Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Vash108 wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Thats a straw man. I don't have a high opinion of Christianity either, and I certainly don't pretend it doesn't have it's own problems with extremism. But Christianity isn't the topic of debate here. Christians did not bomb a nightclub in Turkey.

They just bomb abortion clinics and get away with child rape.

#Whataboutism.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And frankly it doesn't explain the huge number of attacks by Muslims against other Muslims in Islamic countries.

´Not like islam doesn't have different factions like christianity has oh no! Not like christians haven't been fighting with other christians over disagreements with beliefs oh no!

Good job at grouping huge number of people into same mold thus making problem worse.

Thats a straw man. I don't have a high opinion of Christianity either, and I certainly don't pretend it doesn't have it's own problems with extremism. But Christianity isn't the topic of debate here. Christians did not bomb a nightclub in Turkey.

Not really. Christianity not too long ago shot up a Planned Parenthood in the town I live in. (You could argue the guy was mentally unstable, but you could argue that for any terrorist/religious attacking).

Like I said earlier, everytime a Muslim commits an act of terror in the name of Islam, or his own interpretation of Islam, people just shrug their shoulders and say "but Christianity". What-about-ism does nothing to address the fact that we've seen a several year long wave of Islamist terror attacks across Europe.

Something something IRA.The IRA had a years long terror attacks in Ireland, mainly boiling down to Protestants versus Catholics and British rule versus Irish independence. But sure, Islam is the only terror game in town.

We've had somebody slagging off the Amish in this thread, saying things about them that are described as bigotry when they are said about Muslims. And yet nobody is calling him a bigot. Why? Because he's attacking Christians, not Muslims?

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
What do you have against the Amish...

Rape, child abuse, horrible misogyny, all covered up by community leaders to keep up the good PR image and tourism money. Beneath the superficial appearance of "the good old days" is a rather nasty cult.

(Now, granted, not every Amish person is guilty of those offenses but the community as a whole has some very serious problems.)

Same reason it's okay to insult the Mormons. Tightly knit cult-like groups are often the subject of scorn and insult. Look at how Europe views the Gypsies.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Like I said earlier, everytime a Muslim commits an act of terror in the name of Islam, or his own interpretation of Islam, people just shrug their shoulders and say "but Christianity". What-about-ism does nothing to address the fact that we've seen a several year long wave of Islamist terror attacks across Europe.

Something something IRA.The IRA had a years long terror attacks in Ireland, mainly boiling down to Protestants versus Catholics and British rule versus Irish independence. But sure, Islam is the only terror game in town.

To be fair, that's not what Shadow Captain is saying, and he's got a point that the thread's about the attack in Istanbul, not about Christianity.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Thats a straw man. I don't have a high opinion of Christianity either, and I certainly don't pretend it doesn't have it's own problems with extremism. But Christianity isn't the topic of debate here. Christians did not bomb a nightclub in Turkey.

They just bomb abortion clinics and get away with child rape.

#Whataboutism.

You spoke about christians, I replied.
I am not saying muslims are any better in that regard, because they are not.
IMHO all religions are poison and equally wrong.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Not really. Christianity not too long ago shot up a Planned Parenthood in the town I live in. (You could argue the guy was mentally unstable, but you could argue that for any terrorist/religious attacking).

Still missing the point. The Christian extremists in your town are not the topic of debate in this thread. Constantly bringing Christianity up is a deflection.

Something something IRA.The IRA had a years long terror attacks in Ireland, mainly boiling down to Protestants versus Catholics and British rule versus Irish independence. But sure, Islam is the only terror game in town.

Another straw man. When have I ever said "Islam is the only terror game in town"?

Same reason it's okay to insult the Mormons. Tightly knit cult-like groups are often the subject of scorn and insult. Look at how Europe views the Gypsies.

So thats OK? How about if I replace Amish with Muslim?

Rape, child abuse, horrible misogyny, all covered up by community leaders to keep up the good PR image[snip].

(Now, granted, not every Muslim person is guilty of those offenses but the community as a whole has some very serious problems.)

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Good luck with that.

Thanks, it's already happening.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What? It is. You can argue it's not available on a large scale, but saying it's not happening is just daft. Solar, Nuclear, Wind, Hydro, etc.

Nuclear is declining and the tree huggers hate it.
Hydro is generally maxed unless you think wave action will work and the tree huggers hate it.
Solar has high mfg costs and cannot provide sufficient power levels.
Wind needs a secondary backup and the treehuggers hate it.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Not really. Christianity not too long ago shot up a Planned Parenthood in the town I live in. (You could argue the guy was mentally unstable, but you could argue that for any terrorist/religious attacking).

Still missing the point. The Christian extremists in your town are not the topic of debate in this thread. Constantly bringing Christianity up is a deflection.

So "Terror attacks by one religion" =/= "Terror attacks by another religion"? Yeah, okay.

Something something IRA.The IRA had a years long terror attacks in Ireland, mainly boiling down to Protestants versus Catholics and British rule versus Irish independence. But sure, Islam is the only terror game in town.

Another fething straw man. When have I ever said "Islam is the only terror game in town"?

You argued Europe had been under a wave of terror attacks from Islam. I brought up another example of Europe being under a wave of religious terror attacks. I'm addressing the fact Europe has long been a place of strife. How is that a straw man?

Same reason it's okay to insult the Mormons. Tightly knit cult-like groups are often the subject of scorn and insult. Look at how Europe views the Gypsies.

So thats OK? How about if I replace Amish with Muslim?

Rape, child abuse, horrible misogyny, all covered up by community leaders to keep up the good PR image[snip].

(Now, granted, not every Muslim person is guilty of those offenses but the community as a whole has some very serious problems.)

 jreilly89 wrote:
So "Terror attacks by one religion" =/= "Terror attacks by another religion"? Yeah, okay.

No. How many times do I need to state this to get it through your skull? Christian extremism is not the discussion here, Islamism is. Stop deflecting with straw man arguments and whataboutism.

You argued Europe had been under a wave of terror attacks from Islam. I brought up another example of Europe being under a wave of religious terror attacks. I'm addressing the fact Europe has long been a place of strife. How is that a straw man?

Because you're accusing me of claiming Islam is the only terror threat. I've never said that. This is the very definition of a Straw Man. Please withdraw it.

I'm not saying it's okay, I'm saying that's why it's justified by society at large. That's why there's a comedic play about "The Book of Mormon" and not "The Quran".

Then that means there are a lot of hypocrites in this thread.

Maybe someone should throw up a thread for Christian extremism... to get it out of this thread?

 whembly wrote:
Maybe someone should throw up a thread for Christian extremism... to get it out of this thread?

But Whembly, what will people use to deflect from Islamist extremism?

Religious extremism... They have all been fighting and oppressing for thousands of years.

Innocent people get caught in the crosshairs of this Gak every time.

You never hear about Pastafarian extremism (or Rastafarian extremism either).

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Maybe someone should throw up a thread for Christian extremism... to get it out of this thread?

But Whembly, what will people use to deflect from Islamist extremism?

Ah... right... silly me.

Next time there's a mass shooting or truck driving through the crowds... imma assume it's the Amish.

Definitely the worst of the worst.

Sheesh... silly me.

Well if there's a horse and buggy drive by, I will in fact assume its the Amish.

It'd be easier for threads like these to be a place of respect for the dead if the very first response wasn't a self-congratulatory meme two steps away from 'wake up, sheeple'.

But this is OT, so the logical response is for everyone to start arguing in the same circles they always do. At least the religion argument is vaguely on topic, I'm still not sure why Fraz found it necessary to take a swipe at people who care about the environment.

Let's argue about guns now! That one got defused pretty quickly, I think we should give it another try!

 Spinner wrote:
It'd be easier for threads like these to be a place of respect for the dead ...

These threads are becoming a monthly fixture. How many times are we supposed to pay our respects? All I have left in me is either rage or apathy...

Let's keep it on topic and polite, the snark can get gone from both sides right now.

 Spinner wrote:
It'd be easier for threads like these to be a place of respect for the dead if the very first response wasn't a self-congratulatory meme two steps away from 'wake up, sheeple'.

But this is OT, so the logical response is for everyone to start arguing in the same circles they always do. At least the religion argument is vaguely on topic, I'm still not sure why Fraz found it necessary to take a swipe at people who care about the environment.

Let's argue about guns now! That one got defused pretty quickly, I think we should give it another try!

Fair points Spinner.

Turkey ID's shooter and arrests 20 potential ISIL network members:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/04/europe/turkey-istanbul-attack/index.html

Glad they figured out who it was; hope they get him soon.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
It'd be easier for threads like these to be a place of respect for the dead if the very first response wasn't a self-congratulatory meme two steps away from 'wake up, sheeple'.

But this is OT, so the logical response is for everyone to start arguing in the same circles they always do. At least the religion argument is vaguely on topic, I'm still not sure why Fraz found it necessary to take a swipe at people who care about the environment.

Let's argue about guns now! That one got defused pretty quickly, I think we should give it another try!

Fair points Spinner.

Turkey ID's shooter and arrests 20 potential ISIL network members:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/04/europe/turkey-istanbul-attack/index.html

Article says at least 36 are being held. Hope they identify and arrest the guy and anyone who helped him.

 General Annoyance wrote:
There have been plenty of Christian and Buddhist attacks in both South East Asia and in Africa over the past decade; they just don't make mainstream headlines as much as the Islamic ones do. Google it and have a look.

Frankly, Religion has nothing to do with Terrorism - it's just an excuse for both the attackers and the media to point fingers at other people for all the problems in the world. Terrorists lose any backing from their respective religions after they make the decision that killing people is the right answer; no religion I know of flat out says that you should kill other human beings who don't follow whatever rules they lay down.[/quote

But the Quran says to kill infidels.

Your quote is broken.

 Damikeis wrote:
But the Quran says to kill infidels.

Out of context it does; in context, it is talking about the Mushrikeen - the Meccan pagans who had declared war against the prophet Muhammad and his community, and who had attacked and tortured his followers before.

I've said this before and I will say it again. Religion is just a mechanism to get people on board for violence, but it is not the underlying reason. The reason is always power. You think IS just commits these attacks out of religious conviction? These attacks are PR stunts by a losing power to try and regain their glory days of income and recruitment when they first established their 'state'. Ever since they started losing the war they have been more interested in committing attacks in the West. The reason is that people don't want to send money or themselves to a war zone when its obvious your side will lose. It is a bit more easy to regain these two things if you can convince these people that "dem ebil Westernurs" are coming to bomb the gak out of everyone there just because they live in the region in which IS operates. Its all about the propaganda value. Religion just makes it easier to convince the dumb foot soldiers to fight in a losing war. If looking at the sectarian violence in Iraq during the Coalition occupation the primary reason was still political power, the same reason why the same people in Northern Iraq started supporting IS against Baghdad again.

We have had plenty of sectarian violence in the history of Europe. The Netherlands and Germany have had extensive conflicts between Catholics and Protestants using the religion excuse, but it was still about power. Then we had that great phase about murdering each other because we happened to worship different flags. Then we again murdered people over their religion or political affiliation. In the 70's and 80's Europe has a large scale socialist inspired violence/terrorist problem and South America had the same issue up until now. Yet however much we like to pretend that it is an Islamic problem, we in Europe never pretended that socialism was inherently driving people to violence/terrorism when it was ongoing (of course we went through that phase in the 19th and early 20th century) and are now mostly a version of Social Democrat inspired states.

The fact is that the Middle East did not yet have the kind of historic religion>nationalism>other stuff evolution. The nascent nationalism was combined with religion in the 19th and early 20th century under the Ottoman Empire. Having been ruled by the Ottomans for centuries many of these peoples considered being Muslim was the defining bond in the Empire, something that was promoted by the Ottomans/Turks (the idea that all Muslims should try and live in the same state or caliphate). It was a convenient device for holding it together. The problems in the early 20th century of course shattered the empire and the idea of it serving as a semi-caliphate (already tenuous with the consecutive Persian/Iranian Muslim empires also existing next door). In places with stronger defined national identities and nationalism such as Turkey we see ethnic cleansing come up after the Ottoman collapse. Yet this nationalism wasn't that developed in the states created by Sykes-Picot. Here we still see religion as being a dividing line (I'm oversimplifying this for brevity) as it was in Europe before the proper development of states and constructed national identities. Of course regimes such as those of the Assads and Hussein tried to construct this national identity based on their new borders. Yet this failed as these regimes fell back on old tribal/religious divides for political support. Assad had the Alawites and Hussein the Sunni Muslims as their support base and put those disproportionately in power. Of course you won't unite a country when you simply discriminate against a significant part of the population to keep them away from power. This was used by extremists, taking advantage of these religious and political divides created by these regimes to rekindle sectarian violence.

That is the important part to note for IS. When the US surge in 2007 also started bringing in the Sunni tribes into the Iraqi political process you see a decline starting in the fortunes of these extremists being able to exploit religion but mainly disguised political unrest. This is where the previous incarnation went into decline in Iraq, the powerbase disappeared because the political reasons behind this powerbase started to crumble. This is where the political struggle in Syria steps in, giving IS a way out of Iraq (going against the Al Qaeda religious and political leadership I might add) to regain its power in the Syrian vacuum. This whole thing has been about power disguised in a cloak of religion. Religion serves as a tool to recruit those that are to be used by power hungry leaders such as those of IS. The form of a caliphate is a much easier manner to unite the different groups to fight under one banner than a regular state such as Iraq or Syria to which few people in those regions feel any allegiance to, its all about framing.

This is a very quick and general explanation of course, neglecting a ton of socioeconomic and historical trends leading up to the current day. There have been tons of books written about the region and political terrorism. Enough to show that religion is used by those in power as a reason to mobilize people to fight for a cause. Religion doesn't have to condone it, you just need people to speak from a position of "religious authority" (just look into the "theological" debates of Al Qaeda against IS, cause IS damages funding and authority of Al Qaeda so they condemn them on religious grounds) to convince them that it does. Like the pope and the First Crusade.

 Peregrine wrote:
When Muslims do something awful it's Islam at fault.

I know a lot of people go way too far and do this, but still I think most people do this only when said Muslim explicitly say they do what they do because of their faith…

 General Annoyance wrote:
I would have thought that the bad things that came out of religion were more down to groups of followers misinterpreting the text that they believe says that the violence they are committing is justifiable.

By using “misinterpreting” here, you are implying that you do know what Islam, or any other religion for that matter, says better than actual followers (and sometime scholars) of Islam (or other said religion).

 Frazzled wrote:
You never hear about Pastafarian extremism (or Rastafarian extremism either).

That's because you are not looking at the right places.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batty_boy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Jamaica#Attitudes_of_Rastafari_from_Jamaica
Sure, if killing gay people is okay with you…

 Frazzled wrote:
Nuclear is declining and the tree huggers hate it.
Hydro is generally maxed unless you think wave action will work and the tree huggers hate it.
Solar has high mfg costs and cannot provide sufficient power levels.
Wind needs a secondary backup and the treehuggers hate it.

Belittling, scornful expressions like “treehuggers” don't make your point stronger and are against rule 1. That would be like me calling religious people the “imaginary-friend(s)-adults” over and over.
Also you should hate that too, unless you are happy about reliance on oil for some reason.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I've said this before and I will say it again. Religion is just a mechanism to get people on board for violence, but it is not the underlying reason.

So, you are saying that religion is just the tool power-hungry people use to manipulate gullible people into committing atrocities, as opposed to the reason motivating both the leaders and the rank-and-file members of various organizations to commit said atrocities?
In short, your argument is “The one actually committing the atrocities are indeed motivated by religious reasons, but the leaders are not”? That case seems quite flimsy at best. And doesn't really matter that much imho.

Frazzled wrote:
You never hear about Pastafarian extremism (or Rastafarian extremism either).

That's because you are not looking at the right places.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batty_boy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Jamaica#Attitudes_of_Rastafari_from_Jamaica
Sure, if killing gay people is okay with you…

In the words of the immortal bard: lighten up Francis (alternatively you need to stop and pull the corn cob out of your ). Anyone citing Pastafarians clearly is not intending to be serious.

Belittling, scornful expressions like “treehuggers” don't make your point stronger and are against rule 1. That would be like me calling religious people the “imaginary-friend(s)-adults” over and over.

I see that a lot actually. Do you need a hug? I have crepe murtle that can help, or maybe a nice pine tree. ;P

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I've said this before and I will say it again. Religion is just a mechanism to get people on board for violence, but it is not the underlying reason.

So, you are saying that religion is just the tool power-hungry people use to manipulate gullible people into committing atrocities, as opposed to the reason motivating both the leaders and the rank-and-file members of various organizations to commit said atrocities?
In short, your argument is “The one actually committing the atrocities are indeed motivated by religious reasons, but the leaders are not”? That case seems quite flimsy at best. And doesn't really matter that much imho.

Close, but then you miss the entire point of the power idea by a little. Science for example isn't inherently evil, I think we can all agree on that on this site (pretty please ). Yet some horrible things have been done in the name of science, examples we can all think of. The same can be said of nationalism in for example the Yugoslavian civil war. Its all about religion serving as a framing device to convince people to go along with a goal a leader wants to achieve. Of course when I said I was oversimplifying it I didn't intend it to be read as that all of them do it for the power, some leaders might just be religious crazies. And the reason does matter much, everything can become evil if the right(wrong) mind is put to it.
The risk we run in just declaring religion evil (for the record I'm not religious at all, born and raised atheist) is that we alienate people in the end providing fertile grounds for people twisting religion for their purposes. Just look at the US and the idea against abortion and promoting the 'right' religious values by the Republicans. Do they all believe the party line, doubtful, do they all use it to get elected, you betcha The purpose is to create the idea something people care for such as the nation, religion or ethnicity being under threat or needing to expand it.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The risk we run in just declaring religion evil (for the record I'm not religious at all, born and raised atheist) is that we alienate people in the end providing fertile grounds for people twisting religion for their purposes.

I'll stick to call religion false, and specifically call out the bad part of it as noxious to society and morally repugnant while acknowledging the rest as morally neutral or even positive preposterous claims with no basis in reality, then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Anyone citing Pastafarians clearly is not intending to be serious.

Nice try, but I am quoting those Rastafarian you were talking about.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The risk we run in just declaring religion evil (for the record I'm not religious at all, born and raised atheist) is that we alienate people in the end providing fertile grounds for people twisting religion for their purposes.

I'll stick to call religion false, and specifically call out the bad part of it as noxious to society and morally repugnant while acknowledging the rest as morally neutral or even positive preposterous claims with no basis in reality, then.

As is your right of course. I think it just helps to remind people that almost anything can be used by people to incite violence. Religion just gives the bad part of society one more idea to misuse and abuse to commit violence on each other. People always find a way to justify their violence.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
By using “misinterpreting” here, you are implying that you do know what Islam, or any other religion for that matter, says better than actual followers (and sometime scholars) of Islam (or other said religion).

Well of course - the religion isn't really to blame, it's the people following it who have problems far beyond something they practice, which really should be a harmless practice to anyone with two feet on the ground. Religion is simply the easiest thing to correlate with when someone does something dreadful compared to other psychological complexities that they may have.