow political Islam to thrive. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Fair enough, and thanks for clarifying your point. I think you are a little more optimistic then me there... :)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't disagree with anything you say about the corrupt and incompetent governments. It would be silly of me to claim the <em>only </em>issue in the ME is Islam. It's a significant one, but nothing is ever black and white. There's a whole clusterfuck of shit going on, and admittedly I am a vehement critic of all things religion (and have done a fair amount of study on that topic) so it is a sticking point for me. I wouldn't claim to have a great understanding of the ecomonic factors that are contributing as well, so appreciate the insights you and others provide from that POV.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="604453" data-time="1470762560"><p>
That was a civil war, the Serbs got what they wanted - an independant Serbia. Why would they carry on commiting terror? The IRA stopped being terrorists when they got what they wanted. As did the Stern Gang, the Yogoslav partisans etc. The Kurds in Turkey pulled back massively when peace talks began. Segment Iraq into 3 federal states with a safe area full of Sunni's with jobs etc you'd virtually destroy ISIS overnight.</p></blockquote>
<br>
The Serbs got what they wanted? Wtf? -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="604453" data-time="1470762560">
<div>
<p>That was a civil war, the Serbs got what they wanted - an independant Serbia.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I re-read that, I thought Serbia wanted to keep Yugoslavia together so they could maintain control over Croatia</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="604460" data-time="1470767151">
<div>
<p>Did anyone say all of Islam is hateful? Nope, its been specifically directed at the the nutters.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>nobody is prepared to say all muslims are evil, as that is obvious bigotry. but plenty of times things like 'islam is a hateful ideology' have been said. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>if you have muslim A who is peaceful and nice, and muslim B who is a terrorist nutbar, then they are very clearly following very different ideologies - but anyone who says 'islam is a hateful ideology' is by definition including muslim A, who follows islam. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>a literal interpretation of the koran is hateful. people who follow it literally are hateful. terrorists are hateful. if we call a literal interpretation of the koran 'radical islam' or 'fundamentalist islam' then that is hateful. but islam is not - the definition is too broad - so to call it hateful is bigotry.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>it's kind of ridiculous, as most of us probably think broadly the same thing on that particular point - but the semantics are important in my view, and are certainly important to muslim A.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="reprobate" data-cid="604573" data-time="1470787425">
<div>
<p>nobody is prepared to say all muslims are evil, as that is obvious bigotry. but plenty of times things like 'islam is a hateful ideology' have been said. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>if you have muslim A who is peaceful and nice, and muslim B who is a terrorist nutbar, then they are very clearly following very different ideologies - but anyone who says 'islam is a hateful ideology' is by definition including muslim A, who follows islam. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>a literal interpretation of the koran is hateful. people who follow it literally are hateful. terrorists are hateful. if we call a literal interpretation of the koran 'radical islam' or 'fundamentalist islam' then that is hateful. but islam is not - the definition is too broad - so to call it hateful is bigotry.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>it's kind of ridiculous, as most of us probably think broadly the same thing on that particular point - but the semantics are important in my view, and are certainly important to muslim A.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I take your point, but, I don't think the statement "Islam is a hateful ideology" is bigotry. It is a criticism of an idea, not an attack or discrimination against an individual Muslim. That's an important distinction - you just cannot limit people's ability to criticise ideas, even if you believe the criticism is not 100% accurate.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think <span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Hirsi Ali put it well when she called moderate Mulsim's "</span>modifiers<span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">". They have modified their faith so that they place the hateful stuff into the context of the time it was written, and then just flat out ignore it. That's a very humane way of reconcilling their faith, but it doesn't change the fact that an unmodified version of Islam is extremely hateful.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Which brings me back to a question I've posed a couple of times now (which there is no real answer) - who speaks for Islam? I guess if the moderate Muslims want to speak for Islam, then they need to speak very loud, because there are a fair number of funamendalist Muslims that are shouting the hateful parts. Unfortunately, as gollum points out, the media will report on the fundamentalists more because that is what generates the most clicks (I <em>really</em> hate the media).</span></p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="604591" data-time="1470789289">
<div>
<p>I take your point, but, <strong>I don't think the statement "Islam is a hateful ideology" is bigotry</strong>. It is a criticism of an idea, not an attack or discrimination against an individual Muslim. That's an important distinction - you just cannot limit people's ability to criticise ideas, even if you believe the criticism is not 100% accurate.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Can't you see how even a moderate muslim might take some offence to that statement?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="canefan" data-cid="604593" data-time="1470789379">
<div>
<p>Can't you see how even a moderate muslim might take some offence to that statement?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Of course, but that doesn't make it bigotry!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I used the work analogy before in this thread. If someone comes up with a fucking stupid idea, I'm going to call them on it. Will they be offended? Yeah most likely, but I'm not going to let them implement a stupid idea that will cost the business because I'm worried about hurting their feelings.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As I said, you cannot start limiting people's ability to criticise ideas. Freedom of thought and freedom of speech are absolutely core to our values, without them we would never have progressed.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Religion, and in particular Islam, gets far too much protection - they are just ideas!</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="canefan" data-cid="604593" data-time="1470789379"><p>
Can't you see how even a moderate muslim might take some offence to that statement?</p></blockquote>
<br>
I can and if someone says it they should be called on it, accusing people of thinking it but being to afraid to say it like Reprobate did is wrong though. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="604591" data-time="1470789289">
<div>
<p>I take your point, but, I don't think the statement "Islam is a hateful ideology" is bigotry. <strong>It is a criticism of an idea</strong>, not an attack or discrimination against an individual Muslim. That's an important distinction - you just cannot limit people's ability to criticise ideas, even if you believe the criticism is not 100% accurate.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think <span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Hirsi Ali put it well when she called moderate Mulsim's "</span>modifiers<span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">". They have modified their faith so that they place the hateful stuff into the context of the time it was written, and then just flat out ignore it. That's a very humane way of reconcilling their faith, but it doesn't change the fact that an unmodified version of Islam is extremely hateful.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Which brings me back to a question I've posed a couple of times now (which there is no real answer) - who speaks for Islam? I guess if the moderate Muslims want to speak for Islam, then they need to speak very loud, because there are a fair number of funamendalist Muslims that are shouting the hateful parts. Unfortunately, as gollum points out, the media will report on the fundamentalists more because that is what generates the most clicks (I <em>really</em> hate the media).</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>i'm all for criticism of bad ideas, but my point remains that the ideas of terrorists and others are different, and shouldn't be grouped together.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>ali's 'modifiers' are muslims, their ideology is islam, so as soon as you say 'islam is a hateful ideology' you are essentially calling good people hateful - and that to me is bigotry.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>i don't think it's too much effort to specify or just stick another word in there to differentiate between normal and psycho muslims. also why use a phrase that disenfranchises peaceful muslims and groups them with terrorists, when they are on our side? if they're important to solving this problem, then that seems a poor tactic.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>spot on re the media, and the importance of free speech. </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="604597" data-time="1470789917">
<div>
<p>I can and if someone says it they should be called on it, accusing people of thinking it but being to afraid to say it like Reprobate did is wrong though.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>didn't really intend it like that jegga, like i say i think most of us probably think fairly similarly on the topic.</p>