Philosophy Discussion Forums

Spectrum wrote: ↑June 9th, 2018, 9:24 pm What??
Don't you know I.S.IS was/is the mothership of 95% of all Islamic terrorist then and now.
Those words quoted were from I.SI.S official magazine.

As I said you quoted a couple of terrorists. Weak sample. Are you saying that ISIS's magazine is an accurate description of reality and not an organ of propaganda? Are you saying that the magazine's editors are rational people who will put forward all the factors or even the correct factors motivating their behavior and the behavior of the generally direct action terrorists? Further TH is suggesting is that other factors can be looked at as causal: some i would bring up would be colonialism and post-colonial manipulation of Middle Eastern governments and peoples. Criticisms of what they consider decadence are other factors.
Individual issues with identity - this is often a factor in second generation immigrations who become terrorists. One can be motivated by the conditions and emotions caused by other things AND be motivated by what you focused on. They are not mutually exclusive. Which I said already.

You did not interact with my points. Which is pretty much essential to rational discourse. And then you make a psychic claim...

Problem with is you are not interested in facts and truth in this case.

You can't read my mind. Ad homs do not contribute to the discussion. Appeals to incredulity to not contribute to the discussion. Interaction with other people's points is a good and necessary start. I don't find you to be respectful because you rely on things that do not contribute too often and do not interact with other people's points made often enough.

And just to be clear...none of the above means I think the terrorist actions are justified.

I'll ignore you again for a while at least.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑June 17th, 2018, 5:11 pm As I said you quoted a couple of terrorists. Weak sample. Are you saying that I.S.I.S's magazine is an accurate description of reality and not an organ of propaganda? Are you saying that the magazine's editors are rational people who will put forward all the factors or even the correct factors motivating their behavior and the behavior of the generally direct action terrorists?

I did not state nor imply I.S.I.S' magazine reflect reality as it is.
What I had stated is I.S.I.S' magazine represents what is Islam-proper in accordance to the Quran which is God's immutable words. As such the people of I.S.I.S are adhering to God's command as in the Quran and acting out their divine duty.

Note many terrorist groups are pledging allegiance to I.S.I.S.
The Leader of I.S.I.S has a PhD in Islamic studies and many of the other leaders of I.S.I.S are very well versed in the Quran and other related Islamic materials.
I believe the top leaders of I.S.I.S are 'rational' as confined to the Quran and other holy texts and they will obey every words of their Allah. These Muslims will only consider whatever [moral, etc.] is stated in the Quran and no where else.

I claimed I have done very extensive research on the Quran & Islam, so I understand thoroughly what the leaders and believers of I.S.I.S are acting upon as true Muslims.

nb: I used 'I.S.I.S' with dots as a personal preference instead of the normal.

Further TH is suggesting is that other factors can be looked at as causal: some i would bring up would be colonialism and post-colonial manipulation of Middle Eastern governments and peoples. Criticisms of what they consider decadence are other factors.
Individual issues with identity - this is often a factor in second generation immigrations who become terrorists. One can be motivated by the conditions and emotions caused by other things AND be motivated by what you focused on. They are not mutually exclusive. Which I said already.

Note the I.S.I.S magazine [read my points again] stated the primary and secondary factors they acted upon to kill non-believers. They stated the political reasons by other non-believers are merely secondary but the primary reason they killed and want to kill more non-believers is purely because they are disbelievers of Islam.

If you are a non-Muslim you MUST take note of the above threat. In fact, as a non-Muslim you are in a state of being threatened by SOME Muslims since everywhere you are, you [& other non-Muslims] could be killed by bomb blowing off from some suicide bombers obeying the command of Allah.

So the point is SOME [a pool of appx. 300 million evil prone Muslims ] will be driven by the commands of Allah to kill non-believers purely because the do not believe in Islam, the Quran and Muhammad. The often quoted political reasons, i.e. exploitation, occupation, poverty, identity, etc., are merely smokescreens to the primary reason, i.e. non-believers [supposedly born Muslims] had rejected Islam, thus they deserved to be killed or be subjected to other 'evils' and violent acts as stated in the Quran.
Note the glaring evidence of this stats;

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg

I am not insisting ALL the numbers above are traceable to the Quran, but when we peel to below the surface, the majority of the above fatal killings are reducible to sanctions and commands of Allah within the Quran.

The unfortunate thing is the majority of non-Muslims [even moderate Muslims] refuse to acknowledge [due to ignorance or indifference] the above direct link between the Quran and killings by Islamists.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑June 17th, 2018, 5:11 pm You can't read my mind. Ad homs do not contribute to the discussion. Appeals to incredulity to not contribute to the discussion. Interaction with other people's points is a good and necessary start. I don't find you to be respectful because you rely on things that do not contribute too often and do not interact with other people's points made often enough.

If I missed them it is because I did not understand your points else I would have responded.

How about this. People do what they are convinced to be correct. Imagine in a vegan society some Muslim eats a whole chicken coop worth of chickens and everybody goes wildover this massacre. If that happened in this life we would call it "McNuggets". We are CONVINCED that eating McNuggets is Perfectly a-ok. We are convinved that human murder is not a-ok. Those who fought in WW2 naturally assumed that the Guinea ****** were subhumans who were naturally obliged to help them cross the river via piggyback ride. They were convinced by that which they were told and, as were the slave owners and the African slave dealers, very greedy and didn't care because they were not convinced that such greed was wrong enough to warrant different actions. Nowadays, I can give somebody white guilt by drinking from the bottom half of the drinking fountain at school. If someone is truly convinced of a thing, convinced they are correct, that they defend the honor of their king (or god), that the "enemies" deserve, they will act. If they can, they will act. I know people I would kill to defend, people I would kill if they asked me to pull the plug, people I would kill to honor or by indirect command. I am convinced in the wholesome sould of these individuals, something I am convinced is worth protecting, worth commint Tokko Tai for. I am not religious, (and not a killer) but yet I still am wholly CONVINCED

Okay I need to clear this up. Qu'ran hasn't killed a damn soul. The convictions and greeds and disdain of people as well as other things that can be drawn from the cesspool of motivational reasonings are what have driven the death afflicting actions of all religious and other reason based killers. Genocide comes not from Muhammad's transcriptions but from the deep well of hate, love, and loyalism that spills death to all enemies of the commander that is filled to satisty intentions of the command.

Intellectual_Savnot wrote: ↑January 12th, 2019, 4:34 am Okay I need to clear this up. Qu'ran hasn't killed a damn soul. The convictions and greeds and disdain of people as well as other things that can be drawn from the cesspool of motivational reasonings are what have driven the death afflicting actions of all religious and other reason based killers. Genocide comes not from Muhammad's transcriptions but from the deep well of hate, love, and loyalism that spills death to all enemies of the commander that is filled to satisty intentions of the command.

The koran is part of a chain of influences and it teaches many kinds of hatred of life, real value in transcendence, hatred of women and pagans. Islam itself means submission. The core prayer ritual is a ritualized denigration in relation to the deity, not communion, not child to parent, not any of a whole set of other possible relatoins, but rather prostration. Most religions demand prostration, but Islam is pretty extreme in this. It's not a coincidence that killing via suicide is an Islamic outgrowth and less likely in other religions.

So, sure, it would not make sense to send Korans to prison. But its a bad influence both in contents and process. If someone learns to hate themselves, it becomes a lot easier to hate others. Of course there are other systems of memes that are highly effective killers. Neocon ideology has more deaths to its credit, for example.

Karpel: I do not believe even the most hateful of books, no matter how moving the literature, can be the blame for the misdeed of a person. It is true that literature can influence and corrupt the mind, Mein Kampf and holy scriptures as example, but the choice remains for the viewer to consider and ponder upon the text and do as they will. We might blame the childhood influencing people of the terrorist, for not teaching them logical thought and mental resiliancy enough that if they were presented with convincing text they would not immediately act as written or suggested. We could blame the terrorist, for not being open minded enough to consider possibilties such as their own ignorance in following, or the wrongdoing of their actions, or other such things before acting so influentially under the command of Islam. Text itself serves the purpose(s) of enlightement, influence, representation, expression, and/or entertainment. The text has no direct influence over action and decision except that which the reader allows for it to have. Certain involuntary actions may, however, rise from the reading of a text. A scary novel could force the reader to hide under a blanket, a documentary on warfare might cause certain faint-hearted readers to sicken. However, action on decision is choice for the viewer. We cannot blame the text in the Qu'ran for the enlightenment of the viewer to hatred and the influence to extreme action.
I have written a document for a special council I work with that commands action and another that teaches the way of intellectuality as a lifestyle and personal being. These documents are a bit extreme and are viewable as "anybody with the link can view" on google docs. If these were to go widespread on the internet, there might be an intellectual epidemic and people might do stuff not advisable to your average person. Would I and my text be to blame? Probably not. The actions in this text only can influence the person as they choose to be influenced, despite how convincing they may or may no be (I really am not sure how well writen my stuff is). If a person were to read through it, they would find for example, a line commanding that they find the mot tasteful alchoholic bevarage available to them and drink it. This is not the most extreme thing in the world, but if an eight year old read it and felt obliged to follow the text for whatever reason, it would probably end pretty bad for the eight year old. However, the eight year old and any other person reading this text are fully at their own disposition to act or not to act as is suggested to them by the text, and such the text cannot be held accountable for the person acting irrationally. I do realize that within this text, it does state that if the intellectual of my council were to not act as is written within the text, they will be henceforth withdrawn from the council. This pressuring might cause action unlike that which the person wishes to do. If a terrorist did not necessarily want to blow up stuff, but was obliged to do so by the command of their Muslim leaders and followed this command due to the respect of other commands and actions relative to these same leaders, it is possible the pressure they recieved might be the bad chain in the link causing extremist actions.
If the Qu'ran pressures its followers, is it to blame? If a Muslim is through pressure and environment left with no actions that could be verified as good by the righteous American moral set, is the source of this pressure really to blame? I believe this book would then consequently be accountable for any decision forced by lack of better option available to the person. However, I do not believe (my opinion is no well sourced one, so do not take my word for this) that the source of this action is pressure from the Qu'ran. The people who wield guns and explosives and wreak havoc upon infidel and others do such probably because they truly believe in the cause or willing to submit themselves to it. No person would commit suicide do to pressure on their livelihood, that is directly counterproductive. However, a threat to a loved one or such is commonly a motivator for many unwanted action. But even then, I do not believe it plausible that these terrorists would kill and self destruct with such vigour, synergy, and relentless pursuit if only for pressure. No person can be commited to a cause they don't want, and terrorists have proven their commital to the cause. The Islamic State would have crumbled long ago withouth the dedication of the fighters. Allow me to sum this up in a categorical syllogism:
There is no possiblity that terrorists act from pressure tactics
The Qu'ran can only be to blame if pressure tactics are involved
Thus, the Qu'ran is not to blame.
Do not take my word for this! Mere speculation, not historical fact!!!! Have a good day.