Attacks in Paris + Belgium

[AFCB_Mark]

Significant police operation currently under way at Paris Gare du Nord train station.

 

[Renegade]

Apparently he was wearing a fake explosive vest. If you are going to give your life to martyrdom, why not actually take out a few infidels instead of dying for nothing? Assuming (I know, mother of all fucks ups) he supported Jihadism, he pretty much failed to further the cause he fights for. I suppose he brought attention to his cause on a very sensitive day. I guess.

This will never go away, will it?

 

[Alty]

Apparently he was wearing a fake explosive vest. If you are going to give your life to martyrdom, why not actually take out a few infidels instead of dying for nothing? Assuming (I know, mother of all fucks ups) he supported Jihadism, he pretty much failed to further the cause he fights for. I suppose he brought attention to his cause on a very sensitive day. I guess.

This will never go away, will it?

It's theoretically possible that it could go away. Or at least that the incidents like these could become exceptionally rare. But in order for that to happen we need to recognise the true nature of the problem and try to win a battle of ideas. Not parrot the same old guff about these attacks having nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.

Basically, we need more Maajid Nawaz types and fewer wishy washy liberal apologists.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

personally i feel YOU are a wishy washy liberal for not advocating the murder of all muslims. no muslims no muslim terrorists u filthy pc do-gooder

 

[Renegade]

It's theoretically possible that it could go away. Or at least that the incidents like these could become exceptionally rare. But in order for that to happen we need to recognise the true nature of the problem and try to win a battle of ideas. Not parrot the same old guff about these attacks having nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.

Basically, we need more Maajid Nawaz types and fewer wishy washy liberal apologists.

I read his book with Sam Harris, thought it was very interesting and more often than not spot on. I'm not optimistic about it going away any time soon - they are inciting the worst groups of society in just the right way and a lot of the most 'liberal' people in society are enabling them.

I completely buy into the regressive left idea that Nawaz cites. The most liberal people will condemn any sect of society that represses another group (women, homosexuals, etc.) but they hesitate when it comes to condemning a religion, pointing to Western intervention as the primary issue. Obviously that is a huge problem, but it just feels as though these people (sadly a huge number of my friends included) have got their priorities backwards. You also can't raise any of these concerns without being called a bigot. I can't do it and I'm a namby pamby liberal. Very frustrating.

 

[Aber gas]

How are liberals enabling terrorism? I don't know many that endorse extremist, Islamic fascism. I don't and won't defend extremists abroad or here but I also will defend the vast majority of Muslims who are being vilified because of the actions of the few. Taking the view that this a Islamic problem is just as simple minded as liberals blaming foreign intervention in the Middle East. There are several different issues that cause terrorism with religious extremism being a primary one but before " wishy washy " liberals are castigated too much perhaps we should be reassessing our government's relationships with extremist countries including our nominal allies. But I suppose this comes under the heading of realpolitik and it's much easier to blame liberals.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

i generally take the view that criticism should be an individual process. we as individuals, cultures, groups and what haves should seek to improve ourselves first and foremost. i'd say that's the essence of humanity. of course others can, and should, work to better themselves too, and some aren't and are actively regressing. which sucks. but, whilst our nation, our gender, our country and, yes, us as individuals, are enabling or profiteering from a hostile, unequal and indecent world, i feel we should do our part. which is the difference, really. too many seek to blame others in an attempt to absolve themselves of sin. which i suppose is human. kinda like alty claiming the amritsar massacre was all fine and dandy cause indians like cricket now. it's a sad facet of humanity though. ofc the changes we need to make may be smaller than the changes someone else needs to make. but they are our changes. self-actualization starts at home

 

[blade1889]

What's the solution lads? Seriously, any: extreme, moderate, reasonable or not-at-all liberal person want to provide one?

I think most people recognise a problem that Islam does have extreme nutters who carry out attacks in Islams name and that needs to be addressed, but how? All I see currently on the internet is people being completely anti-Islam, without acknowledging that that could actually be doing more harm. Extremists thrive by creating a divide, forcing a choice between followers of Islam or European and that that Islam has to be extremism. Which is complete rubbish, of course people can be Muslim and European but more and more people are making the two mutually exclusive and when we start propagating the 'muslim or european' crap ourselves we're only strengthening the extremists cause, turning more people against Europe and will only see more of these incidents happening. Yes we need to acknowledge the problem but we also need to not tar all of Islam and Muslims and asylum-seekers with the same brush, as soon as we do that we start helping the extremists.

Education on all sides of tolerance needs to be better, and thats to the right-wing of this coutnry and to muslims, teach both sides that it isn't a case of Harry Potters 'one cannot live while the other survives'. Easier said than done but is the only solution as I see it. That and people need to open their eyes to the biasdness of our media, you'll see 'gang of muslims', 'gang of asians' but it won't ever be 'gang of brits' or 'gang of christians' or 'gang of atheists', and thats not because the latter doesn't happen, it just isn't the image we want peddling.

 

[Renegade]

How are liberals enabling terrorism? I don't know many that endorse extremist, Islamic fascism. I don't and won't defend extremists abroad or here but I also will defend the vast majority of Muslims who are being vilified because of the actions of the few. Taking the view that this a Islamic problem is just as simple minded as liberals blaming foreign intervention in the Middle East. There are several different issues that cause terrorism with religious extremism being a primary one but before " wishy washy " liberals are castigated too much perhaps we should be reassessing our government's relationships with extremist countries including our nominal allies. But I suppose this comes under the heading of realpolitik and it's much easier to blame liberals.

I didn't say liberals as a whole group were enabling terrorism, nor did I say the problem was merely an Islamic problem. The regressive left (of which you are clearly not a part) is so stern not to offend anyone that they have trouble calling a spade a spade. Yes, the problem in the Middle-East is multi-faceted, it appears to be as much a societal issue as it is a religious one. However, the actions of ISIS are explicitly taken from the Quran and when you point this out (like Sam Harris and Nawaz have done) you are vilified as bigot by this group of people. Nawaz and Harris put forward sane arguments looking at all sides of the debate (as you would expect from a devout Muslim and a new atheist), yet they get persecuted by this group of liberals constantly.

A lot of people are unwilling to look at both sides of the debate (probably in an attempt to appear virtuous) and devote more energy into attacking their allies than the real enemy. In that sense they are enabling, it's pretty obvious in the context of my post I wasn't saying they agree with Islamic fascism.

 

[Alty]

How are liberals enabling terrorism? I don't know many that endorse extremist, Islamic fascism. I don't and won't defend extremists abroad or here but I also will defend the vast majority of Muslims who are being vilified because of the actions of the few. Taking the view that this a Islamic problem is just as simple minded as liberals blaming foreign intervention in the Middle East. There are several different issues that cause terrorism with religious extremism being a primary one but before " wishy washy " liberals are castigated too much perhaps we should be reassessing our government's relationships with extremist countries including our nominal allies. But I suppose this comes under the heading of realpolitik and it's much easier to blame liberals.

Because there are serious problems with Islamic scripture and the acts committed due to the interpretation of that scripture by a sizeable portion of Muslims. But the second one tries to engage with that reality it's almost inevitable, as Ren says, that you'll be called a bigot and your line of argument closed down by 'liberals'.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

I didn't say liberals as a whole group were enabling terrorism, nor did I say the problem was merely an Islamic problem. The regressive left (of which you are clearly not a part) is so stern not to offend anyone that they have trouble calling a spade a spade. Yes, the problem in the Middle-East is multi-faceted, it appears to be as much a societal issue as it is a religious one. However, the actions of ISIS are explicitly taken from the Quran and when you point this out (like Sam Harris and Nawaz have done) you are vilified as bigot by this group of people. Nawaz and Harris put forward sane arguments looking at all sides of the debate (as you would expect from a devout Muslim and a new atheist), yet they get persecuted by this group of liberals constantly.

A lot of people are unwilling to look at both sides of the debate (probably in an attempt to appear virtuous) and devote more energy into attacking their allies than the real enemy. In that sense they are enabling, it's pretty obvious in the context of my post I wasn't saying they agree with Islamic fascism.

saying hmmm yes terrorism is bad helps no-one

 

[Renegade]

saying hmmm yes terrorism is bad helps no-one

Having an open and honest debate about the points Alty mentioned would, instead of tearing each other apart. Not likely I know.

 

[blade1889]

Because there are serious problems with Islamic scripture and the acts committed due to the interpretation of that scripture by a sizeable portion of Muslims. But the second one tries to engage with that reality it's almost inevitable, as Ren says, that you'll be called a bigot and your line of argument closed down by 'liberals'.

The issues aren't the scripture though and the solution isn't attacking Islam as a whole. Theres BS scripture in most religions. The issues are the human teachings and the brainwashing, Christian scripture teaches homophobia but thankfully it is nows tarting to be taught correctly and the peacefulness and acceptance of the religion is being accentuated (although not enough imo). We aren't going to change what is written in scripture, the teachings can be changed though and those teachings have to be of tolerance. As soon as we become intolerant to a whole religion because some of its scripture is abhorrent we impede tolerance being taught the other way.

 

[Alty]

i generally take the view that criticism should be an individual process. we as individuals, cultures, groups and what haves should seek to improve ourselves first and foremost. i'd say that's the essence of humanity. of course others can, and should, work to better themselves too, and some aren't and are actively regressing. which sucks. but, whilst our nation, our gender, our country and, yes, us as individuals, are enabling or profiteering from a hostile, unequal and indecent world, i feel we should do our part. which is the difference, really. too many seek to blame others in an attempt to absolve themselves of sin. which i suppose is human. kinda like alty claiming the amritsar massacre was all fine and dandy cause indians like cricket now. it's a sad facet of humanity though. ofc the changes we need to make may be smaller than the changes someone else needs to make. but they are our changes. self-actualization starts at home

Except what I actually said is that there were a variety of motivations for colonial expansion and a number of consequences, both positive and negative. Of course the desire to be a "civilising influence" is seen as offensive now, and rightly so, but the idea that the aftermath of the British Empire saw absolutely nothing positive left behind for any of our colonies or dominions is plain wrong. Something the vast majority of people in those countries accept.

I interviewed an IRA man who happily acknowledged the British had done some good in Ireland, for example.

 

[Alty]

The issues aren't the scripture though and the solution isn't attacking Islam as a whole. Theres BS scripture in most religions. The issues are the human teachings and the brainwashing, Christian scripture teaches homophobia but thankfully it is nows tarting to be taught correctly and the peacefulness and acceptance of the religion is being accentuated (although not enough imo). We aren't going to change what is written in scripture, the teachings can be changed though and those teachings have to be of tolerance. As soon as we become intolerant to a whole religion because some of its scripture is abhorrent we impede tolerance being taught the other way.

Don't have time to engage with this now, I need to go to a Vietnamese restaurant. I'll come back to you in due course.

Or someone better than me can jump in. Whatevs.

 

[blade1889]

Don't have time to engage with this now, I need to go to a Vietnamese restaurant. I'll come back to you in due course.

Or someone better than me can jump in. Whatevs.

Jealous

 

[Martino Knockavelli]

#humblebrag

 

[Aber gas]

Because there are serious problems with Islamic scripture and the acts committed due to the interpretation of that scripture by a sizeable portion of Muslims. But the second one tries to engage with that reality it's almost inevitable, as Ren says, that you'll be called a bigot and your line of argument closed down by 'liberals'.

You make it sound as if criticism of Islam is actively oppressed, the new right ( Harris and his acolytes) have plenty of exposure and their ideas are argueably the mainstream. Defending Islam is the unpopular position to take and any attempt to debate from that position is shut down as "wishy washy " liberal rubbish. It's a polarised debate and doesn't help the situation.

 

[Renegade]

You make it sound as if criticism of Islam is actively oppressed, the new right ( Harris and his acolytes) have plenty of exposure and their ideas are argueably the mainstream. Defending Islam is the unpopular position to take and any attempt to debate from that position is shut down as "wishy washy " liberal rubbish. It's a polarised debate and doesn't help the situation.

It is the polar opposite of that amongst the people I encounter, though that might be be a case of everyone I know either being in or just out of University. Alty might be a victim of this too. The right jump on Harris's ideas as his comments towards Islam align with their world view, but I don't think they would be so happy with any of his other work that pillages Christianity. New right? The guy is a liberal. I assume the acolyte comment was pointed in my direction because I brought him up in this thread. I read that one book with Nawaz, he seems to be all about egalitarianism - his views towards Islam seem to be based on basic liberal principles - equality for women, homosexuals, apostates and so on. I thought he was pretty reasoned throughout, there was nothing right-wing about his ideals. Maybe he has done something horrible elsewhere, don't know? I would be surprised though.

EDIT: liberal, not libertarian. Though aren't we all both? Term always confuses me.

 

[Aber gas]

It is the polar opposite of that amongst the people I encounter, though that might be be a case of everyone I know either being in or just out of University. Alty might be a victim of this too. The right jump on Harris's ideas as his comments towards Islam align with their world view, but I don't think they would be so happy with any of his other work that pillages Christianity. New right? The guy is a libertarian. I assume the acolyte comment was pointed in my direction because I brought him up in this thread. I read that one book with Nawaz, he seems to be all about egalitarianism - his views towards Islam seem to be based on basic liberal principles - equality for women, homosexuals, apostates and so on. I thought he was pretty reasoned throughout, there was nothing right-wing about his ideals. Maybe he has done something horrible elsewhere, don't know? I would be surprised though.

I wasn't referring to you mate, I was referring to Frum and the rest of neocon, warmongers that have hitched themselves to hariss's bandwagon. I'll admit I don't like Harris though can see his attraction and the ideas he raises do need to be debated. I certainly wasn't trying to insult you.

 

[SUTSS]

When people like Greenwald, Werleman and Uygur chuck around the term racist and bigot at people like Harris, Dawkins, Nawaz, Rubin etc. then it does have a problem with shutting down the debate. People who haven't read anything that they have written or listened to anything they said then don't want to because they don't want to listen to 'racists'. And this goes beyond this when it seems that they want to deliberately misrepresent people. This happens with Harris' comments all the time which is especially annoying from Uygur after their 3 hour sit down which really showed there wasn't that much different in their viewpoints and looked like it would stop this. Another recent thing was Werleman taking a page from Dawkins' books in which he talked about his happy childhood and making this into Dawkins' being an imperialist and white supremacist. (although on some of Dawkins controversy I don't think he is particularly good at condensing his ideas into 140 characters on twitter.)

But ultimately what this treatment stops is people on the left and the centre talking about radical islam and allows the right wing, and especially the far right wing, a free pass at it. This is also true of immigration where you are labelled by some as a racist if you don't think it's a good idea for everyone in the entire world to be able to come here (obviously they can't and I'm not someone who pretends that they can). It is a perfectly reasonable view to say that Europe should take a fair share of migrants from Syria and that Britain is not doing enough but at the same time raise legitimate concerns about just how many we can take and exactly what sort of people are coming over. We can't talk about the cultural differences being an issue (as was (potentially as I don't think we know 100% that is was refugees but it looks likely) on show in Germany on New Year's Eve) without being labelled a racist and being told that we hate all muslims which is patently false.

And the consequence of all this is that people are afraid to name the problem, people are afraid to have a sensible debate about these issues. What we get left with is people debating from the left denying that there is a problem and people from the far right exaggerating the problem. The common person (I really hate that phrase but can't think of any better) can see that there are issues and this allows the far right to ghost into the gap and they are on the rise all over Europe which is terrifying.

 

[Aber gas]

Harris et al aren't immune from criticism though are they? I am allowed to point out his torture apology, dodgy ideas on gun control and racial profiling ? Or is this shutting down debate ?
I think what is going on here is people are mistaking people having a different point of view with shutting down debate.

 

[Alty]

When people like Greenwald, Werleman and Uygur chuck around the term racist and bigot at people like Harris, Dawkins, Nawaz, Rubin etc. then it does have a problem with shutting down the debate. People who haven't read anything that they have written or listened to anything they said then don't want to because they don't want to listen to 'racists'. And this goes beyond this when it seems that they want to deliberately misrepresent people. This happens with Harris' comments all the time which is especially annoying from Uygur after their 3 hour sit down which really showed there wasn't that much different in their viewpoints and looked like it would stop this. Another recent thing was Werleman taking a page from Dawkins' books in which he talked about his happy childhood and making this into Dawkins' being an imperialist and white supremacist. (although on some of Dawkins controversy I don't think he is particularly good at condensing his ideas into 140 characters on twitter.)

But ultimately what this treatment stops is people on the left and the centre talking about radical islam and allows the right wing, and especially the far right wing, a free pass at it. This is also true of immigration where you are labelled by some as a racist if you don't think it's a good idea for everyone in the entire world to be able to come here (obviously they can't and I'm not someone who pretends that they can). It is a perfectly reasonable view to say that Europe should take a fair share of migrants from Syria and that Britain is not doing enough but at the same time raise legitimate concerns about just how many we can take and exactly what sort of people are coming over. We can't talk about the cultural differences being an issue (as was (potentially as I don't think we know 100% that is was refugees but it looks likely) on show in Germany on New Year's Eve) without being labelled a racist and being told that we hate all muslims which is patently false.

And the consequence of all this is that people are afraid to name the problem, people are afraid to have a sensible debate about these issues. What we get left with is people debating from the left denying that there is a problem and people from the far right exaggerating the problem. The common person (I really hate that phrase but can't think of any better) can see that there are issues and this allows the far right to ghost into the gap and they are on the rise all over Europe which is terrifying.

Brilliant post. Completely agree with all of that. I don't think there's much point me adding anything else.

Vietnamese was great btw. Com Viet at Covent Garden. Highly recommended.

 

[Alty]

Harris et al aren't immune from criticism though are they? I am allowed to point out his torture apology, dodgy ideas on gun control and racial profiling ? Or is this shutting down debate ?
I think what is going on here is people are mistaking people having a different point of view with shutting down debate.

Okay, one last contribution from me. I haven't read or heard anywhere near all of Harris' work, but you're either misunderstanding a lot of what he says or deliberately misrepresenting him.

He's consistently said torture should be illegal. What's been jumped on by a few disingenuous pricks is the fact that he said its hypothetically justifiable to torture a known terrorist if you knew for a fact it would get you information that would save lives. Which I'd say is a pretty uncontroversial position.

Re profiling...all he's advocated is not putting effort into investigating people who are obviously no risk. Should the authorities devote as much resource to investigating an 85 year old Finnish granny as a 40 year old man? Harris thinks he himself and others like him should still be investigated so this isn't a nasty "us and them" scenario.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Harris et al aren't immune from criticism though are they? I am allowed to point out his torture apology, dodgy ideas on gun control and racial profiling ? Or is this shutting down debate ?
I think what is going on here is people are mistaking people having a different point of view with shutting down debate.

That's not the sort of thing that anyone is taking issue with though. We're talking about things like progressives attacking a liberal internationalist opponent by misquoting him in such a way that they can paint him as a fascist in a concerted effort to smear him into irrelevance. If all that was going on was thoughtful criticism than there would be no problem, debating is part of Harris' day job after all.

 

[Aber gas]

I'm not deliberately misrepresenting him and I think I have adequate comprehension. I just have a different view of him than both of you. That's not shutting down debate or to say that his voice isn't a major player. If someone thinks Harris is a racist ( I don't fwiw) then that is their right, having a different view on his work is not shutting down debate.
I find it interesting that while the premise was liberals dominating and shutting down debate I'm the only one with a differing view. A minuscule sample admittedly but interesting to me at least.

 

[SUTSS]

I'm not deliberately misrepresenting him and I think I have adequate comprehension. I just have a different view of him than both of you. That's not shutting down debate or to say that his voice isn't a major player. If someone thinks Harris is a racist ( I don't fwiw) then that is their right, having a different view on his work is not shutting down debate.
I find it interesting that while the premise was liberals dominating and shutting down debate I'm the only one with a differing view. A minuscule sample admittedly but interesting to me at least.

You can disagree with him, no one is saying you can't. What I was saying is that by misrepresenting him to make him appear like a racist or fascist. Or shouting racist/fascist/bigot at anyone who steps outside the SJW/Regressive Left line then that does shut down debate. They are all pretty loaded terms and people do become wary about what they say as either they are worried about being labelled such (as such a label sticks) or they just can't be bothered with the hassle of putting up with that.

I find the opposite with the people that I have on facebook for example that many more subscribe to these ideas. Maybe because a few years ago I would have been one of those being called regressive left and so my facebook is full of these people. But I think it is in the mainstream as well, Ben Affleck being a prime example.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

personally i feel attacked when u guys throw around labels like 'wishy washy liberal' and 'SJW'. u are pushing me right into the hands of the gays, the Islamist and the radical feminazi agenda. an unlikely coalition of evil

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

Before Paris, 33% of respondents agreed that ‘Muslims have a lot to offer British culture’, compared to 35% who disagreed. After Paris the proportion who disagreed remained the same, but an additional 2% agreed with the statement.

looks like we're a society divided between the wishy washys and the bigots. well as long as one side feels attacked by the other all the time and we can spend all our time holding hands that's all well and good

 

[Aber gas]

So it's ok to dismiss people's ideas as wishy washy or regressive but it's shutting down debate to call someone a fascist?
It must be a hard life having all the major media outlets agreeing with you, a sympathetic right wing government and a battalion of academics. If it wasn't for those pesky regressives shutting down debate everything would be fine.