ISIS Terror and the 'Sound of Silence'

[Grunth]

How about this? Why don't we agree to be against fascism. Any flavor of fascism, whether it's religious, atheist or other. If that's what you have in mind, we're on the same page.

But, if want you want to do is march in an atheist jihad against all Muslims or all religious believers, if that's your goal here, then you've become the very thing you are reasonably against.

I don't know where you're coming from, and won't attempt to come to any conclusions on that from reading just a couple of posts.

We could get to that particular discussion later.

For now, however, I respected this question of yours to me "As example, which version, which interpretation of Islam are we talking about?" by answering it with this:

A version as demonstrated by policy. Policies as defined in speeches and writings by Islam's Imams, Mullah's, clerics and Muslim leaders of Muslim nations. The words spoken by such leaders can and should be criticized just as openly as they are spoken and written. This isn't at all difficult as an intellectual exercise. In fact Islamic rhetoric is low hanging fruit for the Western educated intellectual but in mainstream media and politics as presented in the mainstream media it is fruit merely left to drop to the ground on its own accord only to sprout more seedlings of dangerous nonsense. If Western nations are going to continue welcoming migrants then we should welcome them into a world which has the fortitude to be openly questioning of ideas and therefore ideologues.

Are you willing to respectfully comment on my answer to your question in return?

[Lucylu]

ISIS Terror in big international news these days but Why So Silent in this Forum?
Why?

Its such a complicated issue that talking about it can seem reductive and futile.

Part of the problem is their relative anonymity and lack of a focal point or outspoken leader for us to quantify, which must be part of their fear tactic. Another is that radicalists have been painted as those disaffected from society, perhaps of low intelligence and easily influenced but this isn't always plausible when many are well educated, coming from loving families. It is unimaginable that 'normal', intelligent, educated people can be so callous. I find I just have a sense of disbelief and impotence more than anything. It makes me despair for humanity at large rather than just those directly effected.

Also, othering has a pleasing, unifying effect. ISIS are active aggressors. Even though the numbers that they have actually killed in the West are negligible compared to more passive aggressive killers in society, such as addiction, they are at least someone else to criticize rather than ourselves.

But what if practically every newspaper and magazine did publish those cartoons as a show of solidarity for free speech against that show of Islamofascism?

Easier said than done but I see your point. Not everyone would risk their life to make a political point.

I'm not sure whether it would just be fanning the flame and giving them attention, with the real people suffering the consequences being the local people in Syria and Iraq.

[/

Policies as defined in speeches and writings by Islam's Imams, Mullah's, clerics and Muslim leaders of Muslim nations. The words spoken by such leaders can and should be criticized just as openly as they are spoken and written.

Its important to separate the act from the group and to provide a proportional response. Police can prosecute where there is a public assembly which incites violence or ethnic and racial hatred but private conversations and vague statements of superiority are incredibly difficult to police. Its not illegal to think that you or your religion are better than others, it is only illegal to act on it.

-- Updated March 31st, 2016, 2:42 am to add the following --

That'll teach me not to preview! Second and third line within the Grunth quote box are me.

But what if practically every newspaper and magazine did publish those cartoons as a show of solidarity for free speech against that show of Islamofascism?

[Grunth]

ISIS Terror in big international news these days but Why So Silent in this Forum?
Why?

Its such a complicated issue that talking about it can seem reductive and futile.

Part of the problem is their relative anonymity and lack of a focal point or outspoken leader for us to quantify, which must be part of their fear tactic. Another is that radicalists have been painted as those disaffected from society, perhaps of low intelligence and easily influenced but this isn't always plausible when many are well educated, coming from loving families. It is unimaginable that 'normal', intelligent, educated people can be so callous. I find I just have a sense of disbelief and impotence more than anything. It makes me despair for humanity at large rather than just those directly effected.

Also, othering has a pleasing, unifying effect. ISIS are active aggressors. Even though the numbers that they have actually killed in the West are negligible compared to more passive aggressive killers in society, such as addiction, they are at least someone else to criticize rather than ourselves.

But what if practically every newspaper and magazine did publish those cartoons as a show of solidarity for free speech against that show of Islamofascism?

Easier said than done but I see your point. Not everyone would risk their life to make a political point.

I'm not sure whether it would just be fanning the flame and giving them attention, with the real people suffering the consequences being the local people in Syria and Iraq.

[/
(Nested quote removed.)

Its important to separate the act from the group and to provide a proportional response. Police can prosecute where there is a public assembly which incites violence or ethnic and racial hatred but private conversations and vague statements of superiority are incredibly difficult to police. Its not illegal to think that you or your religion are better than others, it is only illegal to act on it.

The doing, that of publishing the cartoons everywhere, is easy. The will is always the problem but it is always the case where mediocrity reigns. It is time not to be so mediocre.

On "Its important to separate the act from the group and to provide a proportional response", I was speaking of being proportional in response by Western leaders of institutions openly criticizing, IN WORDS, THE WORDS of Islam's Imams, Mullah's, clerics and Muslim leaders of Muslim nations.

-- Updated March 31st, 2016, 8:14 pm to add the following --

Its such a complicated issue that talking about it can seem reductive and futile.

Part of the problem is their relative anonymity and lack of a focal point or outspoken leader for us to quantify, which must be part of their fear tactic. Another is that radicalists have been painted as those disaffected from society, perhaps of low intelligence and easily influenced but this isn't always plausible when many are well educated, coming from loving families. It is unimaginable that 'normal', intelligent, educated people can be so callous. I find I just have a sense of disbelief and impotence more than anything. It makes me despair for humanity at large rather than just those directly effected.

This might help you understand how cultural indoctrination works to make "normal, intelligent, educated people" be so callous.


youtube.com/watch?v=eg8bVu9QFdY&ind ... mp;list=WL

[yid=eg8bVu9QFdY&index=345&list=WL][/yid]

[Ormond]

We could get to that particular discussion later.

Ok, fair enough.

For now, however, I respected this question of yours to me "As example, which version, which interpretation of Islam are we talking about?" by answering it with this:

A version as demonstrated by policy.

Which policy?

Policies as defined in speeches and writings by Islam's Imams, Mullah's, clerics and Muslim leaders of Muslim nations.

Which speeches, which writings, which Mullahs, and which leaders of which Muslim nations?

My point here is that in any huge community containing billions of people, there is a lot of diversity.

What you are attempting to do is pick out the worst Muslims, and then brand the entire religion with them, which is exactly what these worst Muslims want you to do. You've been had my friend, suckered in to playing the fascist's game. You know, wouldn't it be silly for me to say that Stalin and Mao were atheists, and they killed millions, therefore atheism is violent?

I propose the following alternative. Let's focus on the fascists, not the religious. I'm happy to agree we should be shooting cruise missiles up the butts of religious fascists, if you will join me in agreeing we should do the very same thing with atheist fascists.

It's unproductive, sloppy, and illogical to aim our fire at all Muslims, or all religious, or all atheists. Each of these groups are far too big to paint with any simplistic labels. Let's leave such a process to the extremists.

[Grunth]

"Policies as defined in speeches and writings by Islam's Imams, Mullah's, clerics and Muslim leaders of Muslim nations."

"Which speeches, which writings, which Mullahs, and which leaders of which Muslim nations?"

I have listened to many of them. They are all over youtube. This is an era of mass coverage. You haven't been looking, your head is in the sand.

-- Updated March 31st, 2016, 11:33 pm to add the following --

Just push it into your search engine and away you go. I'm not going to do your research for you. If you are interested then look. If not interested by showing you are not looking then I am not interested in your conversation on this. It is so much easier for you to look than for me to post links. You know, I imagine, how to use the internet and so I am not going to be sucked into working on your behalf.

-- Updated March 31st, 2016, 11:51 pm to add the following --

And merely read Sharia law, do your maths using collected data of where the Sharia is implemented and over how many adherents. Its all available. It isn't hidden. Proponents are not hiding, they want the world to know what they believe and the internet is their tool just as it is everyone else's. It is not a deep dark secret. It is dark but not secret.

-- Updated March 31st, 2016, 11:53 pm to add the following --

...

This is a prompt for the above.

[Belinda]

I immediately found this when I googled:

http://www.muslimsforpeace.org/

Here is a current news story that will raise your hopes, Grunth:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016 ... shopkeeper

[Grunth]

I immediately found this when I googled:

http://www.muslimsforpeace.org/

Here is a current news story that will raise your hopes, Grunth:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016 ... shopkeeper

They have a big problem on their hands. Good luck to them.

[Belinda]

It is a big problem, Grunth, that the world of Islam needs to get rid of internal sects some of which are reactive and violent and in the case of ISIS at least, fascist.

[Ormond]

I have listened to many of them. They are all over youtube. This is an era of mass coverage. You haven't been looking, your head is in the sand.

I'm aware of the existence of violent idiots Muslims. My point, which you don't seem capable of grasping, is that if we take any human population of a billion people, we are going to find some violent idiots. Thus, the existence of violent idiots in any particular population proves nothing about that population as a whole.

I'm not going to comment on where you head might be.

[Grunth]

It is a big problem, Grunth, that the world of Islam needs to get rid of internal sects some of which are reactive and violent and in the case of ISIS at least, fascist.

The funders for isis, such as Saudi Arabia with their Wahhabism form of Islam, are the main problem. Isis are merely their guerrilla-style militias. And who are the Saudi's trade 'friends'? Well, America, particularly under Obama and Hilary Clinton at this moment. It is no real wonder Obama and Clinton never really criticize to the degree Islamofascists should be criticized for terror actions. The Benghazi consulate fiasco is a case in point. It is also notable that Saudi Arabia has not taken one Muslim Syrian refugee but has instead offered money incentives for other nations to take them.

-- Updated April 1st, 2016, 4:31 am to add the following --

I have listened to many of them. They are all over youtube. This is an era of mass coverage. You haven't been looking, your head is in the sand.

I'm aware of the existence of violent idiots Muslims. My point, which you don't seem capable of grasping, is that if we take any human population of a billion people, we are going to find some violent idiots. Thus, the existence of violent idiots in any particular population proves nothing about that population as a whole.

I'm not going to comment on where you head might be.

Spokespeople, political and religious leaders, are not just some random violent idiots. You surely must realize that it is never the generals that do the "violent idiot" fighting in the modern era. Generals command and these days the media used for commanding is the same media (internet) the 'foot soldiers' listen through. It isn't rocket science.

[Belinda]

Grunth wrote:

The funders for isis, such as Saudi Arabia with their Wahhabism form of Islam, are the main problem. Isis are merely their guerrilla-style militias. And who are the Saudi's trade 'friends'? Well, America, particularly under Obama and Hilary Clinton at this moment. It is no real wonder Obama and Clinton never really criticize to the degree Islamofascists should be criticized for terror actions. The Benghazi consulate fiasco is a case in point. It is also notable that Saudi Arabia has not taken one Muslim Syrian refugee but has instead offered money incentives for other nations to take them.

I vaguely understand this theory. I cannot comment because I hardly begin to understand or even know anything much about how our political masters rule. I would like to know and understand more but I don't know where to begin.

I watched 'The Night Manager' on TV and this sort of story perhaps helps to educate people like me. The most chilling little speech was when the important civil servant told the good lady hero that arms smugglers were needed in the larger scheme of international affairs.

[LuckyR]

My point here is that in any huge community containing billions of people, there is a lot of diversity.

What you are attempting to do is pick out the worst Muslims, and then brand the entire religion with them, which is exactly what these worst Muslims want you to do. You've been had my friend, suckered in to playing the fascist's game. You know, wouldn't it be silly for me to say that Stalin and Mao were atheists, and they killed millions, therefore atheism is violent?

I propose the following alternative. Let's focus on the fascists, not the religious. I'm happy to agree we should be shooting cruise missiles up the butts of religious fascists, if you will join me in agreeing we should do the very same thing with atheist fascists.

It's unproductive, sloppy, and illogical to aim our fire at all Muslims, or all religious, or all atheists. Each of these groups are far too big to paint with any simplistic labels. Let's leave such a process to the extremists.

Excellent post. Or to put it a different way, if ISIS believed in and espoused the same ideas that actually do, but they were a non-violent organization, would we be having this discussion right now?

[Grunth]

An example of culture:

A cartoon published by the Turkish Ministry of Religious Affairs shows a father extolling the virtues of Islamic martyrdom to his son.

The issue of the children’s magazine is meant to promote dialogue between parents and children. In the cartoon, a father asks his son, “Do you want to be a martyr?” The son replies, “Of course I want to be a martyr. Who doesn’t want to go to heaven?”

The son then explains that “heaven is happy with martyrs” and that much praise is heaped upon the martyr making him wish that he could have been martyred 10 times. The cartoon ends with the son saying, “I wish I could be killed as martyr.”

According to the Turkish news outlet Cumhuriyet, the magazine has met harsh criticism. Psychologist and Professor Dr. Serdar Degirmencioglu, a critic of Turkey’s Islamist President Recep Tayyip Erdogan commented, “Religiosity has, in recent years, turned into a literal political tool. They do not even hide it. The Ministry of Religion was provided more money than several other ministries combined and continues intensive work for religious children.”

He added, “They want to use the drawings to transfer the message of martyrdom to children because they think it will be more attractive. ‘Martyrs suffer,’ ‘sins forgiven’ it says. So it’s a painless death and a promise of heaven.”

[Ormond]

I'm aware of the existence of violent idiots Muslims. My point, which you don't seem capable of grasping, is that if we take any human population of a billion people, we are going to find some violent idiots. Thus, the existence of violent idiots in any particular population proves nothing about that population as a whole.

Spokespeople, political and religious leaders, are not just some random violent idiots. You surely must realize that it is never the generals that do the "violent idiot" fighting in the modern era. Generals command and these days the media used for commanding is the same media (internet) the 'foot soldiers' listen through. It isn't rocket science.

Completely non-responsive to the words of mine you attempted to address in your post above.

You can point to examples of violent Muslims all day long, and it proves nothing about Muslims as a whole, or Islam as a religion. If we want to come to some judgement about the Islamic community as a whole, we have to look at the whole, not cherry picked extreme examples. The overwhelming vast majority of Muslims are peaceful ordinary people just like you and me whose main concerns are making a living, raising their children etc.

History is not over and anything could happen next, but over the last century at least, violent atheists have killed far more innocent people than all the violent religious people put together. The point here is not that atheists are bad and religious people are good. The point is that humans are humans, and humans of all flavors are sometimes violent.

Our response should be to focus on behavior and not beliefs. As example, we should fight ISIS because they are murderous fascists, not because they are Muslim.

If we are going to insult and blame every population that contains a minority of violent people, there's no need to name all the groups, as we can just declare war on the entire human race.

[Grunth]

I'm aware of the existence of violent idiots Muslims. My point, which you don't seem capable of grasping, is that if we take any human population of a billion people, we are going to find some violent idiots. Thus, the existence of violent idiots in any particular population proves nothing about that population as a whole.

Spokespeople, political and religious leaders, are not just some random violent idiots. You surely must realize that it is never the generals that do the "violent idiot" fighting in the modern era. Generals command and these days the media used for commanding is the same media (internet) the 'foot soldiers' listen through. It isn't rocket science.

Completely non-responsive to the words of mine you attempted to address in your post above.

You can point to examples of violent Muslims all day long, and it proves nothing about Muslims as a whole, or Islam as a religion. If we want to come to some judgement about the Islamic community as a whole, we have to look at the whole, not cherry picked extreme examples. The overwhelming vast majority of Muslims are peaceful ordinary people just like you and me whose main concerns are making a living, raising their children etc.

History is not over and anything could happen next, but over the last century at least, violent atheists have killed far more innocent people than all the violent religious people put together. The point here is not that atheists are bad and religious people are good. The point is that humans are humans, and humans of all flavors are sometimes violent.

Our response should be to focus on behavior and not beliefs. As example, we should fight ISIS because they are murderous fascists, not because they are Muslim.

If we are going to insult and blame every population that contains a minority of violent people, there's no need to name all the groups, as we can just declare war on the entire human race.

They are peaceful while under enough influence of a secular society. In other words, ultimately secularism must rule because it is secularism which has brought fairness to societies and it is sectarianism which does the opposite. Sectarianism should never get a foothold in terms of laws.

-- Updated April 3rd, 2016, 1:49 am to add the following --

"violent atheists have killed far more innocent people than all the violent religious people put together"

The above relates to communism, not atheism.