The ISIS threat to Europe

[Seat68]

 

 

 

To see that somebody couldn't even type the word "Mohammed" on here without feeling required to add "pbuh" after it showed just how ingrained in people it is.

 

We have a great many people in the UK who were taught at school to capitalise the words "him" and "his" when referring to god and Jesus.  Many still observe that convention, out of either habit or belief.  I expect some other religions have similar conventions about their own figures of worship.

 

Though I think the Muslim convention is to add pbuh after the names of some characters from other religions, eg Jesus, where Christianity doesn't extend the convention to refer to Mohammed as "Him".

 

 

I don't deny that at all, but I think you'd find the proportion of people who would identify themselves as Christian who still type "Him" compared to the number of muslime who would type "pbuh" would be a very small fraction.  The same with church/mosque attendance, and various other displays of worship.

 

 

 

Similarly the number of christians that say amen, the number of catholics that cross themselves. Religions have traits.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Seat68

[omariqy]

That's because as a proportion more Muslims practice their faith on a daily basis and see it as a complete way of life.  Now if you are anti religion this will not sit well with you obviously.

[snowychap]

I don't get it. This is wrong in so many levels. These three terrorists did not drop from the sky. No warlock conjured them out of nowhere. They lived and prospered as a part of a group, a faction. This group or faction needs to be condemned and wiped clean. Not because of Islam - but because they see Islam as an excuse to take other people's lives. It's that simple.

I don't think it is 'that simple' and I don't think the 'wipe clean' talk is of any use except to further the notion that the problem is the intractable one that Mooney suggests above.

[peterms]

 

 

To see that somebody couldn't even type the word "Mohammed" on here without feeling required to add "pbuh" after it showed just how ingrained in people it is.

 

We have a great many people in the UK who were taught at school to capitalise the words "him" and "his" when referring to god and Jesus.  Many still observe that convention, out of either habit or belief.  I expect some other religions have similar conventions about their own figures of worship.

 

Though I think the Muslim convention is to add pbuh after the names of some characters from other religions, eg Jesus, where Christianity doesn't extend the convention to refer to Mohammed as "Him".

 

 

I don't deny that at all, but I think you'd find the proportion of people who would identify themselves as Christian who still type "Him" compared to the number of muslime who would type "pbuh" would be a very small fraction.  The same with church/mosque attendance, and various other displays of worship.

 

 

I think it's probably true that there are more people who class themselves as Christians who observe the religion only in nominal terms than there are Muslims who do likewise, though I don't know.  It's also the case that there is a significant number of younger people brought up as Muslims who don't follow the religion.

 

But all religions have guidance on a range of lifestyle issues, and people vary in the degree to which they comply with these things.  If you think of the rather precise dietary rules that some Jews follow, or the pretty invasive thought control involved in the Catholic approach to making confessions about your innermost thoughts to someone sitting behind a screen, you could call those things "all-encompassing" as well.

 

For me the issue is whether peoples' approach to their religious belief leads them to behave in a way which is harmful or oppressive to others.  An extreme example would be when two religious zealots launched a decade of war in Iraq because they considered their god had told them to.

[omariqy]

Everything is in context.  It's a very complex situation.  It is not a simple case of they drew a cartoon and these guys retaliated.   There are many levels to the reason why it happened.  To think otherwise is naiive and dangerous as if you want to stop it happening in the future, you won't.

[Glarmorgan]

Wipe clean was a bad choice of words, perhaps.

 

The Muslim congregations have to deal with these bad seeds, alongside state security forces. The lack of willingness to deal with this problem head-on allowed it to grow and prosper and the results are quite clear, unfortunately. If there are "bad Muslims" it needs to be said and to be dealt with. If a certain Imam calls for the destruction of western civilization or any other call of that sort - he needs to be dealt with. This does not mean "kill him now", but to be aware, not to ignore him, his words or his followers.

 

The same goes for any other religion. Still, at this point, Islam produces way too much killings and killers who explain their killing with "Islam". I agree this is a difficult task. This does not justify ignoring it or worse - try to contemplate and find explanations to "ease the burden off the backs of the terrorists". I am sure they had their reasons. Great reasons from their point of view - but it changes nothing. Something or someone (or both) pushed these men from the point of being mad at something to the point of "let's take some rifles and deal with it". This something or someone is where the efforts should be focused. 

[peterms]

I don't get it. This is wrong in so many levels. These three terrorists did not drop from the sky. No warlock conjured them out of nowhere. They lived and prospered as a part of a group, a faction. This group or faction needs to be condemned and wiped clean. Not because of Islam - but because they see Islam as an excuse to take other people's lives. It's that simple.

 

Well, no doubt we will know more about the attackers before too long.  Early accounts - and these things often change a lot in these situations, as some misinformation is always present - suggest that one of them at least was radicalised by the Iraq war and things like Abu Ghraib.  There will be thousands more like that, and intelligence chiefs among others have pointed out that it's an inevitable consequence of invasive wars and torture.  It is also suggested that he has been in Syria, training with the insurgents who were encouraged, supported, funded and armed by the US.

 

The cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo may have been the excuse or the immediate focus of his actions (and the cartoonists were of course a much softer target than others), but I seriously question whether these things can be understood without the wider context of the anger and alienation which seems to have existed.  To imagine that it's simply religious outrage at cartoons, and no more, seems naive.

 

If both the motivation and the capability for these acts derives at least in part from US actions, perhaps it's just a little bit too simplistic to say "it's Islam".

[snowychap]

...try to contemplate and find explanations to "ease the burden off the backs of the terrorists".

That leaves open the huge spectrum of options of trying to contemplate and find explanation(s) without justifying it/easing any burden. Edited January 8, 2015 by snowychap

[Swerbs]

These guys are heading back to Paris apparently.

[peterms]

 

...try to contemplate and find explanations to "ease the burden off the backs of the terrorists".

That leaves open the huge spectrum of options of trying to contemplate and find explanation(s) without justifying it/easing any burden.

 

 

Yes.  Every time there's a discussion on this sort of subject, it seems necessary to repeat that seeking to understand something is not to excuse it.

[Risso]

 

I don't get it. This is wrong in so many levels. These three terrorists did not drop from the sky. No warlock conjured them out of nowhere. They lived and prospered as a part of a group, a faction. This group or faction needs to be condemned and wiped clean. Not because of Islam - but because they see Islam as an excuse to take other people's lives. It's that simple.

 

Well, no doubt we will know more about the attackers before too long.  Early accounts - and these things often change a lot in these situations, as some misinformation is always present - suggest that one of them at least was radicalised by the Iraq war and things like Abu Ghraib.  There will be thousands more like that, and intelligence chiefs among others have pointed out that it's an inevitable consequence of invasive wars and torture.  It is also suggested that he has been in Syria, training with the insurgents who were encouraged, supported, funded and armed by the US.

 

The cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo may have been the excuse or the immediate focus of his actions (and the cartoonists were of course a much softer target than others), but I seriously question whether these things can be understood without the wider context of the anger and alienation which seems to have existed.  To imagine that it's simply religious outrage at cartoons, and no more, seems naive.

 

If both the motivation and the capability for these acts derives at least in part from US actions, perhaps it's just a little bit too simplistic to say "it's Islam".

 

 

It is Islam though.  Without that connection, what possible reason would people from the UK or France have to join ISIS or start shooting innocent people?

[Wainy316]

Blaming the US and Western meddling is fruitless.  95% of victims to Islamic extremism are not Western and largely Muslim themselves.

[bickster]

I don't get it. This is wrong in so many levels. These three terrorists did not drop from the sky. No warlock conjured them out of nowhere. They lived and prospered as a part of a group, a faction. This group or faction needs to be condemned and wiped clean. Not because of Islam - but because they see Islam as an excuse to take other people's lives. It's that simple.

 

Well, no doubt we will know more about the attackers before too long.  Early accounts - and these things often change a lot in these situations, as some misinformation is always present - suggest that one of them at least was radicalised by the Iraq war and things like Abu Ghraib.  There will be thousands more like that, and intelligence chiefs among others have pointed out that it's an inevitable consequence of invasive wars and torture.  It is also suggested that he has been in Syria, training with the insurgents who were encouraged, supported, funded and armed by the US.

 

The cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo may have been the excuse or the immediate focus of his actions (and the cartoonists were of course a much softer target than others), but I seriously question whether these things can be understood without the wider context of the anger and alienation which seems to have existed.  To imagine that it's simply religious outrage at cartoons, and no more, seems naive.

 

If both the motivation and the capability for these acts derives at least in part from US actions, perhaps it's just a little bit too simplistic to say "it's Islam".

 

It is Islam though.  Without that connection, what possible reason would people from the UK or France have to join ISIS or start shooting innocent people?

Could be radical tiddlywinks if Islam didn't exist. The disenfranchised will always find an avenue through which to channel their dislike of the status quo

[Risso]

 

Could be radical tiddlywinks if Islam didn't exist. The disenfranchised will always find an avenue through which to channel their dislike of the status quo

 

 

There are lots of disenfranchised people in the UK and Europe.  They're not all rushing off to fight in the desert though for a bunch of murderous thugs.

[bickster]

Could be radical tiddlywinks if Islam didn't exist. The disenfranchised will always find an avenue through which to channel their dislike of the status quo

 

There are lots of disenfranchised people in the UK and Europe.  They're not all rushing off to fight in the desert though for a bunch of murderous thugs.

Thats because they don't identify with Islam but it isn't Islam thats doing this to this lot. It's an abuse of Islam and thats the crucial point, to think otherwise is to fall into the islamaphobia trap

Islam isn't to blame, just like Christianity wasn't to blame for Koresh and the Branch Dividians

[mjmooney]

The nearest comparison I can come up with is the Spanish Civil War. Loads of young men and women from all over Europe and North America flocked to fight for the Republican cause. They were motivated by broadly leftist politics rather than religion, but they saw it as a crusade for a just cause - not to mention an adventure. Of course the reality was different. They found a military shambles, factional infighting, atrocities committed by both sides, and themselves used as pawns by a Stalinist USSR every bit as bad as the German and Italian fascists supporting Franco. It would seem that young European Muslims feel the same way about the jihad, be it in Syria or back home. The difference though is that the 1930s newsreels weren't reporting the supposed good guys beheading journalists. So it's still pretty hard for a wooly liberal like me to understand.

Edited January 8, 2015 by mjmooney

[Awol]

The problem for me with Islam is that just as the UK is finally becoming much less religious in terms of its historic connection with christianity, there's a religion on the block that is all encompassing in the lives of most of its followers. To see that somebody couldn't even type the word "Mohammed" on here without feeling required to add "pbuh" after it showed just how ingrained in people it is.

It always makes me think of the Scottish play

[omariqy]

Also you forget what is happening in Muslim lands.  Many people, daily, are seeing their homes destroyed, loved ones injured or destroyed and their countries ruined.  It is naiive to think that there won't be an impact on the back of the West's interference and warfare in the middle east.  In my eyes it is more political than religious.  Many of the individuals who commit such acts tend to have a very basic knowledge of Islam and rely on an authority figure for their education.  An authority figure who himself is probably mentally ill.  They may commit such acts in the name of Islam but it is almost always in response to something political.  You just have to look at the people responsible for 9/11 to see what they got up to before they committed the attack. 

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

 An authority figure who himself is probably mentally ill. 

 

Or funded by the Saudis to spread their particular branch of hateful bullshit.

[Ads]

It's one of the strange quirks of how society has modernised, yet people still clutch to the implausible.

If you were to hear that a man had been spending quite a bit of time in a cave and that he was going around saying he had been visited by the angel Gabriel, or if you'd been told by your old mate Moses that a burning bush had told you to follow him off into the desert or you had heard that somebody was proclaiming themselves to be the son of god, then you would feel sympathy and hope that they receive the medical care they need to treat what would hopefully be only episodic schizophrenia.

Instead these men are revered and plenty have been willing to die in their name or the voice of the message from God that only they, coincidentally, have been hearing.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Ads