Paris attacks

[DimaMazin]

 

You say that you do not want to call all Muslims the enemy, but then what are you trying to say? There are 1.57 billion Muslims in the world. How many of those do you think are terrorists? I doubt it's over 785 million. In which case, why should a group of assholes who do horrendous things get to say what Islam is about when they represent what is likely a very small proportion of people who claim to adhere to the religion?

Always religion can be dangerous for science development.We should use any people for development of science. Now we should use actions of islamic terrorists against their religion.

[Prometheus]

It's legitimate to ask.

and the answer certainly isn't as clear as some would like to pretend

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

 

The Quran, like the bible contradicts itself a lot. So it is easy enough to find bits that support making peace with other faiths or making war with them.

So, the decision doesn't rest with the scripture, but with how it is interpreted.

 

So the question is, how did the warmongers get taken seriously when violence is always seen as the dumb answer?

Could it be that the actions of the West such as unequivocal support for Israel might explain part of the hostility?

 

So, perhaps the ideology that's to blame lies not in the Arab world, but in the West.

 

Surely if placing all the blame on Islamic ideology is simplistic, then so too placing all the blame on western ideology is simplistic. No doubt there are complex interplays, so no-one actually has the answer. The question is whether we can meaningfully quantify how virile an ideology is in inciting hatred, then we can see how particular ideologies, religious or otherwise, incite violence.

[MonDie]

For an decades we've said democracy is the goal for the middle east but only if that democracy supports a rather specific list of policies. Democracy that must vote a specific way is not much of democracy.

[...]

Blaming religion is also a meaningless exercise as most religions in the world only become more conservative, dogmatic, and extreme when challanged.

Although I don't have historical evidence for it, I could provide both philosophical and psychological evidence that an ethic of inquiry could promote peace, and it's easily demonstrated that this ethic must precede all others.

[iNow]

Religion seems much more of a scapegoat than a root cause of anything.

We largely agree, though I'm not ready to let religion off the hook entirely (which I feel use of the term "scapegoat" implicitly does).

 

While humans will unfortunately always find ways to separate themselves into warring tribes of us/them, and we would do so even if religion were entirely absent from our world, religion as it has existed (and exists today) still very much provides a particularly potent method of doing so.

 

The situation only worsens when their guiding texts expressly tell them to kill those who believe differently, that they will be acting under direct sanction of an all powerful god/deity, and that they will benefit from eternal salvation if they do.

 

I say this while in parallel holding firm to my previous point regarding the greater importance of local culture, teachings, and overall interpretation. I believe that those things are clearly the more proximate cause, but I cannot agree that religion itself is merely a scapegoat.

Edited November 14, 2015 by iNow

[MigL]

Ahh, but even in Africa, Hyper, most of the terror ( what we call terror anyway ) groups are Islamic sects.

That leads me to believe there is a connection.

Consider this argument...

 

Religion appeals to the 'weak minded' ( for lack of a better word ), or those who cannot influence their lot in life, so they ascribe it to a supernatural entity. It is an emotional and spiritual 'crutch', in other words. These people also tend to be ignorant and not well educated, and as such, are easy to control/influence and manipulate. It used to happen with Christians during the middle ages ( and still happens in the southern US with tele-evangelists ). You would then think this ( the acts of terrorism ) should happen with all religions that have large numbers of disenfranchised, desperate and ignorant people. But it doesn't !

 

As a matter of fact, some of the people recruited for these Muslim terrorist attacks, are often well-off and educated. As a matter of fact, sometimes they are actually born in a host country, are recruited back to the Middle East for training, and then return to the host country to commit acts of terror ( or we see them on-line cutting people's heads off while speaking with a 'natural' British accent ).

 

Now, mind you, its not the religion of Islam that creates these whack-jobs, but rather, for some reason, Islam seems to appeal and attract these anti social individuals with violent tendencies.

 

P.S. If the above sounds like I'm just 'fishing' for a reason, you are correct.

I cannot make any sense of the events that happened last nite in Paris.

Edited November 14, 2015 by MigL

[John Cuthber]

 

Surely if placing all the blame on Islamic ideology is simplistic, then so too placing all the blame on western ideology is simplistic. No doubt there are complex interplays, so no-one actually has the answer. The question is whether we can meaningfully quantify how virile an ideology is in inciting hatred, then we can see how particular ideologies, religious or otherwise, incite violence.

That seems like a good start, how might one go about answering it?

[CharonY]

I think in some ways Islam is just a convenient vehicle. Currently, the Isis and other factions that utilize terror are in conflict with Western Countries and using Islam as a justification for their action is a way to rally the actors. If there was no religion I have little doubt that those in charge will find or create other justifications, be it ethnicity, culture, ideology or whatever. In some ways I think that focusing on that aspect is a bit of a distraction. Islam or religion does not lead to terrorism itself (otherwise the world would look very different). Rather, it is about politics and power. I do think that any ideology if framed "correctly" can be used to attract and justify violent actions.

Left-wing ideologist (depending on inclination based on Marx, Lenin or Mao) have inspired numerous groups. In Rwanda (potentially fake) ethnicity (i.e. Hutu and Tutsi) was used to inspire genocide etc. I think there are a number of things that are generally playing into this.

 

People can be turned to violence rather easily. Not everyone, of course. But given the right circumstances, many otherwise decent people, can turn to violence or at least condone violent actions.It is easy to think that people like hooligans, neo nazis, extremists or KKK members are just the fringe or crazies. However, outside their ideologies they are probably fairly normal. It is also (fairly) easy to convince people to condone certain types of violence against certain groups. Eugenics was quite accepted before WWII in most Western countries, for example. Now, if the society as a whole (as Western societies, for example) is fairly peaceful, these actions are unlikely to happen en masse.

The problem is if people do not feel empowered by the society, but rather suppressed (real or imagined). In these cases anti-societal movements or just anything that makes them feel not to be the losers will become attractive.

And again, in historic context I do not see a fundamental difference in what the ideology is in detail. Buddhism, for example is a fairly peaceful religion. Its doctrine is almost impossible to align with terror or murder. Yet, there are is violence committed or incited by Buddhist monks (Myanmar being a current example). Of course, they need to spin it differently than Islamists as to my knowledge they cannot refer to scripture. Yet, the result is still violence and death.

 

To summarize, whether Islam is an easier tool to justify violence than other religions or ideologies is, IMO, only of minor relevance. Provided with sufficient motivation nearly everything can be used as justification. At the basis of this are unfortunate things like human nature (the negative parts, including fear) and manipulative power plays (at least for sustained movements). In many ways this reminds of a common, but ubiquitous strategy of using associated labels to shift discussion towards these labels. E.g. labeling something left or right in instead of discussing the policies in detail. Of course, highlighting radical Islam does make sense in so far as currently for Western (and some other) countries it is the most organized form of terrorism. Yet I do think that we should not lose perspective on the matter and fall into the trap of assuming that symptoms are the disease.

Edited November 15, 2015 by CharonY

[iNow]

whether Islam is an easier tool to justify violence than other religions or ideologies is, IMO, only of minor relevance.

Agreed.

[hypervalent_iodine]

We largely agree, though I'm not ready to let religion off the hook entirely (which I feel use of the term "scapegoat" implicitly does).

While humans will unfortunately always find ways to separate themselves into warring tribes of us/them, and we would do so even if religion were entirely absent from our world, religion as it has existed (and exists today) still very much provides a particularly potent method of doing so.

The situation only worsens when their guiding texts expressly tell them to kill those who believe differently, that they will be acting under direct sanction of an all powerful god/deity, and that they will benefit from eternal salvation if they do.

I say this while in parallel holding firm to my previous point regarding the greater importance of local culture, teachings, and overall interpretation. I believe that those things are clearly the more proximate cause, but I cannot agree that religion itself is merely a scapegoat.

Perhaps scapegoat was too powerful a term. I think we basically agree on this aspect as well.

 

MigL, I'll respond to your comment in more depth when I have a few moments. Generally, I think you're missing my point. I am aware that many of the groups in Africa are based in Islamic extremism. Many are not. In any case, it's besides what I was trying to get at.

 

I also don't really get why you are bringing up that some people joining ISIS are well off. Of course that's the case, but they didn't form their base with these people and I doubt the majority of their new recruits are affluent either.

[Externet]

<<The righteous pay for the sinners>>

 

That is our modern way of life since the terrorist attacks, funneling good people into checkpoints and multiple other hurdles because the horrible actions of few.

 

Back to fascist immigration ! And oust them, close borders. If good immigrants pay for the few sinners, well, that is our daily life now. Give them a taste of their own medicine, as killing as a sport is in their genes.

[MonDie]

More content means more to cherry pick, and more to manipulate with.

 

http://www.mail-archive.com/comp-quran@comp.leeds.ac.uk/msg00223.html

Quran ~77,500 words

 

http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/44230/how-many-words-are-there-in-tanach

Torah ~80,000 words

 

In my New Oxford Annotated Bible, the Torah is 306 pages, the Hebrew Bible is ~1350 pages, gospels are 230 pages, the NT is 439 pages, and OT+NT is ~1800.

Edited November 15, 2015 by MonDie

[ajb]

Really?

You can find plenty of speeches given by Western Leaders making such statements.

 

 

Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself.

G.W. Bush, September 20, 2001.

 

See *

 

You say that you do not want to call all Muslims the enemy, but then what are you trying to say? There are 1.57 billion Muslims in the world. How many of those do you think are terrorists? I doubt it's over 785 million. In which case, why should a group of assholes who do horrendous things get to say what Islam is about when they represent what is likely a very small proportion of people who claim to adhere to the religion?

Whatever, the number as a percentage, it still must be enough to cause all the troubles we have seen in the Middle East. This is one point.

 

Anyway, like all religions Islam needs to have a good look at itself. In particular Muslims need to decide what to do about the less favourable aspects of Mohammed's life and character. They must confront this rather than dismiss it as many do, or embrace it as a small, but seemingly growing minority do.

 

 

* EDIT: I will also add

 

Not to be divided means that we must not make any confusion and to make it easy to remove any [inaudible] concerning these terrorists, these fanatics who have nothing to do with the Muslim religion.

Francois Hollande on the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Edited November 15, 2015 by ajb

[Danijel Gorupec]

Anyway, like all religions Islam needs to have a good look at itself. In particular Muslims need to decide what to do about the less favourable aspects of Mohammed's life and character. They must confront this rather than dismiss it as many do, or embrace it as a small, but seemingly growing minority do.

 

I can agree with this particular part... This should be true in general - whenever a group is nourishing symbols, behavioral patterns or ideas in order to bind group members together, the group becomes responsible for their usage. If these symbols ever become 'hijacked' by another (parasitic) group, it is expected that the original group confronts it first and strongest. Bystanding is not a moral option in this case.

 

While I can clearly hear Muslim community (majority) condemns any terrorism in the name of Islam, I am not sure I could classify this reaction as 'first and strongest' (and I am quite disappointed because of this). If this is because there is actually a silent sympathy among large body of Muslims toward anti-western terrorism, then this world is in deeper shit than it seems. (Don't get me wrong, when I look at the overall picture I am not sure we are victims here. But still, terrorism will not make this world any more righteous place.)

 

....

 

Unrelated to above, F. Hollande and its government failed to protect people. I see this as a fact. Not that they were not warned (I would not be surprised if security spendings were also increased since the Charlie Hebdo attack)... I am not sure what is the best thing for France to do now... to keep the unable government or choose extreme nationalism. I hope there is also a third way.

[John Cuthber]

This is a little out of date, but I think things have probably not changed much.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/

 

If things have changed since that was written 5 years ago then perhaps we should seek to understand the cause of the change.

It can't be a book written centuries ago- it's still the same now as it was in 2010

 

If you look at this page

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/

you will see that the story is pretty similar in Europe

In particular, France seems to have a problem with separatists who killed more in each of the 3 years for which data is presented than Isis did in the most recent attack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe#France

[MonDie]

Whatever, the number as a percentage, it still must be enough to cause all the troubles we have seen in the Middle East. This is one point.

 

Considering that religion varies more by region than by individual, it's far from a controlled experiment.

[Ten oz]

Ahh, but even in Africa, Hyper, most of the terror ( what we call terror anyway ) groups are Islamic sects.

That leads me to believe there is a connection.

Consider this argument...

 

Religion appeals to the 'weak minded' ( for lack of a better word ), or those who cannot influence their lot in life, so they ascribe it to a supernatural entity. It is an emotional and spiritual 'crutch', in other words. These people also tend to be ignorant and not well educated, and as such, are easy to control/influence and manipulate. It used to happen with Christians during the middle ages ( and still happens in the southern US with tele-evangelists ). You would then think this ( the acts of terrorism ) should happen with all religions that have large numbers of disenfranchised, desperate and ignorant people. But it doesn't !

 

As a matter of fact, some of the people recruited for these Muslim terrorist attacks, are often well-off and educated. As a matter of fact, sometimes they are actually born in a host country, are recruited back to the Middle East for training, and then return to the host country to commit acts of terror ( or we see them on-line cutting people's heads off while speaking with a 'natural' British accent ).

 

Now, mind you, its not the religion of Islam that creates these whack-jobs, but rather, for some reason, Islam seems to appeal and attract these anti social individuals with violent tendencies.

 

P.S. If the above sounds like I'm just 'fishing' for a reason, you are correct.

I cannot make any sense of the events that happened last nite in Paris.

Jan. 5th 2015

"Christian militia in Central African Republic have carried out ethnic cleansing of the Muslim population during the country's ongoing civil war, but there is no proof there was genocidal intent, a United Nations commission of inquiry has determined.

The final report of the inquiry, which was submitted to the U.N. Security Council on Dec. 19, said up to 6,000 people had been killed though it "considers that such estimates fail to capture the full magnitude of the killings that occurred."

Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/08/us-centralafrica-inquiry-idUSKBN0KH2BM20150108#v2MIrf5gtoSU06wr.99

 

 

You say "most" of the terror in Africa but to a large extent isn't that more a matter of when one chooses to check the score? I generally do not like the saying "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" but it is good for at least pointing out the need for perspective. For example when the U.S. blows up a hospital and kills innocent people it is merely considered an accident. We don't consider the hundreds of thousands of dead civilians as a result of collateral damage in Iraq terrorism, genocide, or a war crime. Despite fraudulent evidence being the justification for the Iraq war in the first place.

Some argue that it isn't so much thenumber dead as it is the manner in which they are killed. That the beheadings are particular brutal and spurred on by the Quran. Yet in Central and South America mass graves of decapitated bodies are dug as well. Narcoterrorism is a very real thing. Those murders are equally as brutal as ISIS but are not Islamic.

 

[tar]

Thread,

 

Well France has taken the attacks as acts of war, perpetuated by Da'ish on the French homeland.

 

Da'ish is attempting to establish a caliphate that would ring the Mediterranean.

 

 

The Koran includes passages that talk about fighting for the prophet until all the world is for Allah.

 

I am not of the mind to either be afraid of Islam, nor to be subject to it and would be perfectly willing to live in peace with anybody of any religion...except a religion that labels me as Satan, and looks like Da'ish looks, and acts like Da'ish acts.

 

It is difficult to take a pacifist course, against such an enemy. And difficult to accept the label of Jingo just because I do not think turning the other cheek is a suitable reaction to the Paris attacks.

 

Regards, TAR

I would tend to stand with France, in whatever actions she sees required to defeat Da'ish.

[waitforufo]

Thread,

 

Well France has taken the attacks as acts of war, perpetuated by Da'ish on the French homeland.

 

Da'ish is attempting to establish a caliphate that would ring the Mediterranean.

 

The Koran includes passages that talk about fighting for the prophet until all the world is for Allah.

 

I am not of the mind to either be afraid of Islam, nor to be subject to it and would be perfectly willing to live in peace with anybody of any religion...except a religion that labels me as Satan, and looks like Da'ish looks, and acts like Da'ish acts.

 

It is difficult to take a pacifist course, against such an enemy. And difficult to accept the label of Jingo just because I do not think turning the other cheek is a suitable reaction to the Paris attacks.

 

Regards, TAR

I would tend to stand with France, in whatever actions she sees required to defeat Da'ish.

I think this is the best post I ever read on Science Forums.

 

What happened in Paris was beyond the pale. The time for a civilized response is past, and a response is required. The president of the Nation of France declared the terrorist attack on Paris an act of war. You do know what war means right? France, while perhaps not our greatest ally, is an ally with which we have great sentimental attachment. France is also a member of NATO. Great big historical events often have humble beginnings.

[Ten oz]

I think this is the best post I ever read on Science Forums.

 

What happened in Paris was beyond the pale. The time for a civilized response is past, and a response is required. The president of the Nation of France declared the terrorist attack on Paris an act of war. You do know what war means right? France, while perhaps not our greatest ally, is an ally with which we have great sentimental attachment. France is also a member of NATO. Great big historical events often have humble beginnings.

 

I have not read any posts that have implied the civilized world should do nothing. Nor does it appear that Government (at least ones in the Western world) are doing nothing. At this time the United States alone has boots on the ground in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Additionally U.S. has Drones in the air over Pakistan and Iran. Not a day goes by that I don't read an article stating that another quasi ISIS leader has been killed. Death for death the Western world seems to be responding to Islamic Terror several hundred to one. The response is a far cry from a pacifist one. As I type this world leaders are coming together to agree on a course of action in Syria. I have no doubt whatever action is agreed upon will result in the death of tens of thousands of would be ISIS members in Syria and the surrounding countries. How much tougher should we be in your opinion?

 

I abhor what Islamic Terrorist did in Paris and are doing in Africa and the Middle East. It is not being ignored. That said here in the United States mass shootings at acts of terror that have killed more people in the past decade than Islamic Terror and the response by many is "stuff happens". Similarly police shoot and kill more citizens than Islamic Terror and again the response is partisan and dismissive. Twenty children were gunned down in Sandy Hook and the response was mournful but led to zero action.

[John Cuthber]

Still a lot of talk about Islamic attacks in France.

Not so much about French Separatist attacks in France

 

Given the data

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/

this seems odd.

 

And describing an attack by terrorists as "an act of war" is a poor decision.

It flatters the criminals into believing that they actually have a cause that's worth fighting for.

and it's impossible to work out who signs the armistice when it's over- so you commit yourself to an almost perpetual war.

Are you saying it will be over when Islam is no more, or what?

[MonDie]

I am not of the mind to either be afraid of Islam, nor to be subject to it and would be perfectly willing to live in peace with anybody of any religion...except a religion that labels me as Satan, and looks like Da'ish looks, and acts like Da'ish acts.

Join the club.

 

John 3:16-21

Edited November 15, 2015 by MonDie

[michel123456]

"war" means a lot of things. More than bombing and shooting. It means less civil rights. It may mean martial law, death penalty in justice & death penalty at sight. One can be condamned for trahison and spying just like that. Even worse, one can be send to prison just like that, without judgment. War is a bad bad thing for the French people.

Edited November 15, 2015 by michel123456

[MonDie]

And describing an attack by terrorists as "an act of war" is a poor decision.

It flatters the criminals into believing that they actually have a cause that's worth fighting for.

This.

 

I bet they're overjoyed at the news.

[michel123456]

This.

 

I bet they're overjoyed at the news.

I agree.

usually, war consists into killing or damaging a lot of innocent people.

And erasing isis will not erase the djihads.

[iNow]

Declaring it an act of war simplifies the invocation of NATOs Article 5 of the Washington Treaty while in parallel gives Hollande additional powers and support from citizens: http://www.nato.int/terrorism/five.htm

Edited November 15, 2015 by iNow