Attacks in Paris + Belgium

[Aber gas]

What I'm struggling with in this debate,is the generalising of Islam as if it was one, unthinking mass controlled by a single brain. There are different groups, sects and interpretations of islam. There also millions of Muslims that will approach their religion in their own way. It's not correct to equate the aggressive, militant Islam of daesh with the gentle introspection of the faith my ( admittedly few relatively ) Muslim friends and acquaintances practise.
The islamphobia and general clamour that " something must be done" coupled with the irrational and frankly disgusting attacks on refugees in the wake of the Paris attacks just shows the latent prejudice bubbling under the surface.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Islamopobia is such an odd misnomer. It's not inherently irrational to dislike Islam, never mind something to be pathologized.

 

[Womble98]

What I'm struggling with in this debate,is the generalising of Islam as if it was one, unthinking mass controlled by a single brain. There are different groups, sects and interpretations of islam. There also millions of Muslims that will approach their religion in their own way. It's not correct to equate the aggressive, militant Islam of daesh with the gentle introspection of the faith my ( admittedly few relatively ) Muslim friends and acquaintances practise.
The islamphobia and general clamour that " something must be done" coupled with the irrational and frankly disgusting attacks on refugees in the wake of the Paris attacks just shows the latent prejudice bubbling under the surface.

But I haven't done that. When so many Muslims hold views that are incoherent with a civilised society i.e. punishing those who criticise Islam, it is no longer a generalisation. I have given you the stats in a previous post, I can't be bothered to rewrite them now.

 

[Aber gas]

But I haven't done that. When so many Muslims hold views that are incoherent with a civilised society i.e. punishing those who criticise Islam, it is no longer a generalisation. I have given you the stats in a previous post, I can't be bothered to rewrite them now.

What are you suggesting then? You have your view that Islam is " bad" so what would you have this country do ?

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

Islamopobia is such an odd misnomer. It's not inherently irrational to dislike Islam, never mind something to be pathologized.

it's where it comes from and how it's expressed that's the issue more often than not. doesn't help that there's such significant overlap between racism, xenophobia and islamophobia. so much of the fear of islam is fear of 'the other', rather than a significant doctrinal opposition

 

[Womble98]

What are you suggesting then? You have your view that Islam is " bad" so what would you have this country do ?

In an ideal world I would ban foreign funding of religious institutions. Saudi Arabian clerics should not be allowed to indoctrinate British Muslim kids. I would also have us cut ties with Saudi Arabia.

 

[Aber gas]

In an ideal world I would ban foreign funding of religious institutions. Saudi Arabian clerics should not be allowed to indoctrinate British Muslim kids. I would also have us cut ties with Saudi Arabia.

I completely agree. I might have to have a sit down

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

yeah would be nice. might see a moderating CoE kinda parallel emerging without saud interference

 

[liu]

cough cough kamikaze pilots cough cough

religion is an easy way to convince people to do stupid shit but so is nation, state and race. i'd argue any identity can, they're powerful things that give meaning to the chaos. they just require the circumstances to flourish. circumstances like defending the glorious nipponese empire. or defending the faith from self-styled crusaders

Can't agree more about that any identity can help to convince people to act stupid. Many of the terrorists would find something else to support their killings if there were no Islam. As an atheist, I believe religions are created and defended by people who want/need it.

What really matters is in what kind of circumstances to people do something such as terrorist attacks in the name of religion or race or anything else.
As many have already pointed out, some of the deadliest terrorists are born in countries like France. You have your own home-grown terrorists in Britain too, right? Are they threatened by crusaders? That's something really interests me.

Islam is not the root of terrorism. But it's reasonable to think there might be some kind of correlation between Islam and terrorism. After all, too many places have experienced terrost attacks done in the name of Islam in modern times. How they are correlated can be difficult to say. But to deny the correlation is just as irresponsible as to blame it all on Islam.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

If you look at the backgrounds of many of these people that go off to join ISIS or al-Qaeda before them, these are not random psychopaths or disenfranchised youth we're usually talking about, they're not people that would be shooting people one way or another, they're doctors and teachers and shit. To treat these religious ideologies as incidental or an excuse is wishful thinking at it's worst. The Western provocation rationale can only take you so far. There's no logical connection between your kin dying in a drone strike, and you throwing homosexuals off rooftops.

 

[liu]

Is it possible that, people who'd want to be a terrorist, are generally more attracted to Islam than others?

It's something like, say, if drunk drivers are more attracted by red cars, red cars are not necessarily the reason of drunk driving even if they are more frequently involed in those accidents than cars of other colours. But you can infer that they might be correlated.

 

[HertsWolf]

Is it possible that, people who'd want to be a terrorist, are generally more attracted to Islam than others?

It's something like, say, if drunk drivers are more attracted by red cars, red cars are not necessarily the reason of drunk driving even if they are more frequently involed in those accidents than cars of other colours. But you can infer that they might be correlated.

Your question suggests that Person A wants to be a terrorist like it's a career choice.

Yes. It's a genius correlation. I trust the Nobel Committee are watching.

 

[HertsWolf]

If you look at the backgrounds of many of these people that go off to join ISIS or al-Qaeda before them, these are not random psychopaths or disenfranchised youth we're usually talking about, they're not people that would be shooting people one way or another, they're doctors and teachers and shit. To treat these religious ideologies as incidental or an excuse is wishful thinking at it's worst. The Western provocation rationale can only take you so far. There's no logical connection between your kin dying in a drone strike, and you throwing homosexuals off rooftops.

Unusually, I don't really disagree with you. I think the whole "Western provocation" thing is not the rationale for an individual's behaviour but I believe it sets a scene or context into which individuals are enticed. I remember reading a long time ago about the concept of "aggrieved nationalism" to describe some of China's foreign policy in the 1980s and 1990s. Part of it revolved around the anger, frustration, inferiority and impotence felt by people/a nation/individuals with their perception that others were mocking, humiliating and putting down their country. Perhaps this sense of frustration is an element?

I agree that these are not random psychopaths (what's the probability of three cousins so described?), but the disenfranchised youth might have some element of truth.....

The leap from "kin dying to throwing people off a rooftop" is even more difficult to comprehend, because there is absolutely zero evidence that any terrorist in recent years has had relatives killed at all. So far, it seems that many of those who have gone to fight for IS are (or were) well brought-up, respectful people. So what is the trigger?

 

[HertsWolf]

In an ideal world I would ban foreign funding of religious institutions. Saudi Arabian clerics should not be allowed to indoctrinate British Muslim kids. I would also have us cut ties with Saudi Arabia.

More sweeping statements to solve a nuanced, complex situation. The vast majority of funding of religious institutions by any other body (of any nationality) is benign. If people are intent on funding something, they will find a way to do it. You may recall that there was strong funding for Republican causes in Northern Ireland from the USA. It was done through social clubs and cultural events, but a lot was done by entities like NORAID.

I do have some sympathy for your call to cut ties with Saudi Arabia. Many who have lived and worked there and seen the reality of how our "allies" behave to their own citizens. However, "Saudi Arabia" is not homogenous, and cutting ties could negatively affect those who do not support extreme religion. I would like to see far more strings attached to our diplomatic ties, not only to Saudi Arabia but more widely in the GCC countries and elsewhere in Asia and Africa.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

It should be mocked more openly the way Christianity is, literalistic interpretations at least. If we can laugh at talking snakes then we can laugh at jinn and flying horses and shit*.

*Which Mehdi Hasan believes literally existed.

Suggest you only start mocking when you stop believing in equally unfounded and irrational and damaging things like "reverse racism", "white genocide" (sorry, ethnic self-cleansing) and "British Values".

 

[HertsWolf]

The Paris female suicide bomber, Hasna Ait Boulahcen, has been described as a "model kid" in a BBC report.
I guess she is now back in the box as all the original pieces now.

 

[liu]

Your question suggests that Person A wants to be a terrorist like it's a career choice.

Yes. It's a genius correlation. I trust the Nobel Committee are watching.

Don't be silly. There's no chance Nobel Committee are going through all the shits in this thread. But thanks for your compliment.

 

[Womble98]

Suggest you only start mocking when you stop believing in equally unfounded and irrational and damaging things like "reverse racism", "white genocide" (sorry, ethnic self-cleansing) and "British Values".

"reverse racism". I'm not quite sure if I have misintepreted your post, but am I correct i saying you are one of those absolute fuckwits who believe only white people can be racist? If so do one, it is the most retarded view imaginable.

 

[sl1k]

Part of it revolved around the anger, frustration, inferiority and impotence felt by people/a nation/individuals with their perception that others were mocking, humiliating and putting down their country. Perhaps this sense of frustration is an element?

Speaking of my own personal experience growing up as a kid (10-14) there were things happening in the world I couldn't quite make sense of, as at the time I obviously lacked the capacity to appreciate how complex the issues were. But though I wasn't from a particularly religious household, I felt immense sympathy for the number of Muslims being killed/undermined in the world from Chechnya to Palestine. Felt overwhelmingly powerless and very, very pissed off. That mixed with the fact I grew up in a Tower Hamlets where it wasn't the easiest of times to be south asian in general, I could have quite easily been one of those to slip through the net.

I can imagine a plethora of things that could influence an individual who lacks the education or political understanding.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

The question then becomes, why are you identifying primarily with people of your religion and not of your nationality? Why did you care about Chechens and Palestinians so much? Do you think there is a way to quarantine British Islam from what's happening to Muslims around the world? And if not, why not?

Suggest you only start mocking when you stop believing in equally unfounded and irrational and damaging things like "reverse racism", "white genocide" (sorry, ethnic self-cleansing) and "British Values".

I'm not a special snowflake that needs a safe space. Anyone is free to mock my beliefs just as I'm free to mock theirs. I'm quite comfortable with it, it frequently exposes the barmy beliefs of those making the jibes in the first place, as you have just been kind enough to demonstrate.

 

[HertsWolf]

Speaking of my own personal experience growing up as a kid (10-14) there were things happening in the world I couldn't quite make sense of, as at the time I obviously lacked the capacity to appreciate how complex the issues were. But though I wasn't from a particularly religious household, I felt immense sympathy for the number of Muslims being killed/undermined in the world from Chechnya to Palestine. Felt overwhelmingly powerless and very, very pissed off. That mixed with the fact I grew up in a Tower Hamlets where it wasn't the easiest of times to be south asian in general, I could have quite easily been one of those to slip through the net.

I can imagine a plethora of things that could influence an individual who lacks the education or political understanding.

I imagine it's a big leap to wanting to hurt people, but surely that is the kind of fertile ground targeted by those who want to manipulate the young, the impressionable and the vulnerable.

 

[Womble98]

Speaking of my own personal experience growing up as a kid (10-14) there were things happening in the world I couldn't quite make sense of, as at the time I obviously lacked the capacity to appreciate how complex the issues were. But though I wasn't from a particularly religious household, I felt immense sympathy for the number of Muslims being killed/undermined in the world from Chechnya to Palestine. Felt overwhelmingly powerless and very, very pissed off. That mixed with the fact I grew up in a Tower Hamlets where it wasn't the easiest of times to be south asian in general, I could have quite easily been one of those to slip through the net.

I can imagine a plethora of things that could influence an individual who lacks the education or political understanding.

Your post with personal experience certainly makes your point of view easier to understand.

You must agree though, that radical speakers feast among people who feel a similar way to how you describe.

 

[HertsWolf]

The question then becomes, why are you identifying with primarily with people of your religion and not of your nationality? Why did you care about Chechens and Palestinians so much?

He didn't actually say that he was 'primarily identifying' with anyone, so yours is not "The" question but "a" question.

As one reflection on your question, perhaps he might identify with these people through the 'community' of faith? It's the same mechanic that has British newspapers reporting on atrocities against Christians wherever they may happen. On the other hand, Buddhist violence against Muslims in Burma gets very little coverage, for example. There is a strong sense of ethnic and faith kindred in many cultures. The sense of the word 'brother' and 'sister' is much more keenly felt and used in many non-Western cultures, but especially in the Middle East and North Africa.

Perhaps sl1k (and many others) associate with multiple communities....Islam might be one, British might be another, Londoner might be another, train-spotter might be another, husband, Wolves supporter, quilter, stamp-collector, young person. It's both legitimate and probably even desirable.

However, it is possible to have compassion, concerns and even anger and frustration with a situation without having to identify with them. Many in the West have supported and promoted the rights of people in diverse parts of the world...Darfur, Burma, Diego Garcia, etc...without ever having been there or meeting anyone from those places. It can just be a heartfelt desire to see justice.

In some posts you accuse people of being facile, yet in others you seem confused if there isn't a simple cultural construct.

 

[HertsWolf]

You must agree though, that radical speakers feast among people who feel a similar way to how you describe.

I'm not sure anyone has ever disagreed with that....

 

[Womble98]

He didn't actually say that he was 'primarily identifying' with anyone, so yours is not "The" question but "a" question.

As one reflection on your question, perhaps he might identify with these people through the 'community' of faith? It's the same mechanic that has British newspapers reporting on atrocities against Christians wherever they may happen. On the other hand, Buddhist violence against Muslims in Burma gets very little coverage, for example. There is a strong sense of ethnic and faith kindred in many cultures. The sense of the word 'brother' and 'sister' is much more keenly felt and used in many non-Western cultures, but especially in the Middle East and North Africa.

Perhaps sl1k (and many others) associate with multiple communities....Islam might be one, British might be another, Londoner might be another, train-spotter might be another, husband, Wolves supporter, quilter, stamp-collector, young person. It's both legitimate and probably even desirable.

However, it is possible to have compassion, concerns and even anger and frustration with a situation without having to identify with them. Many in the West have supported and promoted the rights of people in diverse parts of the world...Darfur, Burma, Diego Garcia, etc...without ever having been there or meeting anyone from those places. It can just be a heartfelt desire to see justice.

In some posts you accuse people of being facile, yet in others you seem confused if there isn't a simple cultural construct.

That exactly. Catholics do it a lot.

 

[HertsWolf]

That exactly. Catholics do it a lot.

Do what a lot?

 

[Womble98]

Do what a lot?

Identify massively with other Catholics/Christians. It is the natural response.

 

[HertsWolf]

Identify massively with other Catholics/Christians. It is the natural response.

We all do it. In many different ways.
It's simplistic to think of communities in terms of being mutually-exclusive geographical territories. People are free to support, promote, identify with whoever the fuck they like. It's what they feel is important inside them.
People on the right get especially wound up when they see British Asian people supporting Indian, Pakistan, etc in the cricket but if it pisses off Tebbit, BoJo, et al then fuck it, I'll support the Indian cricket team too!

 

[sl1k]

The question then becomes, why are you identifying primarily with people of your religion and not of your nationality? Why did you care about Chechens and Palestinians so much? Do you think there is a way to quarantine British Islam from what's happening to Muslims around the world? And if not, why not?

Well, EG if we go back to the 90s estates of east London, when the union jack and "your cooking smells like shit you paki bastards" was getting graffited on my front door I really couldn't give a fuck about feeling British at the time. It wasn't that I had a natural predisposition to feel that way mate.

The current generation however hopefully would not have had such experiences and hence would identify as British Muslims with less conflict.

MorDon and HertsWolf Indeed I was the target audience of the radical preachers who's poisenous naratives made alot more sense at the time.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

He didn't actually say that he was 'primarily identifying' with anyone, so yours is not "The" question but "a" question.

As one reflection on your question, perhaps he might identify with these people through the 'community' of faith? It's the same mechanic that has British newspapers reporting on atrocities against Christians wherever they may happen. On the other hand, Buddhist violence against Muslims in Burma gets very little coverage, for example. There is a strong sense of ethnic and faith kindred in many cultures. The sense of the word 'brother' and 'sister' is much more keenly felt and used in many non-Western cultures, but especially in the Middle East and North Africa.

Perhaps sl1k (and many others) associate with multiple communities....Islam might be one, British might be another, Londoner might be another, train-spotter might be another, husband, Wolves supporter, quilter, stamp-collector, young person. It's both legitimate and probably even desirable.

However, it is possible to have compassion, concerns and even anger and frustration with a situation without having to identify with them. Many in the West have supported and promoted the rights of people in diverse parts of the world...Darfur, Burma, Diego Garcia, etc...without ever having been there or meeting anyone from those places. It can just be a heartfelt desire to see justice.

In some posts you accuse people of being facile, yet in others you seem confused if there isn't a simple cultural construct.

If we're trying glean something from his experience that might go some small way toward explaining why someone would shoot up their countrymen for a foreign cause, then we're going to have to dig a little bit deeper than run of the mill compassion. The reason I ask the question is because I disagree strongly with your point about our media coverage being slanted toward atrocities against Christians. I don't find that to be true at all, in fact I find that quite unlike the Muslim world, Christians don't seem to feel much kinship between one another at all. Your average Western Christian has no idea what's going on in Central Africa to other Christians, and in my experience aren't particularly bothered even when they do.