patrick.net

Not funny.

Imagine if we treated Eric Rudolph this way.

"Oh, you're not really a Fundamentalist Christian Abortion Extremist, you're just a working class white dude upset over the deindustrialization of America..."

"No, I'm not, Abortion is Satanic Secular Murder of Babies."

"Come now, you're a victim of bad economic policy and the whole school-to-prison-or-army pipeline..."

thunderlips11 says

"Oh, you're not really a Fundamentalist Christian Abortion Extremist, you're just a working class white dude upset over the deindustrialization of America..."

It's not as pronounced, but to some degree they have.

If McVeigh and the abortion-clinic bombers and doctor killers had been Muslim, Patrick would say that moderate Muslims nurture radicals like these. But he would never say that about Christians. Tim McVeigh's father is, by several accounts, a reasonable and very decent man. Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever pointed at him as a nurturer of hateful killers.

Charges of terrorism are much more likely if the killer is some other flavor of extremist besides Christian.

Vicente says

Not funny.

It was very accurate.

Vicente says

Not funny.

it's hysterical, actually, because it's so true!

thunderlips11 says

"Huh!? Who are you to tell us we're not true Muslims!? Islam is literally at the core of everything we do, and we have implemented the truest most literal and honest interpretation of its founding texts. It is our very reason for being."

 "Nope. We created you. We installed a social and economic system that alienates and disenfranchises you, and that's why you did this. We're sorry."

https://www.youtube.com/embed/fxGqcCeV3qk

HydroCabron says

If McVeigh and the abortion-clinic bombers and doctor killers had been Muslim, Patrick would say that moderate Muslims nurture radicals like these. But he would never say that about Christians. Tim McVeigh's father is, by several accounts, a reasonable and very decent man. Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever pointed at him as a nurturer of hateful killers.

mcveigh himself claimed to be athiest, with science as his religion.

anyway:

Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious, but consider the scope of the problem. There have been six deadly attacks over a 36 year period in the U.S. Eight people died. This is an average of one death every 4.5 years.

By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001.

you got to credit the religion for some of that difference, no?

and that difference is a factor of, um, 10000 / 6 = 1,666 times as many attacks. hmmm. christianity is clearly a very weak motivator for terrorism. barely on the radar.

by the way, i don't consider myself a christian, though i was raised catholic. i just don't believe.

i like jesus as a person though. good guy. didn't rob, rape, or kill anyone at all.

unlike you know who...

role models are definitely very important.

I don't buy either point of view.

I'm not an apologist for the degree to which our economic systems (collectively and not intentionally) may have contributed to the circumstances in which many young Islamic men have such dismal prospects in life that some of them end up being attracted to extremist hate movements. Nor am I going to deny the way that a fundamentalist strain of their religion has been used to justify and instigate more hatred and violence.

But on the other hand, I'm not convinced that fear and hatred from our side (the west) against the Islamic world isn't exactly the wrong move. I believe it's what they, the terrorists want. And I'm also not convinced that by turning the other cheek, and accepting refugees, we don't disempower the radical violent part of Islam, more than it empowers it.

But obviously I'm in the minority on this. Some states today are saying they will refuse any more Syrian refugees.

That is very funny thunderlips. Now the poor jihadis have to prove that they are killing in the name of Allah. Alays some western apologist claiming it was some policy, somewhere.

Again the Sadaams and the assads and the ghadafiis figured it out and knew how to contain them.

Wherver they are, they bomb , kill and maim people going about their daily lives. india has so many Muslim bombings in trains, markets etc. Pakistan has even more bombings , as does Iraq and Lebanon. I wonder what it will take for western lefties to wake up-maybe if one of their loved ones are caught in these random bombings-will they wake up or come up with some theory to shift the blame even then?

lostand confused says

Now the poor jihadis have to prove that they are killing in the name of Allah.

It's tough being a Jihadist these days.

i like jesus as a person though. good guy. didn't rob, rape, or kill anyone at all.

unlike you know who...

role models are definitely very important.

How do you figure?

The most effective armaments manufacture and development, and the widest use of that weaponry, has been by Christian nations. Since around 400 AD.

You know: lands who worship "the Prince of Peace."

Where's that list o' countries Britain has never invaded? You know, all 22 of them?

By your own standards, it's clear that Christianity is incompatible with peace.

marcus says

many young Islamic men have such dismal prospects in life that some of them end up being attracted to extremist hate movements. Nor am I going to deny the way that a fundamentalist strain of their religion has been used to justify and instigate more hatred and violence.

actually, you're quite wrong about your first point.

they do not kill because they have dismal prospects. more of them are middle class than poor. all of the 9/11 bombers had good prospects.

mostly they kill because they want to show how devoted they are to islam and their people, and because their families will get large cash paments for the murders, and because their pictures will go up and be honored in their home towns.

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp496.htm

Typical of the attempts to de-politicize the acts of suicide bombers are statements that ascribe the motivation for such attacks to a deep sense of desperation: "suicide bombers have been driven to desperation by a brutal and humiliating occupation which has deprived them of their humanity and any hope for a brighter future."1

In reality, such an approach is not a de-politicization, but in fact represents an attempt to actually politicize the act by erroneously ascribing it to personal and clinical aspects of the behavior.

mcveigh himself claimed to be athiest, with science as his religion

Mcveigh was no true Scotsman.

lostand confused says

india has so many Muslim bombings in trains, markets etc. Pakistan has even more bombings

In the latter, it is Sunni's targeting Shia and Ahmadiyyas and Ismailis and any non-muslims. As thunderlips correctly noted, at the time of partition Pakistan was 20-25% hindu and now it is less than 1%

The vast majority of bombings in India are muslim perpetrated with sporadic incidents of maoist insurgents and some notable incidents of sikh terrorism. India also has no one patrolling the sky with drones and grossly inadequate law enforcement. The only place muslims think twice is in places where hindu fundamentalists apply vigilante justice by burning them alive as was the case in 2002 in Godhra. But even then, there was payback recently, albeit far less frequently than Mumbai or the cities in South India (Hyderabad, Bangalore Chennai)

Post Enlightenment Westerners have forgotten the fervent commitment to religion as they no longer share it. That's the real meaning of "God is Dead".

It is very much alive in the Arab World.

Most Scots or Irish don't feel compelled to do everything for their fellow clan members, in fact clans don't mean shit today, but centuries ago, they defined almost your entire life.

MENA Arabs are Medieval Religious and still very Clannish/Tribal to a degree that Westerners simply cannot fathom or have ever experienced. It is THE defining characteristic of a person.

marcus says

I'm not an apologist for the degree to which our economic systems (collectively and not intentionally) may have contributed to the circumstances in which many young Islamic men have such dismal prospects in life that some of them end up being attracted to extremist hate movements

On an unrelated topic, you're probably one of those guys who thinks that bullies are bullies because they suffer from low self esteem.

Comparing apples and oranges...

HydroCabron says

i like jesus as a person though. good guy. didn't rob, rape, or kill anyone at all.

unlike you know who...

role models are definitely very important.

How do you figure?

The most effective armaments manufacture and development, and the widest use of that weaponry, has been by Christian nations. Since around 400 AD.

You know: lands who worship "the Prince of Peace."

SoftShell says

Comparing apples and oranges...

Got any other cliches you don't understand, in lieu of arguments? How about "begs the question"?

I'll bet you don't know what that one means, either.

It's pretty clear to anyone with a brain that religions have many interpretations, which leads to many sects doing their own thing. They all claim to have the true interpretation. With Islam, there are millions of Muslims living peacefully in the US. Many of these are devout and go to mosques. In fact, there are about 1200 mosques in the US. These people seem to belong to mosques and are happy living peacefully in a prosperous nation.

The Middle East is a war torn region. In many countries, there is no long lasting peace and prosperity for most is out of reach. Furthermore, in Iraq, we killed some 250,000 directly, and probably another 300,000 due to removal of access to health care, additional suicides, other violence that was secondary to the war, etc. Some counts are that the war on terror has led to 1.3 million dead: http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/26/body-count-report-reveals-least-13-million-lives-lost-us-led-war-terror. Furthermore, there is a power vacuum, and that always leads to small militias roaming the land. It is in this region that ISIS has gained traction. Besides tribalism and revenge, joining ISIS can be a sensible decision for an individual in this region. This is partly through pay and partly through forced participation. See the discussion here: http://today.law.harvard.edu/islamic-state-play/ .

So, to state that the primary thing that caused ISIS is that Islam is inherently violent relative to Christianity is really stupid. If that were the case, ISIS would be ripping through the Muslim population in the US. But, it is not. To ignore our war in Iraq as one of the causes if not the proximate cause of ISIS's power is also stupid. It would be equally stupid to say that 9/11 was not the cause of our war in Iraq. Now, I don't blame GW Bush and his administration for the Paris attack. That's also stupid, as the blame lies with ISIS, just as the blame for civilian casualties in Iraq lies with us. But our actions in 2002 have a huge impact what is happening today. I hope the Western governments keep this in mind going forward.

ISIS is a religious group, as described here: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ . So, it doesn't pay to pretend that they are not representing Islam. They are representing a particular sect, which is mostly coming from the Sunni people who got the shitty end of the stick in recent conflicts. It is very violent, and wants to return society to the stone ages in some ways, which was a time that they weren't being bombed to oblivion by high tech weapons. On the other hand, they are happy to use technology to achieve this goal. Claiming that ISIS's view of Islam is the correct interpretation is to ignore the fact that the vast majority of Muslims are not part of ISIS, and are not violent.

All religions are capable of and have been used to justify war. Most have some pretty fucked up stories if you read them literally. As an atheist, I'd be happy to see all religions die the quick death that you might assume would happen if humans were primarily logical beings. But its a little frustrating watching a bunch of Christians hold up pitch forks and talk about how violent Islam is.

Role model values are something to work towards.
A state claiming to be a follower of such role model, that does not follow their teachings to the letter, does not invalidate the role model.
It invalidates the states claim, if any, to be a true follower of such role model.

Hows that for a cliche?

HydroCabron says

i like jesus as a person though. good guy. didn't rob, rape, or kill anyone at all.

unlike you know who...

role models are definitely very important.

How do you figure?

The most effective armaments manufacture and development, and the widest use of that weaponry, has been by Christian nations. Since around 400 AD.

3 minutes till I declare victory...the one hour rule..

SoftShell says

It invalidates the states claim, if any, to be a true follower of such role model.

Which proves the point I was arguing: role models aren't too important.

Try sounding out the words in the posts above - if at some point you don't understand a word, write it out in crayon on some construction paper, and ask an adult what it means.

MMR says

In the latter, it is Sunni's targeting Shia and Ahmadiyyas and Ismailis and any non-muslims. As thunderlips correctly noted, at the time of partition Pakistan was 20-25% hindu and now it is less than 1%

That's literally million and millions of people. What happened to them?

YesYNot says

But its a little frustrating watching a bunch of Christians hold up pitch forks and talk about how violent Islam is.

All religions feel that way about Islam.

Strategist says

YesYNot says

But its a little frustrating watching a bunch of Christians hold up pitch forks and talk about how violent Islam is.

How about a Sikh?
https://www.youtube.com/embed/RLtYAYFH5W8

thunderlips11 says

How about a Sikh?

https://www.youtube.com/embed/RLtYAYFH5W8

Very touching. So they killed all their women to prevent them from falling into the hands of Islamic savages like ISIS. And not a single woman even objected or raised her voice.
The moral of this video is ......ISIS existed then and ISIS exists today, because Islam is ISIS and ISIS is Islam.
And there are brain deads here who claim WE created ISIS.

No, it doesn't prove the point you are arguing. Really.
But you knew that already...you just like acting like "a little shit..."

Who do you most admire? A former teacher, a world leader, a neighbor, your boss? As adults, we tend to give little thought to the idea of having a “role model,” as we regard this to be a quality that children seek from the adults in their lives. However, if you stop and consider who most influences you now, and why, you’ll no doubt agree that the people you admire now are giving you your most important life lessons.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201311/we-all-need-role-models-motivate-and-inspire-us

When we are growing up we look to our role models for inspiration and use this as a blueprint for how we should behave when we’re older. This is likely a survival function designed to help us to mimic the traits of those successful members of our society and thereby help us to be successful too. At the same time in later life its thought that our happiness is very much based on our perception of how our life should or could be and the gap between that and how it is in reality. In other words it’s striving for that same kind of success and achieving it that brings us happiness or otherwise when we’re older. This is called ‘actualization’ by Goldstein.
http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/13288/1/The-Importance-of-Role-Models.html

HydroCabron says

Which proves the point I was arguing: role models aren't too important.

My Role Model has always been:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/6bxoAsvhcOI

This article made me sad:

"Blaming Policy, Not Islam, for Belgium’s Radicalized Youth

Brussels itself is about 25 percent Muslim — 70 percent are of Moroccan heritage and 20 percent Turkish, and the ethnic groups tend to stick to themselves, making them difficult for outsiders, like the police, to penetrate."

They had a townhouse and the best use of it they can imagine is to build bombs?!?

And is this guy going to blame himself for the murders of bloggers in Bangladesh, and the violence "across the Muslim world" over cartoons? At some point, probably when it's too late, Belgians may realize with sadness that the policy to blame was bringing Islam into Europe. Germany was divided into East and West after causing two wars within thirty years; the reunification of Germany has enabled East German Angela Merkel to become Chancellor and import more than a million Muslims as part of the NATO/Saudi policy of invade&import. It seems sad that even a guy whose parents fled the Nazis doesn't see the difference between allowing refugees to flee persecution vs importing the persecutors: his parents fled because they were trying to get away from fascism, but the current "refugees" and even native-born Belgians with townhouses bring Islam with them.

Strategist says

And there are brain deads here who claim WE created ISIS

I don't claim exactly that we created ISIS, but I do believe that if they and their families and most of the people they know were economically successful, then they would be far less likely to be terrorists.

How many terrorists have we seen from Turkey ?

Isis-fucks are like Pirates. The people in charge have their own motivations. The foot soldiers come from all over, but many are likely in it b/c it was their best option in life (to get money and women). Of course they espouse the religious doctrine, and they probably believe it after a while. You really need to if you want to do such depraved acts. Some get into it b/c they are religious and are literalists and would do it regardless of economic situation. Ignoring either the economic or the fundamental aspects motivating people to join is stupid from a strategic viewpoint. Anyway, religion has been used for ages to get people to operate one way or another. The current people in power in the Islamic world are not doing the religion any favors by interpreting things the way they do.

marcus says

Strategist says

And there are brain deads here who claim WE created ISIS

I don't claim exactly that we created ISIS, but I do believe that if they and their families and most of the people they know were economically successful, then they would be far less likely to be terrorists.

How many terrorists have we seen from Turkey ?

India is extremely poor with lots of Muslims. How many terrorists have we seen from India? It's not poverty, it's the brain washing. Most of the 911 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, a rich country.

Strategist says

It's not poverty, it's the brain washing. Most of the 911 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, a rich country.

911 was Al Qaeda. Isis is different. Being poor is neither sufficient to cause terrorism nor a prerequisite. But someone being poor does make it easier for terrorists to recruited them. Poor dumb people like to blame other people for their problems. Many even lash out if given the right motivations. People with political or religious agendas can exploit that.

YesYNot says

someone being poor does make it easier for terrorists to recruited [sic] them [sic].

No, it's the opposite. @Quigley has posted about this before. Among Muslims, education and wealth are actually risk factors. Check again the NY Times interview quoted above. These people had a townhouse in an upscale neighborhood with many Turkish immigrants. Likewise the San Bernardino murderers had education and steady income, and came from families of means. Trolls (e.g. the transgendered Typhoid Marcus/"humanity") insist on repeating the false talking point that poverty drives it, which is a false argument to give more money to these communities and their government enablers, but some are ignorant and others are simply lying. I suggest reading George Packer's New Yorker article about Tunisia, which I excerpted in the Islam thread. In Islam, all roads lead to violence, because death by Jihad is the one and only guaranteed path to eternal paradise. Over and over again, Islam commands believers personally to commit violence. The problem is Islam. The solution can also be found by actually reading Islam instead of navel-gazing: all of the rewards are restricted to believers, and believers are required to go to Mecca before they die, so offer everyone a free ticket on condition that anyone who goes to a specific list of places that advocate the violent destruction of our government can never come back.

This article (https://newrepublic.com/article/119395/isiss-three-types-fighters) is a bit old, but describes 3 types of ISIS fighters. Foreign psychopaths, true believers, and pragmatists. The pragmatists make up the majority of ISIS fighters, and are basically going along the path of least resistance. It's in within the pragmatist type person that being poor (as in having limited other options) helps drive the person toward ISIS. I agree that being poor would be inversely correlated with the Western psycopaths and true believers, b/c poor people generally don't have time for that shit. The pragmatists are not likely to be terrorists, but they are a big part of ISIS operations.

curious2 says

No, it's the opposite. @Quigley has posted about this before. Among Muslims, post-secondary education is actually a risk factor

Like I said, being poor or uneducated is not a prerequisite. And there are many functions that are not monotonically increasing or decreasing, so this is nothing new.

YesYNot says

Like I said

No, it is the opposite of what you said. You said that "someone being poor does make it easier...." Reality is precisely the opposite: wealth and education make it easier. Stop lying and pull your eyes out of your navel.

YesYNot says

there are many functions that are not monotonically increasing or decreasing

Terrorism has been increasing rapidly every year since the NATO/Saudi alliance decided to topple Syria's government and pump explosive gas and Muslims into Europe.

Also, Isis was an ancient Egyptian goddess. ISIL/Daesh is a terrorist organization that calls itself the Islamic State, and threatens to punish people who call it ISIL or Daesh. Learn the difference.

curious2 says

No, it is the opposite of what you said.

It's consistent with what I said. Stop pretending you are stupid and ignoring the fact that there are many different types of people in the organization. Feel free to continue your anti-social incorrect accusations of lying. Everybody does it these days. You may as well do the same.

As far as ISIS / ISIL / Daesh / DAIISH - I really don't care what they want to be called or what they hate being called. As long as people understand what I mean, I'm going to use what I want, which is ISIS. It's the first name people were using and is easy to remember. It looks redundant and reminds me of a debate about what the meaning of IS IS.

YesYNot says

It's the first name people were using and is easy to remember.

Even that is incorrect. People started with ISIL and the DoD officials continue to say ISIL.

YesYNot says

Stop pretending you are stupid

At least you acknowledge (albeit indirectly) that I am not stupid. Now, stop pretending to be a scientist until such time as you can acknowledge that less likely and more likely are opposites. You have in fact repeatedly lied, and you lie about lying. Even with facts right in front of you, on your screen, you say the opposite, and that is a lie, when you know the facts but say the opposite; pretending you were joking does not fool anyone when you're talking about people murdered in Paris or America. Your comments remind me of Rin's description of current scientific academia, more political bs than actual science. Maybe IRL you can bribe or bully people into tolerating your lies, or letting you call them jokes, but you have nothing to offer online other than words. Make yours correct.

curious2 says

acknowledge (albeit indirectly) that I am not stupid

I never thought you were.

curious2 says

Now, stop pretending to be a scientist until such time as you can acknowledge that less likely and more likely are opposites.

I acknowledged that being dumb and poor could be inversely related to people becoming radicalized terrorists. I also stated that lack of other opportunities could at the same time be directly related to people in Iraq going along with ISIS rather than standing up to them, avoiding them, or leaving. Those are the foot soldiers and are important to ISIS. Nothing you have said or that is in here (http://phys.org/news/2014-03-youth-wealth-factors-violent-radicalization.html) contradicts that.