Terrorism

[toonotl 2406]

Am struggling to understand the relevance here. I'm not talking about other brands of terrorism, I'm talking about Islam specifically and alone. Why are you bringing other lone wolf nutters into the equation? Do these others kill themselves for reward in the afterlife?

 

As far as I aware Islam is the only major religion fundamentally tied to a global political movement in the 21st century. There are specific political and cultural issues with it which make it largely incompatible with western secular democracy imo. It's different to all the other causes of terrorism and I don't think it's ever going to stop. AQ were pussies compared to ISIS. And yet with fairly minimal provocation, a group of 19 young men decided it was a good thing to commit an act of unprecedented slaughter on entirely innocent civilians. What do you think was going through Mohammed Atta's head just prior to the steel beams of the north tower? My guess is the promise of celestial virgins and not the injustices of the Kuwait war.

 

Anyway, let's not go round this again, we're never going to agree.

 

 

You're right we're never going to agree because he can't admit he's wrong. His argument isn't even based in reality at this point.

 

As for why he's bringing up 'lone wolf' terror. It's because he has no idea what he's talking about. His arguments and his articles don't line up. It's as though he simply googles blindly looking for absolutely anything that seems relevant at a glance.

 

I'm struggling to see why anyone sees HF as anything but an autistic buffoon at this point. 

 

Sorry to be indecent, I make plenty similar typos, but THAT's dreadful timing for one

 

Fair point. It's the first one you've made.

 

 

 

If fact, the timing of that typo is an analogy for your entire being in a sense. You're an internet expert, HF. You don't actually understand what you're talking about, but you google frantically to find a way to defend your preconceived view. This is borne out with the irrelevance of the statistics and articles you present. You clearly don't read them. At least, I would hope for your sake that you don't, because if you do you clearly don't understand them. Yet I think my hope for you is wasted, because, although I'm not sure which is worse, I don't think it's a choice in your case. In my case, if I had to choose, I think I'd rather be dumb than dishonest. In your case, I think it's fairly obvious that you're both. See you present Guardian articles and stats from HFsviews.com and you say, 'look how smart I am, your wrong,' but I'm not 'your wrong'. I'm right, and you're wrong and a fool. And the only thing I can prove by continuing to argue with a fool is that I'm a fool, too.

 

 

(By the way, on courtesy, a few names like cunt and fuckwit generally mean very little. Sure it shows a lack of respect, but accusing someone of being a bigot is much more serious (if you mean it). I know that you don't. You're just a child who lost an argument to the mean man. You see, HF, accusing someone of being a bigot when they're clearly not is pathetic and anyone who would make such accusations doesn't deserve anyone's respect. That's a long explanation, but when I say you're a 'cunt' that's really what I'm saying. I'm saying, you're a scummy person.)

[Happy Face 29]

You're right we're never going to agree because he can't admit he's wrong. His argument isn't even based in reality at this point.

 

As for why he's bringing up 'lone wolf' terror. It's because he has no idea what he's talking about. His arguments and his articles don't line up. It's as though he simply googles blindly looking for absolutely anything that seems relevant at a glance.

 

I'm struggling to see why anyone sees HF as anything but an autistic buffoon at this point. 

 

 

Fair point. It's the first one you've made.

 

 

 

If fact, the timing of that typo is an analogy for your entire being in a sense. You're an internet expert, HF. You don't actually understand what you're talking about, but you google frantically to find a way to defend your preconceived view. This is borne out with the irrelevance of the statistics and articles you present. You clearly don't read them. At least, I would hope for your sake that you don't, because if you do you clearly don't understand them. Yet I think my hope for you is wasted, because, although I'm not sure which is worse, I don't think it's a choice in your case. In my case, if I had to choose, I think I'd rather be dumb than dishonest. In your case, I think it's fairly obvious that you're both. See you present Guardian articles and stats from HFsviews.com and you say, 'look how smart I am, your wrong,' but I'm not 'your wrong'. I'm right, and you're wrong and a fool. And the only thing I can prove by continuing to argue with a fool is that I'm a fool, too.

 

 

(By the way, on courtesy, a few names like cunt and fuckwit generally mean very little. Sure it shows a lack of respect, but accusing someone of being a bigot is much more serious (if you mean it). I know that you don't. You're just a child who lost an argument to the mean man. You see, HF, accusing someone of being a bigot when they're clearly not is pathetic and anyone who would make such accusations doesn't deserve anyone's respect. That's a long explanation, but when I say you're a 'cunt' that's really what I'm saying. I'm saying, you're a scummy person.)

 

I take less of that as criticism than you would hope.

 

You're wrong, I will admit I am wrong when someone or some thing changes my mind.  I coincidentally apologised on Newcastle Online just this morning for something it's become clear I got wrong years back.

 

I also remember a conversation I had with CT on here about how much I had learned from being a member on here.  Reading up on stuff I knew nothing about so I could form an opinion then debating it to death with anyone willing.  It's Leazesesque to sneer at someone who will go and read something to inform his point of view.  Of course I don't "understand" what I'm talking about, scholars can spend entire careers on this stuff and still fundamentally disagree.  Anyone who thinks there's an obtainable and absolute truth which they've already got worked out are fooling themselves.  Even while you're not partaking in the debate and only engaging in ad hominem attacks, I'm still enjoying reading more articles and reports on the subject that I think add to my limited understanding of the situation so I appreciate you having another pop.

 

I don't present articles and stats and claim they make me smart. I link to what other people who seem smart to me have said which I can't argue with and would invite anyone else to refute or reframe from another angle.

[toonotl 2406]

You've cited statistics on 'lone wolf terror'.

 

You've raised ISIS not attacking Iceland as though it were a credible argument.

 

At times you've decloaked as a conspiracy nut job.

 

By your very actions, you have shown that you don't care about 'facts'. By your actions you have shown that you care about ideology.

 

Also, claiming you've admitted you were wrong before on some other issue, as though it has any relevance here, is yet another fallacious argument. It's beyond irrelevant, but you wouldn't grasp that fact, you don't grasp facts or irrelevances. 

 

 

Anyway, I've shown that ISIS are a predominantly religiously motivated organisation by citing a PRIMARY document. Renton has pointed out that Islam, and therefore ISIS, is both religiously and politically motivated because Islam is inextricably political and religious.

 

By the source document, we have seen that ISIS are fundamentally an Islamic terror organisation motivated by religion, predominantly, and by political beliefs, as a secondary course.

 

In response, you have, among other junk arguments, given stats about 'lone wolf terror in the West', and brought up Iceland. How can I take you seriously?

 

I'm wrong? How? You haven't proven anything. You've posted irrelevant stats, made arguments a twelve year old would shake his head at, and called me a bigot. Nowhere have you proven you can read the minds of ISIS members.

 

Are you even aware of the value of a primary document?

 

(I don't know why I bother. I guess I'm a fool, too) Think of a person who you admire and you want to know something about him/her/they (do you do pronouns?). Anyway, Glen Greenwald for example. Now if a genie appeared and said you could invite anyone to dinner. Would you invite Glen to dinner to speak about Glen? Or would you invite a person from the Guardian who's never met Glen, never spoken to him, but has written about him? Who is the better source of information on Glen Greenwald? Glen? Or literally anyone else?

 

This is how a primary document works. ISIS have stated they have political motivations. I'm not disputing that. But ISIS have stated the religious motivations supersede the political motivations, and they've explained why. You're not calling me wrong. You're calling ISIS wrong about their own organisation. Is this embarrassing to you? You're claiming you can read minds. And I'm wrong? This is remarkable. Islam is a religion, and politics is tied into it, but first and foremost, it's a religion. The politics come into it because of the religion. Without the religion, the politics really don't matter.

 

I'm sure you can avoid the issue again by calling me mean or attempting to take the moral high ground or calling me a bigot. There's always so many options for the dishonest, except telling the truth. 

[toonotl 2406]

Am I being trolled?

 

Doesn't anyone take these arguments about Iceland and statistics that don't even address the point seriously?

[Happy Face 29]

Am I being trolled?

 

Doesn't anyone take these arguments about Iceland and statistics that don't even address the point seriously?

Yeah, I think Rayvin asked you and Renton to respond with something other than indignation.

[toonotl 2406]

That's right. Then Renton explained that naming a place that hasn't been attacked proves nothing and covered the limited resources of ISIS, to which you claimed that ISIS had UNLIMITED POWAAARRR!! It's all coming back to me. To be fair to me, you make so many dimwitted arguments and jump around so much it's hard to keep up.

[Happy Face 29]

But you know Isis don't resource attacks in the west. They inspire them. Their resources are spent on forces in areas they control, ammunition and then propaganda. AQ never had those expenses and invested in training terrorists and funding cells.

[Happy Face 29]

I'm wrong? How? You haven't proven anything. You've posted irrelevant stats, made arguments a twelve year old would shake his head at, and called me a bigot. Nowhere have you proven you can read the minds of ISIS members.

 

 

You're wrong about me..

 

 I will admit I am wrong when someone or some thing changes my mind. 

[Rayvin 4949]

I'm fairly sure the point that whole discussion arrived at was that all sides accepted that there were political motivations for terrorist attacks, with the only remaining point of disagreement being how influential religion is in these matters, with HF claiming that the people who commit these attacks are more susceptible to extremism because of other social factors.

 

I actually think we all agree on these points, the only thing you guys aren't seeing eye to eye on is the religious aspect of this.

 

You're really not that far apart.

[Renton 17628]

HF, since you like learning new stuff why don't you explore the political beliefs of Islam in a bit more depth and come back to me. Also while you're at it look into Islamic eschatology. There's been quite a bit about published on podcasts on radio 4 actually which I'm sure you can find and accept as a source. It's quite eye opening. Then have a look at Sharia, and concepts such as muslin brotherhood which of course extends past international borders. If you're really feeling brave, maybe have a look into the historical record of Mohammed. All of this is purely factual, no opinion, that's up to you.

 

After you've done this, I'd be interested in your views if you still think ISIS and (many) related groups are still primarily political movements and not motivated by Allah and life after death.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Renton

[Happy Face 29]

 

 Think of a person who you admire and you want to know something about him/her/they (do you do pronouns?). Anyway, Glen Greenwald for example. Now if a genie appeared and said you could invite anyone to dinner. Would you invite Glen to dinner to speak about Glen? Or would you invite a person from the Guardian who's never met Glen, never spoken to him, but has written about him? Who is the better source of information on Glen Greenwald? Glen? Or literally anyone else?

 

As you've proved this morning, Greenwald would rather not concede there is any evidence of his fallibility.  If I wanted a balanced view I'd prefer to have him and one of his strongest critics (Harris?) to come to dinner.  You think I should listen to only what Greenwald/ISIS wants us to think of himself/themselves?

[Renton 17628]

I'm fairly sure the point that whole discussion arrived at was that all sides accepted that there were political motivations for terrorist attacks, with the only remaining point of disagreement being how influential religion is in these matters, with HF claiming that the people who commit these attacks are more susceptible to extremism because of other social factors.

 

I actually think we all agree on these points, the only thing you guys aren't seeing eye to eye on is the religious aspect of this.

 

You're really not that far apart.

I think that's of crucial importance though. You can't make peace with a God. These people don't even believe in man made rule, they will never accept democracy or even the right for others to have it. Take the primary evidence presented by toonotl for the face value it is. If we in the west don't understand our enemies or continue burying our heads in the sand we're fucked.

 

Trouble is with Saudi and Iran being the major players in this, we're centuries away from the Islamic moderation we need to coexist.

[Happy Face 29]

HF, since you like learning new stuff why don't you explore the political beliefs of Islam in a bit more depth and come back to me. Also while you're at it look into Islamic eschatology. There's been quite a bit about published on podcasts on radio 4 actually which I'm sure you can find and accept as a source. It's quite eye opening. Then have a look at Sharia, and concepts such as muslin brotherhood which of course extends past international borders. If you're really feeling brave, maybe have a look into the historical record of Mohammed. All of this is purely factual, no opinion, that's up to you.

 

After you've done this, I'd be interested in your views if you still think ISIS and (many) related groups are still primarily political movements and not motivated by Allah and life after death.

 

Would love to read or listen to anything you suggest.  Let me have some links.

[Dr Gloom 19737]

I'm fairly sure the point that whole discussion arrived at was that all sides accepted that there were political motivations for terrorist attacks, with the only remaining point of disagreement being how influential religion is in these matters, with HF claiming that the people who commit these attacks are more susceptible to extremism because of other social factors.

 

I actually think we all agree on these points, the only thing you guys aren't seeing eye to eye on is the religious aspect of this.

 

You're really not that far apart.

Without religion, radicam Islamic terrorism wouldn't exist in its current form. You'd have some form of resistance movement on the ground, fighting western imperialists. You wouldn't get people seeking martyrdom by blowing themselves up or flying planes into buildings or waging war on infadels. These things are driven by religion. Albeit a twisted take on a religion.

 

I think this is the area HF struggles with.

[Happy Face 29]

If we in the west don't understand our enemies or continue burying our heads in the sand we're fucked.

 

I think reducing our enemies to nothing more than mind-bent adherents of a barbaric religion which our own policies cannot sway is no better than the dehumanisation of the Boer's as "a sort of inferior strange animal" or the American Indians as "merciless Indian Savages".

 

American Indians could be savage, and radicalised muslims can be mind-bent into barbarity, but throwing your hands up to say the savagery or barbarity is the cause of their attacks on us isn't understanding them, recognising that the savagery and barbarity on a massive scale is a human response triggered by seeing those in your 'tribe' under attack is.  ISIS benefit when we expand those attacks to the entire religion.

[Dr Gloom 19737]

All religion is fucked. Islam just happens to be one most open to a twisted interpretation right now and I find the religious/cultural treatment of Islamic women backwards. It's a shame there aren't more modernisers, driving reform in all religions, frankly.

 

But I wouldn't go as far as attacking an entire religious group. While I find their belief system moronic, the majority of them are not bad people, once you look past the mumbo jumbo nonsense.

[Rayvin 4949]

Without religion, radicam Islamic terrorism wouldn't exist in its current form. You'd have some form of resistance movement on the ground, fighting western imperialists. You wouldn't get people seeking martyrdom by blowing themselves up or flying planes into buildings or waging war on infadels. These things are driven by religion. Albeit a twisted take on a religion.

 

I think this is the area HF struggles with.

 

I mean, the Japanese martyred themselves in WWII without any religious inclinations and driven entirely by patriotism, so we don't know what they would or wouldn't do in truth. I wouldn't even say what these terrorists have done is worse than what Hitler, Stalin or Mao managed at the height of their powers in terms of how 'twisted' they were, so clearly religion isn't all it takes for humanity to jump off the cliff as far as morality it concerned.

 

I think the whole thing can be viewed as follows:

 

ISIS at the top are motivated by their religion - they're trying to spread as widely as they can to fill the power vacuum left behind by Western meddling in the region. The latter point could be seen as both religious and political.

 

ISIS recruit through attempting to appeal to the tribalistic (in the sense that we are all tribal beings) religious sentiments of all Muslims. This is clearly a religious factor. toonotl demonstrated a source from ISIS to support this observation.

 

This message does not resonate with all Muslims. Therefore, we can conclude that religion on its own is not a sufficient motivator for someone to commit this kind of act. In fact, based on the very small proportion who do commit these acts, it would rationally be fair to say that religion on its own is far from sufficient. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the additional factors. As Renton has set out quite clearly, we can't combat a religious ideology, we need to wait for them to modernise. But as I think HF sets out, we can combat the other factors. These factors appear to be social, mental health issues with respect of the individuals, and political factors. We can address these points without having to challenge the religion.

 

Does that change the fact that the religion may still want to destroy us? No. ISIS will still want this. But we'll be limiting their message's appeal considerably.

[Dr Gloom 19737]

I mean, the Japanese martyred themselves in WWII without any religious inclinations and driven entirely by patriotism, so we don't know what they would or wouldn't do in truth. I wouldn't even say what these terrorists have done is worse than what Hitler, Stalin or Mao managed at the height of their powers in terms of how 'twisted' they were, so clearly religion isn't all it takes for humanity to jump off the cliff as far as morality it concerned.

 

I think the whole thing can be viewed as follows:

 

ISIS at the top are motivated by their religion - they're trying to spread as widely as they can to fill the power vacuum left behind by Western meddling in the region. The latter point could be seen as both religious and political.

 

ISIS recruit through attempting to appeal to the tribalistic (in the sense that we are all tribal beings) religious sentiments of all Muslims. This is clearly a religious factor. toonotl demonstrated a source from ISIS to support this observation.

 

This message does not resonate with all Muslims. Therefore, we can conclude that religion on its own is not a sufficient motivator for someone to commit this kind of act. In fact, based on the very small proportion who do commit these acts, it would rationally be fair to say that religion on its own is far from sufficient. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the additional factors. As Renton has set out quite clearly, we can't combat a religious ideology, we need to wait for them to modernise. But as I think HF sets out, we can combat the other factors. These factors appear to be social, mental health issues with respect of the individuals, and political factors. We can address these points without having to challenge the religion.

 

Does that change the fact that the religion may still want to destroy us? No. ISIS will still want this. But we'll be limiting their message's appeal considerably.

 

that's a good post. all the other groups you point to were fucked as well - i figured someone would mention japanese kamikaze pilots. of course religion isn't the only thing that drives crimes against humanity, but in the case of jihadism, i think it is. i have no idea how japan was able to brainwash its pilots to sacrifice themselves in the name of a nation. i struggle with the fact others do the same thing today in the name of religion. 

[Rayvin 4949]

that's a good post. all the other groups you point to were fucked as well - i figured someone would mention japanese kamikaze pilots. of course religion isn't the only thing that drives crimes against humanity, but in the case of jihadism, i think it is. i have no idea how japan was able to brainwash its pilots to sacrifice themselves in the name of a nation. i struggle with the fact others do the same thing today in the name of religion. 

 

Yes, patriotism is a bizarre one. But maybe less so if you consider religion to be a tool of people who want to supercede the state in people's minds. Maybe religious fervour is just patriotism under another name - and so the similarities should be strong.

 

Given that we all presumably agree that there is nothing in religion, anyway.

[Rayvin 4949]

I know no one watches the videos we all post to each other, but this is a good one on why 'bad' Muslims commit terrorist atrocities. It basically supports Renton and toonotl whilst also acknowledging outside factors and so may be useful context for HF - I'm not saying this is the be all and end all of the argument, just that it adds a layer of potential understanding to the issue.

The basic premise is that devout Muslims are far less likely to commit terrorist atrocities, because they are already leading good lives. Non-devout Muslims who have lived a life of sin are far more likely to do so (and it mentions that the guys who attacked the WTC frequently visited strip clubs and so on) in order to cleanse themselves of their sins.

 

 

I watch quite a lot of videos by this guy, he has an interesting and non-Guardian perspective. His sources are listed in a link under the video.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Rayvin

[Happy Face 29]

Yes, patriotism is a bizarre one. But maybe less so if you consider religion to be a tool of people who want to supercede the state in people's minds. Maybe religious fervour is just patriotism under another name - and so the similarities should be strong.

 

Given that we all presumably agree that there is nothing in religion, anyway.

 

 

Go to 29 minutes for an excellent 10 minutes on this.  

 

Harris makes his point very effectively about religion (islamism especially) being unique from other tribalism  due to the belief in martyrdom being the way to paradise.

 

I think Carlin is much more convincing in his response and multiple examples that show it's not unusual, just another variant of human behaviour through the ages.  

[Rayvin 4949]

Yeah that's interesting, his reference to similar trends in the US. "Born to die for the state" sums it up.

[Renton 17628]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA2cUyuDC14

 

Go to 29 minutes for an excellent 10 minutes on this.

 

Harris makes his point very effectively about religion (islamism especially) being unique from other tribalism due to the belief in martyrdom being the way to paradise.

 

I think Carlin is much more convincing in his response and multiple examples that show it's not unusual, just another variant of human behaviour through the ages.

Listened to that and Rayvin's earlier audio. Harris wasn't even disagreeing with Carlin though was he? But Carlin's point was fairly irrelevant to me. Yes, if you go back throughout the entirety of time, you'll find other examples of suicidal martyrdom. Ignoring the fact that the large majority of examples are still religious or quasi-religious, so what? We don't live in history, we live in now. And today, the issue is with radical Islam. I don't care if it's historically unique or not.

 

None of this supports your argument that Islamic inspired terrorism is primarily a reactionary political response to Western aggression btw, quite the opposite. I'm really struggling to understand your logic once again.

[toonotl 2406]

As you've proved this morning, Greenwald would rather not concede there is any evidence of his fallibility. If I wanted a balanced view I'd prefer to have him and one of his strongest critics (Harris?) to come to dinner. You think I should listen to only what Greenwald/ISIS wants us to think of himself/themselves?

The analogy doesn't extend to what they think of themselves. I don't care what ISIS 'think of themselves'. I don't think there's much value at all in listening to them on that topic.

 

I care what the hierarchy of their motivations are, and that's a totally different question. Every individual and group thinks they are a force for good in the world. Evil villains are a fantasy from children's comic books. So why ask? I'm interested in, and we're talking about, motivations.

 

You've moved the analogy past its useful point. Analogies are to simplify not explain entirely. Taking an analogy past it's point of usefulness just adds complexity back into the discussion to no gain.

 

Anyway, in the past there has been much debate about ISIS's motivations being either primarily political or primarily religious in the media. Then ISIS published 'Why We Hate You' to clarify their position.

 

Pretty simple really. It's not about what they think of themselves. It's about why they act the way they do.

 

FWIW, I'd listen to Glen and decide if his motivations were aligned with his actions. In Glen's case I think he'd be shown to be dishonest in his motivations as he has been shown to be by his actions. In the case of ISIS, they have no reason to lie about the hierarchy of their motivations and fundamentally they are honest in their intentions (their intentions are abhorrent, but so were Muhammad's so that's a plus for them, I guess).

 

You see getting someone's 'biggest critic' doesn't get you a balanced view. If Harris' biggest critic were listened to (Greenwald), he'd have you believe Harris is a racist, homophobic, genocidal, Jew hating Jew, bigot. There's no value in listening to such nonsense.

 

I listen to claims and their relationship to reality, not vitriol and politically motivated bullshit from the Guardian on ISIS or Glen Greenwald on anything.

 

There's no basis for not believing ISIS's claims on their motivations. They're not incapable of honesty, especially when they have nothing to gain or no other reason to lie.

 

On the other hand, leftist media outlets and their cohorts do have political and cultural relativist positions to protect, and, are therefore, duty bound to claim ISIS are fundamentally driven by political grievance.

 

But what do I know, I'm just a bigot.

[toonotl 2406]

I think reducing our enemies to nothing more than mind-bent adherents of a barbaric religion which our own policies cannot sway is no better than the dehumanisation of the Boer's as "a sort of inferior strange animal" or the American Indians as "merciless Indian Savages".

 

American Indians could be savage, and radicalised muslims can be mind-bent into barbarity, but throwing your hands up to say the savagery or barbarity is the cause of their attacks on us isn't understanding them, recognising that the savagery and barbarity on a massive scale is a human response triggered by seeing those in your 'tribe' under attack is.  ISIS benefit when we expand those attacks to the entire religion.

 

Recognising an enemy that acts poorly on the basis of an ideology isn't dehumanising them,

 

It's not subhuman to be ideological driven. It's not even subhuman to be driven by terrible ideology. If I were born in Nazi Germany, I might have been a Nazi. If I were born in Soviet Russia, I may have tortured people for NKVD in some Gulag shithole. Acting badly is not subhuman. It's human. It's as human as it gets.

 

Recognising bad actions is what matters here. It's not dehumanising. It's not some sort of social-Darwinist argument that we're better. Our culture is better. But we aren't.