Massacre in Paris - a dozen newspeople shot

Parent Cafe
341

I’ve never said “should” or “must” but rather that the only way this gets under control without a huge suppression of liberties is if Muslims within Europe (and the US) take this on themselves. Not through guns but through active, not passive cooperation with security forces. I have no interest in engaging in silly arguments about who should tell whom because they aren’t rooted in practicalities.

If anyone is interested in reading articulate Islamism, I think one of the best sites is a British-run site called Islam21C. (That btw is extremely close to Israel21C, which I think is funny.) The gist of the site is that attacks are bad but provoked and a repeated statement that radicalization is not terrorism (because there are few actual terrorists and lots of Islamic radicals). I find the site an interesting read with the caveat that the logic is sometimes different.

I’ll focus on the main point they repeat about radicalization is not terror - and the same 2 or 3 quotes they use all the time. I need another example for comparison so I thought of this: that radical feminism argues on occasion that pornography causes violence against women. (As an aside, I thought of this because I once went through a short book by a law school professor - at my alma mater, so you see why - about this subject and checked each of her examples. They were all factually wrong. In one, for example, she claimed a guy “consumed” pornography, possibly bondage porn in Penthouse, and then tied up, raped and killed a young woman, meaning a direct link between stimulus and action. One problem was she switched things around - his defense was that he was at a porn store looking at porn when the crime occurred - but the rest was wrong too.) The problem most people have with the idea that porn causes violence is that violence against women happens at least as much if not more in cultures with no or nearly no access to porn, that it existed at least as much before porn became readily available here and that all men consume sexual images. In fact, if you read histories going way, way back, you see that rape and other violence against women (and children) was more common than it is in Western nations today. Islam21C essentially extends the pornography causes rape logic to Islamism: there are only a few actual terrorists but many Islamists. You can see the difficulty right away: did this terror exist in Europe or the US before Islamism? No. Did this terror exist in the Middle East (or South Asia, SE Asia) before Islamism? No. The numbers argument only proves that a relatively small number of people become murderers, something we already know from every situation in which there is violence. As in, not all drug gang members actually commit violence. Given that Islamism is a spectrum from murderous to thoughts of devotion, Islam21C constructs a classic straw man it can knock down: that Islamism always causes violence. The site is full of this kind of logic. But I recommend looking at it. BTW, if they are serious about their numbers game, they would actively work to separate out the extremists because that would prove their point. This does happen but not enough.

342

@‌ lergnom-
“Given that Islamism is a spectrum from murderous to thoughts of devotion, Islam21C constructs a classic straw man it can knock down: that Islamism always causes violence.”

The problem with Islamism isn’t that it always creates violence, it is that it is a very rigid system of belief that is also supposed to be combined with the legal and civil portions of society. When you have an absolute system of belief, one where its tenets are supported by the law specifically, you end up with repression, and that is the problem with Islamism, it is built into it that anything outside its claimed beliefs needs to be suppressed. It is not much different than those who advocate Christian teaching as law (ie dominionism), you see exactly the same thing, people advocating biblical punishments for moral transgressions like adultery or fornication, you name it (and before you laugh and say what 10 people believe these kind of things, it is estimate that roughly 25 million people in the US support such an idea, which is not 100 people). Islamism doesn’t always create violence, but I would argue that it does create oppression, whether it is because someone is of the wrong faith, or because they are gay, a woman, etc, who fall under the cross hairs of the tenets of that particular branch. It is the one reason above all that moderate Muslims need to think about the implications of the radicals, that if as you say they just want to lead their lives in peace and as they see fit, Islamism is a mortal enemy of that concept, for its very tenets say you cannot have live and let live, its fundamental tenet is ‘live as I say you do, or suffer the consequences’.

People in the Islamic world only need look at a recent incident, a blogger in Saudi Arabia, who simply advocated that it was time for Muslims to have a dialog on what it means to be Muslim, what the faith truly means, was sentenced to 10 years in prison in Saudi Arabia (according to the Bush family “Our good friend” snort) and a thousand lashes for ‘defaming the faith’…do they think that Ismamism poses any less threat to themselves?

343

“This is akin to the black people in my company laughing at the fact that because they are rich that there are people who think they have some overriding special obligation to go and help black people in ghettoes. Well, that too is delusional because these black people I know never lived in ghettoes, have no understanding of the thought processes of people in ghettoes, do not talk like them, live a completely different lifestyle and politics, and want nothing to do with the risk and dangers of even being in those areas. In short, it is really ethnocentric for others to think just because they have similar skin hues that somehow the poor black people are their problem and subsequent obligation. That is just plain silly thinking.”

Is it? The Jewish community, for example, was known for the idea that you help others in the community who are less fortunate (and note, this didn’t just apply to fellow Jews, it also extends to other people). Not to mention that many well off blacks share the identity of being Christian and not giving back to their communities isn’t exactly in line with their faith (sorry, Ayn Rand is not Christian)…

More importantly, though, like the non radical muslims, they also could be cutting their own throats. Like with non radical muslims being thrown in with the radicals (ie ‘all muslims are terrorists’), the ills that exist in large swaths of the black community, especially when it concerns black men, have generated much the same issue that non radical muslims face, that being classified as a ‘black male’ is sadly often an object of fear and negative stereotypes as is the term muslim to many people.

And for those well off black men who laugh and say “what duty do I have?”, the answer is it may be a matter of self preservation. The fact that they have money or power will mean very little if they get pulled over in a well off neighborhood and some cop decides you are a black guy in an expensive car you must be a thief, or worse, their kid gets pulled over and assumes it is a young black man, they can end up planning their kids funeral. What if it was the son of one of these guys who was walking in the neighborhood in florida where George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin? It is a very similar situation, the negative stereotypes (that in the case of black men, are bolstered ever day with reports of crime and violence in the black community) may seem far removed from them, but in the end it can and does come back to bite them. If they have a duty to the less fortunate it isn’t entirely altruistic, it is because there can be and is impact on their own selves, driving while black is not a myth, and what they do to help fix ills in the inner city helps them. Negative stereotypes are not fair, and you can argue that is on the hands of non blacks in this case, or non muslims, but the reality is that the fear and anger that is brewing (unfairly) against muslims as a whole also applies in their case, too.

344

Interesting discussion. Grouping people together by race or religion is not how everyone sees the world, though. Granted some do. But, many don’t, including many in the group. And, this is not to say that helping out those in your identified grouping is not a good thing. But, to call it a responsibility and act as though everyone is going to get on board and it will change anything is perhaps not all that realistic. And, we are talking in this case about some pretty barbaric killers so to not see them as having much in common with you if you are not one of them is not unexpected at all.

345

Agree with above: very good discussion.

346

The resolve and determination of the police forces in Belgium are noteworthy. It reflects the desire of most of the population. It will last until the politicians and media revert to their old habits.

347

"And it might further delusional in thinking you have some right to tell non-radical Muslims what their responsibilities are. The obvious question many non-radicals may have for you, “Who the heck are you to tell us what is our problem? It is your butt they are currently kicking, not mine.”

Whatever are you talking about? The non-radical Muslims are affected in far greater numbers than non Muslims. We just pay far more attention to what is happening in our world. It is mostly the non-radical Muslims whose butts are getting kicked, they are the ones paying the greatest price.

348

I don’t really think the problem of radical terrorists should be addressed by just people of a particular faith. For example, that Muslims should take care of this problem alone. I think it should be more done by each specific country. As far as, if you have people who are radicalizing and attacking others (people of any faith), then the citizens and governments should take care of it. If they need help from others, request it. However, I realize how completely unrealistic that is, with governments that are brutal dictatorships, that actually support this kind of behavior, as long as they can stay in power. With governments and citizens in full agreement about discriminating and repressing people of non Muslim faiths, working together could be a joke. When the governments themselves are too busy controlling and suppressing any free speech and people’s personal actions, they barely seem to care about taking care of the terrorists in their midst.

349

In addition, hoping that non-radical Muslims develop the ability of willingness to “take care” of it is mere wishful thinking, and especially when looking at the history.

That might be true, but we also have to realize that this greater number stems from regions that are hardly hospitable to OUR governments and well beyond their reach – short of the military occupations that have not worked out that well in the past! On the other hand, our government might be more interested in implementing measures that undermine the growth of radical Islam WITHIN their own jurisdictions and offering superior protection to the ones who … denounce the unveiled invitations to hate, intolerance, and violence. Time might have come to revise the “freedom of religion” rules that have allowed the development of Sharia infected communities to blossom under the indifferent eyes of a number of governments.

350

OK, I was not clear enough.

I was talking specifically about the Western people (non-Muslims) being targeted and killed by terrorist attacks. And, I was also talking about how many non-radical Muslims view Western people and governments who think that the solution to solving the problem of Muslim terrorist attacks must come out of and be rooted in the non-radical Muslim community.

There are many non-radical Muslims who do not see these terrorists, as their problem; yes, the terrorists also claim to be rooted in Islam, but this does not mean that terrorists’ Islamic claim transfers ownership of the problem to other Muslims who do not believe or support as much.

You are very correct, in a general sense, that the non-radical Muslims are taking the greatest overall hit, i.e., socially, diplomatically, and in terms of how the world views Islam - the biggest issue non-radical Muslims have is the obvious. That is, outwardly no one can tell who is who, i.e., who is a terrorist sympathizer and supporter and who is not. Therefore, pretty much anyone can become suspect.

However, with respect to terrorist attacks in the West, such as Paris, it is not non-radical Muslims being attacked and killed; it is people who openly prescribe to be Western and who practice Western values. It was these people I was talking about. And non-radical Muslims do not think it is their responsibility to step in front and put themselves in the line of fire to save Western people from such attacks.

In fact, you essentially say the same thing in your next post:

I believe this is correct, as well.

And there will be many countries where non-radical Muslims will choose to not accept that they have some special duty to address this problem outside of what the general society and government are doing. In short, they do not see themselves automatic emissaries to Muslim terrorists because it is not their Muslim businesses and families being attacked and the terrorists do not represent them.

Many non-radical Muslims will and do find it wiser to act in unison with the general society, but not do anything openly and separately, as Muslims.

351

I’ve been reading a number of what are I guess the typical range of reactions to mass murders. Some that strike me are the ones pointing out Christian over-reactions to perceived attacks on their faith - notably someone like Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, who sees persecution everywhere. What’s missing or rather what is pointed out in passing is that I can’t think of Christians killing for those “provocations” outside of a handful of abortion-related murders. Sort of a perfect example of false equivalency to say “Christians overreact” as being even similar to “Muslims kill Westerners who either happen to offend them or are Jewish.”

Another theme I see is that the West has done and is doing terrible things in the Middle East. I’m not a fan of our policies in Iraq, etc. but our Arab allies have been so that argument is undercut by the fact that Arab Muslims support the things we do in the region. But more importantly, what about the treatment of Christians in the region? I can list example after example of Christians brutalized, executed, thrown into flames, bombed, etc. all the way from Algeria to Pakistan. Over the past weeks, for example, the Egyptian press has reported the abduction and mass killings of Coptic Christians who in most cases are separated away from Muslim travelers (on buses, at roadblocks) and then disappeared until found dead. Or the scores of Coptic churches attacked in Egypt. Or the organized rapes of Christian girls and women. Or the forced conversions. Or the lynchings of Christians accused, just accused by word of mouth, of saying something bad about Islam. If all Muslims are outraged, then by the same token Christians should be as outraged and …

Or take my faith, Judaism. I could list so many examples of absolute hate speech and hate actions that it would turn stomachs. Put aside the things done in France and Belgium recently, do you know our ally Turkey constantly attacks Judaism (not Israel but Judaism). I can cite governors and members of Parliament and important news organizations controlled by Erdogan’s allies printing stuff that sounds like Nazi propaganda. Or the litany of sermons about killing all the Jews. Or that Jews are descendants of apes and pigs. Or that salvation will only come when all the Jews are killed. Or that Jews kill children for their blood. And so on. By the standards of provocation, by the Muslim standards of provocation, I should be next door slitting the throats of my Muslim neighbors. I don’t do that because I don’t live have a crude, 7th century view of humanity.

The fourth thread is something I noted when I mentioned Islam21C, the idea that talking about Muslim terror is wrong because all Muslims are not terrorists. When you read the words, think about how many times you’ve seen this: you have to say “not all Muslims are terrorists” because if you don’t, some idiot will accuse you of saying that all Muslims are terrorists. I’d classify this argument as sheer deflection by repeated assertion.

352

This is an article in the BBC, that also says a lot towards this discussion:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30853305?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

There basically have been riots and protests across the Muslim world, where people have been killed, not protesting the Muslim radicals who killed the people at Charlie and the store, but rather denouncing Charlie for publishing the stuff they do. Where are the protests against what the terrorists did, denouncing them for the terror they committed in the name of their faith? I would bet pretty good money that a lot of the people in those crowds, if you asked them would tell you the terrorists were not truly Muslim, that the Q’ran forbids such acts, but where is the outrage over others hijacking their faith?

353

Lergnom, you might find the recent view of The Economist interesting:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2015/01/catholics-jews-and-netherlands?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/wearyjawsfearofwars

The threats to the Jewish community are multiple, and one might look at what happened to the reverse gentrification of neighborhoods in Brussels as a telltale sign. I visited this precise neighborhood a few years ago. What was once a predominantly a middle class community with a large number of Jews (the heart of the design and textile fabrication in Brussels) had become one of the most violent and economically deprived one. One could use the google features to take a “walk” down the streets to measure the transformation. This neighborhood has also numerous pockets of no-go zones. In a matter of one half a century, many families have been pushed to move out by the increased danger and harassment. Simply stated, the synagogue stands in the middle of a developed Muslim world.

There are some parallels to Antwerp – although the economic input of the Jewish community (think diamond trade) has given reason to the authorities to offer a (slightly) better protection in spite of the Muslim rapid growth in population and virulence.

354

I mentioned in a different thread the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, which is the belief that no “true” member of one’s group would do something that is against the values of the group. Thus, Muslims who commit terror aren’t “true” Mulsims, just as Nazis and abortion clinic bombers aren’t “true” Christians. This is a natural reaction, but I think it plays a part in declining to take any ownership of bad acts done by one’s co-religionists. Of course, it’s much easier to detect this fallacy in others than it is to detect in one’s own opinions.

355

@hunt-
Yep,. the ‘no true scotsman’ argument has been used to deflect a lot of bad behavior or where a group wants to dissociate themselves from negativity, by saying that the bad behavior inherently means they are not a member of the group, it is an attempt to deflect from any reality that group membership has with the actions. I remember talking to one of my professors in grad school, who was a labor economist who spent years working for various unions, and when there was some kind of job action, the heads of the union would deny there was any job action and that any member who would purposely throw a monkey wrench into the works of course “was no good union man”, the stock brokers who tried to pass off crappy stocks on unsuspecting clients were not ‘representative of the industry’ and so forth.

With religion, where there are a lot of gray areas (like what is the faith, is it the scripture alone, or is it the rules around the religion that have grown up) this card is played time and again. For example, one of the points made about the terrorists killing those who they feel have offended Muslims or the prophet is that blasphemy is punishable by death. And they are not wrong, there are elements of religious teaching and law outside the Q’Ran that in fact do justify killing someone who derides the faith or whatever. Yet those saying the killers were not Muslim, were not practicing Islam, point to the Q’ran where it says all you are supposed to do if someone makes fun of your faith is walk away from them,let you see your dust as you leave. So technically, saying killing someone who makes fun of your faith is not Islam, if you take the Q’ran as the only element of the faith, but all faiths have things like sacred writings outside scripture, church teaching and so forth, so what defines the faith? By saying someone ‘isn’t practicing the faith’ is a kind of dodge, it is deflecting the negative impression rather than actually tackling it head on and saying “there are writings that say Blasphemy is a horrible sin, that creating an image of a prophet is horrible, punishable by death, there have been many teachers who claimed this, but the Q’ran is clear on how you handle this, and the violated this and therefore should not be considered Muslim”…among other things, this tells the outside world and the perpetrator why they aren’t, instead of being a dodge to deflect blame.

BTW, Islam recognizes a number of prophets, Jesus and the Jewish prophets are all recognized as prophets, and are given the same kind of status that Mohammad holds (Mohammad is the last prophet, but is not the only one), so given how many inflammatory images there are of Christ out there, the outright anti semitism that flows through the world, including denigrating Jewish prophets, it is telling that the Muslims in question single out only Mohammad, for Islamic law says any desecration is a bad thing.

356

Wrong comparison - what made Nazis justify the killing wasn’t their Christianity but their Naziness. The Muslims who commit terror are as true Muslims as Nazis who killed Jews are true Nazis.

357

There is nothing in Christianity that I am aware of that dictates one must stand by, watch and allow the willful taking of an innocent life.

Therefore, this statement would hold true only if one does not believe that the unborn is truly a life worth protecting and saving.

However, if one does believe the unborn has life, like any other human, and is worth saving and protecting, then efforts to stop its deliberate death by others is not a non-Christian act.

358

No, even then that statement is weird. Christians do all kinds of crazy bad mean criminal things just like everyone else. I don’t even begin to understand the logic being applied here. And, why are people always trying to prove that Christians do bad things, too. No-one disputes that, but it is not all that relevant to this particular specific issue with the Islamic terrorist problem.

359

^^ I was just addressing the one specific point made, abortion clinic bombing. I leave the argument of the statement’s fundamental merits to others.

360

The new age moral relativism that is all the rage today in academia. There is no right or wrong; there is no better or worse; all cultures are equal; there is only this large grey area where everyone operates. I do not buy this nonsense by the way.