Europe's 9/11

[txa1265]

I stand corrected, and yet you still have to dig deep to find evidence that the broader Muslim community had a problem with the actions of ISIS. All that really does is prove what I said-they've done a shitty job getting their message out.

You might also want to check on your definition of participation if you believe the Arabs are really taking an interest in a problem in their own back yard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intervention_against_the_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant
Take a look at the right hand side that lists the participants. What do you see? Whole lotta USA and Europe. What don't you see?

As I said I don't really disagree with you (as opposed to HHR) ... but I wonder about how we seem to be applying USA-centric standards of 'getting the message out' to non-USA people? Is that reasonable/fair? These people are not isolated from the ongoing events (more horrific events just announced ... which could be the headline any day, really), as we are. They have to balance the realities in their own neighborhoods.

We see nuanced responses and non-responses all the time here in the USA about things - look at the NRA and Sandy Hook as an example. Regardless of how you feel about guns, it is clear that their primary concern was not for the lives of the children.

This isn't such a clear and easy thing - if it was I should take a gun on my morning run and wipe out the half-dozen or so Muslim families who live in our development ... but again, it is about the people committing atrocities.

 

[Myrthos]

You want apologies from people who have no relation whatsoever besides some imaginary relation because of their religion?
Here is a video made by a Dutch filmmaker about children apologizing for the atrocities committed by people they do not even know, but with whom they share a religion, the color of their hair or a hat.

This is how the debate is going these days. Muslims commit a crime, so all Muslims should say sorry or at the very least state that they want nothing to do with those Muslims who committed the crime. Why? And why does that only apply to Muslims?

For the record, no child was harmed in this video in any way. All interviewers were related to the children.

 

[dteowner]

That's not what I'm saying at all. In fact, that's a fairly common twist the tolerance police like to play when they don't have a good explanation for the crickets. I don't expect apologies by any stretch. They don't owe me squat. I do expect self-interest to dictate a PR campaign.

When things like this happen, broad brushes come out of every corner. If I'm a muslim leader, I'm seeing a group of crackpots ruining my brand. The actions of a few taint the whole group (case in point, the gun control loons break out their broad brushes every time some nutjob happens to use a gun for his/her meltdown and the NRA group comes out and explains- yet again- that there's a big difference between responsible owners of legal firearms and nutjobs). It's purely self interest for the "victims" of this broad brush thing to differentiate themselves from the actual bad apples. Even when the media push is in the opposite direction, there's always plenty of cameras available for people to say "THIS is what I am about. THAT is not what I am about." That's not an apology. That's simply directing the narrative for their own benefit.

So, if it's completely logical for self interest to drive a response, the overwhelming lack of a response has to point to certain possible reasons. In this case, none of those possible reasons puts Islam in a very good light.

 

[txa1265]

Actually your logic is circular ... you don't expect things ... yet failure to deliver to some very specific, very USA-centric standards is pretty much admission of guilt or at least complicit behavior. Again, you are heaping expectations upon others to meet your standards or face guilt.

Also, how do you define 'crickets'? Do we know all actions taken by foreign governments? Remember that not too many governments take the USA stance of 'bomb the shit out of everyone' as a generic response - using as context that we killed ~500k - 1 million Iraqis in the Bush/Cheney oil-buddy war. Perhaps there were acts of diplomacy attempted, negotiations and other things, but when it crossed the line it just got to be too much. I am not sure ... but there are possibilities other than 'crickets'.

Also - and half tongue-in-cheek here, but as you have noted elsewhere, you diminish your point with your blatant bias. Dismissing others as 'loons' or whatever shows a closed mind and - when the opinion runs counter to science - pure ignorance. But hey, if you want to continue, maybe you should just balance things, since we know there are loons on all sides why not just change terms:
- Since you uuse 'Tolerance Police', for those who have opposing ideas maybe use 'Intolerant Bigots'
- Since you use 'Gun Control Loons', for those who support the continued encroachment of the NRA and those who have reshaped the law (and warped history) in their favor as 'Muder Apologists Who Ignore Evidence and Data'.

Sounds fair ?

 

[dteowner]

As I said I don't really disagree with you (as opposed to HHR) … but I wonder about how we seem to be applying USA-centric standards of 'getting the message out' to non-USA people? Is that reasonable/fair?

Valid point, but to a large extent I'm not applying it to non-USA people. It's the muslims here in the USA that I'd expect to be defending their brand. Same for muslims in Europe. They're getting broad brushed to death and overall they just don't seem to care about that fact. Sure, you'd like to see the Arab nations jumping on the bandwagon as well, but you are, as you note, looking at different standards in that situation.

OTOH, if we give the Arabs a pass and attribute the crickets to some cultural differences, how do we then explain the sudden emergence of a voice (and spine) once it was one of their own getting graphically killed? Can't really have it both ways.

 

[lostforever]

That's not what I'm saying at all. In fact, that's a fairly common twist the tolerance police like to play when they don't have a good explanation for the crickets. I don't expect apologies by any stretch. They don't owe me squat. I do expect self-interest to dictate a PR campaign.

When things like this happen, broad brushes come out of every corner. If I'm a muslim leader, I'm seeing a group of crackpots ruining my brand. The actions of a few taint the whole group (case in point, the gun control loons break out their broad brushes every time some nutjob happens to use a gun for his/her meltdown and the NRA group comes out and explains- yet again- that there's a big difference between responsible owners of legal firearms and nutjobs). It's purely self interest for the "victims" of this broad brush thing to differentiate themselves from the actual bad apples. Even when the media push is in the opposite direction, there's always plenty of cameras available for people to say "THIS is what I am about. THAT is not what I am about." That's not an apology. That's simply directing the narrative for their own benefit.

So, if it's completely logical for self interest to drive a response, the overwhelming lack of a response has to point to certain possible reasons. In this case, none of those possible reasons puts Islam in a very good light.

When a white or black persons in one state kills someone, do white or black people in rest of the states get up and say this is not what we white or black people are about? No they don't and its same for Muslims. And I would guess there are more Muslims than white and black people combined!

Leave that aside, at least here in UK, when someone interview a Muslim person during any of these events they have always distanced themselves and Islam from the terrorists.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

It applies to all Muslims because the Qu'ran itself tells Muslims to do exactly what ISIS is doing, it is embedded in the very core of Islam. According to Islam itself, westernized Muslims who made peace with western secular society are cowards and hypocrites, and none of them can enter Heaven without having blood on their hands and fought the unbelievers.

Here is a video that explains how Islam is about violent uprising against unbelievers:

 

[txa1265]

Valid point, but to a large extent I'm not applying it to non-USA people. It's the muslims here in the USA that I'd expect to be defending their brand. Same for muslims in Europe. They're getting broad brushed to death and overall they just don't seem to care about that fact. Sure, you'd like to see the Arab nations jumping on the bandwagon as well, but you are, as you note, looking at different standards in that situation.

I don't really know enough about how non-violent Muslims in Europe are responding, as I don't do a great job anymore of seeking broad news coverage (my old Boston area commute was much better for THAT), and we know that none of our media do a great job of covering international events.

But IN the US, there is already broad discrimination, antipathy, and violence against Muslims, cheered on by one political party and the news sources that serve them. By standing out to distance themselves, they make themselves targets for hate-fueled intolerant types like HHR who are convinced that the entire religion is inherently evil. There are some who say that 'Islamism' is the new Communism in the US, blamed for everything and needing to be wiped out.

In the opinion of some, if Muslims are not out battling to protect non-Muslims, they are complicit. Yet as I mentioned before - you are more likely to have been killed in the last couple of years by a toddler with a legal gun than by a terrorist.

 

[txa1265]

It applies to all Muslims because the Qu'ran itself tells Muslims to do exactly what ISIS is doing, it is embedded in the very core of Islam. According to Islam itself, westernized Muslims who made peace with western secular society are cowards and hypocrites, and none of them can enter Heaven without having blood on their hands and fought the unbelievers.

We've been through many of these things before - and if you hold these opinions, then you ABSOLUTELY must take EVERY word in the Bible as an edict - including all of Leviticus. Sorry - this is an either/or thing. And it is why it is a 'fools errand' to seek to pin a religion entirely to a text. And this from a different article:

"To say ISIS is very Islamic, even though you have scores of Islamic leaders and regular, everyday Muslims who've redefined ISIS as un-Islamic and absolutely called it as such, is denying that religious community the ability to define who they are."

 

[dteowner]

Actually your logic is circular … you don't expect things … yet failure to deliver to some very specific, very USA-centric standards is pretty much admission of guilt or at least complicit behavior. Again, you are heaping expectations upon others to meet your standards or face guilt.

Also, how do you define 'crickets'? Do we know all actions taken by foreign governments? Remember that not too many governments take the USA stance of 'bomb the shit out of everyone' as a generic response - using as context that we killed ~500k - 1 million Iraqis in the Bush/Cheney oil-buddy war. Perhaps there were acts of diplomacy attempted, negotiations and other things, but when it crossed the line it just got to be too much. I am not sure … but there are possibilities other than 'crickets'.

Also - and half tongue-in-cheek here, but as you have noted elsewhere, you diminish your point with your blatant bias. Dismissing others as 'loons' or whatever shows a closed mind and - when the opinion runs counter to science - pure ignorance. But hey, if you want to continue, maybe you should just balance things, since we know there are loons on all sides why not just change terms:
- Since you uuse 'Tolerance Police', for those who have opposing ideas maybe use 'Intolerant Bigots'
- Since you use 'Gun Control Loons', for those who support the continued encroachment of the NRA and those who have reshaped the law (and warped history) in their favor as 'Muder Apologists Who Ignore Evidence and Data'.

Sounds fair ?

I'm expecting people to act in a way which clearly aligns with their self interest. I suppose you could say that's an unreasonable expectation, but that delves into fairly deep navel gazing about the nature of man. If your dispute with my stance is that speaking out aligns with their self interest, I'd call you a fool and this line of discussion we're on could keep on trucking. If your dispute with my stance is whether it's reasonable to expect people to act in their own self interest, I'd say we're touching on a much different discussion and continuing this one would be highly unproductive. Not being snarky, there's a definite difference between the two possibilities.

As for my tone, I won't argue your point. It's a combination of laziness and levity.

While it might be the "right thing to do" to avoid abrasive terms, I find it far easier to frame discussions in "shorthand" because if you pick a term out on the fringe of the spectrum people will generally understand what you're talking about, even if the terminology isn't very precise and isn't politically correct. Realistically, it's the fringes that frame most discussions anyway because (by definition) there's not much disagreement in the middle. When precise terminology is critical to the point, I'll use it, but most of the time discussions here in P&R are about broad philosophical positions where it's more important to "get the idea across" rather than stand up to detailed critique.

Further, by consistently being over the top, I find that it keeps debates from getting overly ugly. The people that are looking for a bloody knuckles throwdown get handed an excuse to dismiss everything I say and they go away. The people that are looking to chat understand that words are just words and focus on the point rather than the delivery.

Besides, it's kinda fun to be irritating as long as it's done without foul intent.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

To me it is always inconceivable and beyond absurd that people like txa1265 and Myrthos that lean left, or just your average leftists, say repeatedly that Christians are oppressive, abusive, arrogant, malicious and frequently go on about how "bigoted" they are and always decrying them when Christianity is about redemption through peace and love and it is they who gave them the society they live in, all the while defending a people who are not only the absolute antithesis of all the modern secular values they hold so dear, but who have continuously shown through history to be barbarians and merciless slaughterers, and who are called to behave exactly in such a fashion by their holy book and their prophet themselves. And these are the people who are "oppressed" and not the thousands of Christians they kill in their own lands? I'm never going to even begin to accept such ridiculous arguments.

 

[txa1265]

I'm expecting people to act in a way which clearly aligns with their self interest.

As do I - which is why I am careful about how I phrased things and admit ignorance of the detailed goings on elsewhere ... and from what others have posted it seems there IS more stuff, but since that wouldn't get ratings in the US we just don't hear about it. Maybe. I really don't know ...

Besides, it's kinda fun to be irritating as long as it's done without foul intent.

Absolutely agree, which is why I was over the top in my reply

 

[txa1265]

To me it is always inconceivable and beyond absurd that people like txa1265 and Myrthos that lean left, or just your average leftists, say repeatedly that Christians are oppressive, abusive, arrogant, malicious and frequently go on about how "bigoted" they are and always decrying them when Christianity is about redemption through peace and love, all the while defending a people who are not only the absolute antithesis of all the modern secular values they hold so dear, but who have continuously shown through history to be barbarians and merciless slaughterers, and who are called to behave exactly in such a fashion by their holy book and their prophet themselves.

I wouldn't even say I lean left - it is that I do not hold sway with religious or other strident dogma ... and find it can have a dangerous hold. Religion and dogmatic teachings (communism, etc) can have a hypnotic effect on people that distorts reality and causes 'hatred of other'.

Ask yourself this question: If Jesus is peace and love ... why is there so much hatred in everything you write?

Also, my point isn't defending extremists of any type, but warning the dangers of pretending that an ancient text provides total definition of all members of a religion. We have discussed that it isn't true for Christianity, why are you suddenly declaring it true for Islam. Spoiler alert: it isn't. You need to see the cognitive dissonance in your posts.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

We've been through many of these things before - and if you hold these opinions, then you ABSOLUTELY must take EVERY word in the Bible as an edict - including all of Leviticus. Sorry - this is an either/or thing. And it is why it is a 'fools errand' to seek to pin a religion entirely to a text. And this from a different article:

"To say ISIS is very Islamic, even though you have scores of Islamic leaders and regular, everyday Muslims who've redefined ISIS as un-Islamic and absolutely called it as such, is denying that religious community the ability to define who they are."

This is a very basic concept, these commandments were meant to keep Israel separate. They have been rendered void by Christ's death and resurrection. The only Levitical commandments that remain are the moral ones.

With Islam it is the reverse, like David Wood explains in that video: the peaceful verses are the ones which have been abrogated, and the ones calling for jihad and all this violence are the ones who have supplanted them.

In another video he shows the full context of these verses, and Islam comes off as even worse. The message is the total reverse of Christianity.

 

[Myrthos]

To me it is always inconceivable and beyond absurd that people like txa1265 and Myrthos that lean left, or just your average leftists, say repeatedly that Christians are oppressive, abusive, arrogant, malicious and frequently go on about how "bigoted" they are and .....

two things are wrong in this. First, I don't lean left, I am left. Secondly I don't say that about only Christianity, I say that about all religions.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

I wouldn't even say I lean left - it is that I do not hold sway with religious or other strident dogma … and find it can have a dangerous hold. Religion and dogmatic teachings (communism, etc) can have a hypnotic effect on people that distorts reality and causes 'hatred of other'.

Ask yourself this question: If Jesus is peace and love … why is there so much hatred in everything you write?

Also, my point isn't defending extremists of any type, but warning the dangers of pretending that an ancient text provides total definition of all members of a religion. We have discussed that it isn't true for Christianity, why are you suddenly declaring it true for Islam. Spoiler alert: it isn't. You need to see the cognitive dissonance in your posts.

Didn't you call yourself a male feminist? But of course, your own liberal ideology doesn't "distort reality" at all that causes "hatred of others". You do not seem to realize that such liberal relativism becomes a dogma in and of itself. It is a religion based on pure individual will.

There is no hatred in anything I write, I am only preoccupied by justice and righteousness. Jesus Himself says that unless your righteousness is superior to that of the Pharisees you won't enter the Kingdom of God.

A religion isn't an amorphous blob where you can fill all the blanks, there are precepts and foundations and sacred texts. Otherwise it becomes nothing.

 

[txa1265]

Actually I would say that my support is for equal rights and opportunities for all oppressed peoples. Women have been legally oppressed in many ways until the last century, and in smaller ways and through cultural norms up through the current day. Things improve, but there continues to be room for growth.

But in context I find the treatment of women in the middle east (Islamic countries in specific) to be abhorrent. At the same time it actually ties back to conservative Christians - 'moral decency' codes for dressing based on men, conforming to pre-defined roles in marriages and society (i.e. inferior always to men), and so on.

I just have a very basic belief that people are people - some are very evil, some are very good ... but most are just trying to make it day to day.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

Muslims started doing this to women only because of prudish, oppressive Christianity showed them to. That takes the cake. Liberals tend to do this kind of revisionism all the time. They also like to say that Muslims were peaceful and only started attacking Spain by accident without realizing what they were doing, that they were defenders of science and a lot of other similar absurd revisions to paint them in a better light.

Also if you told my great great grandmother that she was oppressed she would have laughed. Traditional gender roles are certainly not "oppression" of any form.

 

[txa1265]

Muslims started doing this to women only because of prudish, oppressive Christianity showed them to. That takes the cake. Liberals tend to do this kind of revisionism all the time. They also like to say that Muslims were peaceful and only started attacking Spain by accident without realizing what they were doing, that they were defenders of science and a lot of other similar absurd revisions to paint them in a better light.

Also if you told my great great grandmother that she was oppressed she would have laughed. Traditional gender roles are certainly not "oppression" of any form.

Wait - you misunderstand ... I was NOT drawing 'causality' of oppression ... I was citing 'similarity' - Christianity is a patriarchy in which women hold an inferior position, that isn't an opinion, it is fact - but it is only a moderate issue in how it limits women who desire other things. However, the role of women in Islamic countries I specifically described as 'abhorrent'.

If you look at the recent case of a blogger who decided to not wear yoga pants anymore due to not wanting to cause lust in other men, regardless of opinions on anything, I saw a number of discussions around 'moral decency' and the responsibility of women. In those discussions there was much laid out about the responsibilities of women rather than the needs of men to exercise control. That is fundamentally incorrect and absurd to any thinking person.

As for your great great grandmother, if she saw my smartphone she would faint, she wouldn't have a clue about wave-particle physics or quantum mechanics, or anything else ... what exactly does the ignorance or limited world-view of past generations have to do with anything.

Oppression is a pretty simple concept - use of power to stop others attaining goals. So you ask - are groups equal in rights, opportunities and treatment? If no, there is oppression. Since Christianity defines the roles in a higher-lower status, well ... you do the math. Again, I think in our country we have largely seen that the founding principal of 'all are created equal' should be applicable to 'all' ... not just white male property owners.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

There is no "male privilege" or "white male privilege", those are just boogeymen liberals use to pass more restrictive laws and to vie for control. The average male has no privileges at all and none of the benefits like affirmative action to bail him out. The idea that the average white male is privileged because he is white and male is lunacy. I live in the poorest province of Canada where people have historically been poor and for the last few hundred years until just a few decades ago have been poor peasants, farmers and miners, and even at some point one third of the population had to emigrate to New England to work the lowest paid factory jobs because there was nothing in their homeland. And yet the inhabitants are privileged like the Ivy League kids are privileged because they are both white? It is so comical I don't even know where to begin.

My wife is a housewife and stay at home mother who follows traditional gender roles and she has access to all that we know today, and she would laugh to if you told her I oppressed her.

Oppression historically was never gender based, it was class based. And both men and women have a duty to behave in good taste.