Radical Islamic Terrorists

Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Steal Your Face, Feb 24, 2017.

  1. Ten Lubak

    Ten Lubak Salty Dog

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2006
    Messages:
    12,301
    Ratings:
    +27,034
    That Thailand number is highly dubious. So much so that it makes all those numbers suspect.
  2. K.

    K. Sober

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    27,298
    Ratings:
    +31,281
    No. You're proceeding from the assumption that the Taliban's rule was in accordance with Sharia. The Taliban claimed this, of course; but most of the opposition to the Taliban consider their rule as a violation of Sharia. When a pollster asks them, do you want Sharia? They'll say : Yes, desperately -- we saw what happens when someone governs against it.

    No. It's an essentialist smoke-screen. The important question is whether they think a Muslim should act like Daesh do, or whether a Muslim should act like they themselves act.

    And it was correct, at least when they were both still around. Of course, for those truly opposed to all forms of communism, that distinction was never relevant. But I am not opposed to my neighbour worshipping Allah any more than I am to him worshipping Jahweh if it doesn't interfere with his participation in a free and open society.

    Corrected that for you to make the arguments align, and now it's obvious that indeed we never used those terms and shouldn't. Nor should we use the equivalent for those Muslims who are aberrations rather than prime examples of their faith.

    Language is a part of reality. Using language to accurately represent and understand reality helps us to be able to change it, and by not repeating our enemies' lies, we give them less power than they'd have otherwise. Ultimately, a suicide bomber does what he does because words made him think there is no better choice, not because some wordless reality offers no better choices.

    You cited examples of clearly non-fascist but ugly actions in various countries as evidence that they are fascist.

    But tribal also is a word with a specific meaning! Why do we need to misuse words at all? Why can't we just condemn murderers for their murders?

    So?

    Empirically false, but also irrelevant, since the vast majority of peaceful Muslims and their scholars can do that part. I'm just saying we don't need to hold up Daesh's interpretation of the Koran against theirs.
  3. Nono

    Nono Fresh Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,224
    Location:
    Western Europe
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    Could you back this statement up chapter and verse? I'm not asking you to do that here because it would be wasted on me personally. But I wonder where your extensive knowledge of Koran-based Islamic law comes from. You sound very sure of yourself.

    I think it's equally valid now that they aren't around. Anyway, fair enough. And this is because the fact that your neighbour worships Allah or Jahweh or freaking Bokonism is in itself harmless. Like the very fervent and sincere Catholicism of my wife. It comforts her and she would never dream of imposing it on anyone. My friend Sitara worships Allah. Same deal: no proselytism. Her business.

    And again we come back to something like fascism/totalitarianism/tribalism.

    I don't accept your "correction". And here I'm going to turn your argument around and direct it back to you. You say ISIS isn't Islamic ---- OK, I say that Blair wasn't Labour because what he did didn't improve the lot of working people. On the contrary. And my cousin Bernard (who would probably be a Southern Baptist if he didn't live in Canada) would hotly reject your "most pious" (while secretly relishing it). I think he's rather a bully, which disqualifies him from true piety.
    So I'm afraid I'll have to insist on my own wording of that passage.

    Point taken. But I don't overrate the power of language either. "A rose by any other name ...".
    I don't believe we can divest ourselves of our tribal nature. The best we can do is try to defuse it as much as possible by not traumatizing each other. And there, actions speak far louder than words.

    You've lost me again.

    Nono: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

    K.: So?

    So calling terrorists terrorists won't do a blessed thing to change the view of those who regard them as freedom fighters.

    Are you suggesting that I "hold up Daesh's interpretation of the Koran against" that of peaceful Muslims??? That's a pretty serious charge, K.

    I merely said that ISIS can be called Islamic because it's an indisputable manifestation of Islam (just as mystic Sufism is). And just as Torquemada --- or, to take living examples, all the loony preachers in the Bible Belt --- are an indisputable manifestation of Christianity.

    All of which is rather the problem with organized religion and ideology. And what makes language very much a double-edged sword.
    • TL;DR TL;DR x 1
  4. K.

    K. Sober

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    27,298
    Ratings:
    +31,281
    My knowledge of the Koran -- somewhat rusty now, but sufficient for me to quote sura and verse after reading up in my own notes for a bit -- comes from taking four semesters' worth of one weekly course on it when I was a student: less than nothing, by no means enough to argue with mullahs. But knowledge of Koran isn't the point here any more than any actual knowledge of the Bible's actual words decides whether your cousin Bernie thinks he is obligated to kill all gay men of whom he has knowledge. My claim isn't that the Koran is unambiguous, but that many Afghanis who support Sharia didn't and don't support the Taliban and don't think the sharia implies one should support the Taliban, and you have just quoted the numbers to prove that -- or do you doubt that most Afghans today resent the Taliban?

    No. Proselytism, conversion by force, fascism, totalitarianism, and tribalism all mean different things.

    Two problems with that, only one of which is relevant for the larger point. The smaller problem is that the Labour Party in GB, unlike Islam, actually is one singular entity with a documented list of members. The real problem, however, is this: When you call someone a radical Islamist or an Islamofascist, you're not just saying that they are Muslim. You're saying that they follow Islam to a greater degree than other Muslims: They get to Islam's roots, or they impose Islam's rule with fascist methods. That's not like saying that Blair was Labour, but like saying that he took Labour's policies to an extreme, or adhered to them more strictly than other Labour members, or that his understanding of Labour's core values really got to the roots of what that party stands for -- and all of those claims are simply false.

    Then why do you describe a murderer with regard to which religious words he uses rather than simply by his actions?

    But calling them radical Muslims will?

    Yes, and that's the main point. By calling Daesh radical Muslims rather than aberrations from Islam, you're making their case, rather than supporting the case of peaceful and dare I say enlightened Muslims.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Quincunx

    Quincunx anti-anti-establishment Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    20,211
    Location:
    Chicago, U.S.A.
    Ratings:
    +24,060
    According to CNN, new national security advisor McMaster has said that "jihadist terrorists aren't true to their religion and that the use of the term 'radical Islamic terrorism' doesn't help the US in working with allies to defeat terrorist groups."

    :techman:
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. K.

    K. Sober

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    27,298
    Ratings:
    +31,281
    :techman:
  7. Nono

    Nono Fresh Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,224
    Location:
    Western Europe
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    Well I bow to superior knowledge, since I couldn't quote a single sentence from the Koran.

    Puh-lease! Bernard. I don't know he would go that far. I try to avoid getting drawn into discussions with him. It always ends badly.

    Your point is that it's the type of person -- not their devotion to a sacred text -- that counts. And I totally agree. However, we both know that ill-willed people (and in many cases outright psychopaths) will use anything they can find to justify to others doing what they want to do anyway.

    Or the Bible. So the loving type will quote Luke 6:35 and the murderous type will quote Luke 19:27. It's like tossing a coin. And with a guy like Bernard, who has the whole damn thing memorized, you can't win. He'll always be able to out-quote you.

    Again --- that's the problem with organized religions of all types, including Buddhism I'm sad to say. Look at Burma and Sri Lanka. Of all "religions", Buddhism least lends itself to clergy-led organization. Yet in those two countries, for example, the clerics have been complicit in government oppression and war.

    Here I feel on more solid ground. Of course I'm no expert, but my work has caused me to know more than I'd frankly like to about places such as Afghanistan. The Taliban are more than just a bunch of wild-eyed religious fanatics. They're also a sort of Pashtun insurgency backed by the Pakistani intelligence services. The Pashtuns are the largest ethnic group in the country and sure lorded it over the others -- especially any unfortunate Shiites (Hazaras, etc.) -- when they ran the place.

    So the Taliban are extremely brutal guys, the product of a very hard-ass culture. As for Sharia, do you know of any judicial acts by the Taliban that were not in accordance with Koranic law? I couldn't say.

    You claim that the 99% who favour Sharia view it as a welcome relief from Taliban excesses. What do I know? Maybe the non-Pashtuns do. But I wonder what they think they want. Do they know how things are in Saudi Arabia, for example? Wikipedia says: "The legal system of Saudi Arabia is based on Sharia. (...) Criminal law punishments (...) include public beheading, hanging, stoning, amputation and lashing. (...)"
    Can we really believe that the significant percentages of the population in so many Muslim countries who favour Sharia actually don't understand what they wish for? I find this doubtful.

    They are different shades of the same colour. They all arise from basically the same mindset. (Did I even mention proselytism? That's Bernard. Not an evil, merely an annoyance.)

    Wrong! By the way, what you say may be true of the term "radical Islam", a term I don't use. Yes, calling Blair a "radical Labourite" would most definitely be totally wrong-headed.

    An "Islamofascist" is fundamentally a fascist. The "Islam" part is the vehicle he uses to practise his fascism. There are most certainly "Christofascists" and "Hindufascists" and what have you. But you can't say "they aren't Christians/Hindus". That's the No-True-Scotsman defence (a term I learned form somebody on the board just this past week).

    By the way, a good question is always the extent to which a religion lends itself to this sort of shit. I feel that Islam doesn't do terribly well on that test.

    I don't! Now you're insulting me. It's like asking "Are you still beating your wife?" Would I talk about Charles Manson without mentioning the cult he led? No I wouldn't. The "religious words" are part of the whole constellation which the phenomenon constitutes.

    These guys couch their actions in religious rhetoric, just as the Nazis based their actions on (for public consumption) the need for a pure Aryan race, that race's need for greater territory, the need to neutralize the Jews and other parasites, the need to right the wrongs of the Versailles Treaty .... and the list goes on.

    C'mon, K. This is bullshit. Quote me calling them radical Muslims. I doubt you can do it. If you can (which would amaze me no little) then it was loose language on my part. If you can't, then you're putting words in my mouth. And that is not great debating style, to say the least.

    Oh shit. I'm tired of you putting words in my mouth.

    The ball is in your court, K. ----- Quote me!
    • TL;DR TL;DR x 1
  8. K.

    K. Sober

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    27,298
    Ratings:
    +31,281
    I apologise for misunderstanding you about the term 'radical Islamists'.

    For clarity, this is a thread originally about that term, and you did not say you disagreed with it; you started off by saying you saw nothing wrong with the term 'Islamofascists', which is usually used by the same crowd with the same intention, so I took that as support for the policy common to both appellations, namely, treating these scumbags as if their scumbaggery came from an extreme form of Islam.

    I maintain that this is a fallacy, however, and it applies to using the term 'Islamofascist' no less than to 'radical Islamists'.
  9. matthunter

    matthunter Ice Bear

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    26,878
    Location:
    Bottom of the bearstack, top of the world
    Ratings:
    +48,416
  10. Nono

    Nono Fresh Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,224
    Location:
    Western Europe
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    Just to be clear, the thread is originally about the term "radical Islamic terrorists" in the mouth of one Donald John Trump Esq. Which is a key qualification of the thread subject.

    I think it's well enough known that I disagree with almost everything Donald says. As for a semantic dissection of the term, I share your view that the term "radical Islam" is, well, iffy. In the same way that calling the Crusaders "radical Christians" would upset those who believe that Christianity is all about Brotherly Love.

    However, to say that ISIS are not "radically Islamic" implies that one knows what is radically Islamic. Do you? If ISIS misrepresents the essence of Islam, who faithfully represents it? And how do they do it? Can you tell me?

    Well ....

    1) I stand by my use of the term "Islamosfascist" according to my definition of the term (they don't need to wear brown shirts and jackboots, etc.). And just to demonstrate that I'm not off on any anti-Muslim crusade of my own, I wouldn't hesitate to describe, say, Ian Paisley as a "Protestantofascist" (even if I know so many devout Protestants who are admirable people) or Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi a "Hindufascist" despite the lovability of millions of practising Hindus.

    2) As for "the same crowd", that's their look-out, not mine. I mean, can't I affirm that I'm a leftist without being tarred by the brush of the Khmer Rouge?

    There are things that make me particularly uneasy about Islam --- not as practised by hundreds of millions of blameless Muslims but nevertheless inherent in the religion. In your definition of Muslim belief, you missed one key aspect. Not only is there only one god (Allah) and Mohammad is his prophet, but the Koran is quite literally the word of Allah, as literally dictated by him to Mohammad.

    The Judaeo-Christian Bible is a bunch of texts written by a bunch of guys and it's considered sacred, yes, but not literally the word of God. So if passage X contradicts passage Y, you can say Oh well, we are but human. This isn't so in Islam --- and it's potential dynamite.

    I once had a huge argument with Señor Hoint on another board about this sort of thing. A very bitter argument as a matter of fact. He dismissed my views as "anecdotal" --- well yeah, anything but the Pew poll above, say, can be so dismissed. Anyway, many of the Muslims I've known I would describe as literal-minded. I think this may be a cultural thing, but it's virtually impossible to tease apart religion and culture in such societies. I associate it with rote-learning, which is a feature of "many" Muslim societies, especially when it comes to memorizing the Koran ...
    Literal-mindedness is not good news. You probably won't like the clip below. But I think Cleese makes the point very precisely.

    • TL;DR TL;DR x 1
  11. Nono

    Nono Fresh Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,224
    Location:
    Western Europe
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    And here is Cleese himself making the same point in Life of Brian.

    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. K.

    K. Sober

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    27,298
    Ratings:
    +31,281
    Sure. Again, I apologise. It just seemed as if you had joined a thread discussing the crimes of the Khmer and said, 'I don't see anything wrong with socialism', which is easily misunderstood.

    So! If you see why it is wrong to call Daesh or AQ 'radical Muslims', why doesn't the same apply to the term 'Islamofascists' in your mind?

    I think it is because you believe that there is such a thing as something

    I disagree with this. Since Islam isn't true in the first place, and its holy book is filled with simile, and its followers disagree completely about what the religion says, to think of anything as inherent to the religion is a fallacy; doubly so if it is something with which 99% of self-described Muslims disagree.

    There is nothing to know, since there is no fact in question. What there is is a decision. I'm with those who decide that their faith commands them to rebuild the synagogue that their neighbours vandalised, and to embrace science and progress, and most obviously, to condemn murder and oppression.

    Calling ISIS 'Islamofascist' is more like calling Trump 'Protestantofascist'.

    Everything I am about to say is controversial for the reasons I just gave: There is no one truth nor one shared opinion about this. However, most Muslims would disagree with your depiction. The Koran is not the word of God. It is the word of Gabriel, and it is God -- Christians (many of them) think God became a man in Jesus, Muslims think God became a book in the Koran. Only just as meeting Jesus doesn't reveal God fully despite his being God, the Koran can only allude to its truth when read by humans, according to that belief.

    Which is also why I really don't know where you get the literal-mindedness thing from. The Koran is mostly written in poetry: In verse, simile, and metaphor. The Bible at least contains stories, mostly, that have an obvious literal meaning, even if we have good reasons to think that the literal one isn't the intended meaning. Most of the suras don't.

    And by the way, fascists are notoriously non-literal. They don't care if they have to affirm the opposite of what they said yesterday, as long as they are still holding the biggest guns. Though their poetry isn't any good either.
  13. oldfella1962

    oldfella1962 the only real finish line

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    81,024
    Location:
    front and center
    Ratings:
    +29,953
    Poetry? I figure Fascist poetry (or do you mean Islamic poetry) begins and ends with "there was an old man from Nantucket......"
  14. Nono

    Nono Fresh Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,224
    Location:
    Western Europe
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    OK, I also subscribe to this view. However, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Mass murderers parading as the defenders of Islam aren't the only problem, though doubtless the worst, especially for local Muslims. All the other things ("honour" killings -- common in, if not exclusive to, Muslim societies, female circumcision and general contempt for women, Sharia law, halal killing of animals, etc.) I find repellent, though again one can get into endless arguments about the difference between religion and culture.

    I always try (perhaps not always successfully) to judge the individual, not the group.

    Of course I'm with you 100% here. Again, we're at the level of the individual. But so many horrors are routinely practised in so many Muslim countries that I don't think it's that appalling to ask whether there isn't a link to the religion. Just as I don't think it's unfair to ask why fascism in Italy was so less nasty than fascism in Germany.
    I mean, I believe it's a cop-out to simply declare the question meaningless and therefore invalid.

    OK, Trump is capable of doing a lot more damage than Paisley was. But Paisley very definitely held what I would call "fascistic" views and based them all on "religion" ---- in that respect just like ISIS. There is the connection between fascism and religion. (He was the Reverend Ian Paisley ...)

    Trump hardly ever mentions Christianity, let alone Protestantism as such.

    Of course. If merely reading and understanding the Koran made a perfect person out of you, that would be too easy. Hence the concept of jihad: struggling your way toward perfection.

    I'm not at all convinced that "most Muslims" would disagree with me. I'm obviously willing to accept that I may be wrong. I'll have to ask some Muslims about this.

    Literal-mindedness as in taking the sacred scriptures literally. Just like Christian fundamentalists do .... the Earth being roughly 6,000 years old and whatnot.

    A striking number of Muslims I've known have been relatively literal-minded, not necessarily about religion. I mean rigid, rule-oriented. (Vorschrift ist Vorschrift.) Even those who are basically atheists but grew up Muslim. A guy I worked for 30 years with is Moroccan, though like me a naturalized Swiss. He told me about Koranic school. Holy shit! (to coin a phrase) He tells me (and he ought to know) that the entire educational system was based on rote-learning. It had arisen from Koranic schools after all, where you memorized-memorized. Oh, and they took turns as the one who beat the reciter when he made a mistake. And if you failed to spot the mistake, you yourself were beaten by the teacher.
    I told Señor Hoint about this and he dismissed it as anecdotal. Easy, eh?

    Well maybe they aren't that unliteral-minded. To me, literal-mindedness in no way rules out hypocrisy. Do as I say, not as I do.

    • TL;DR TL;DR x 1
  15. oldfella1962

    oldfella1962 the only real finish line

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    81,024
    Location:
    front and center
    Ratings:
    +29,953
    Curious...why is halal killing of animals bad? Isn't it like Kosher killing/butchering? In other words the animal is going to be killed/processed/consumed no matter how it is done, right?
  16. K.

    K. Sober

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    27,298
    Ratings:
    +31,281
    You say it's hard to separate religion and culture, but how many Muslims have you known who grew up in a free society? Such as the millions of second or third generation Turkish immigrants in Germany?
  17. Nono

    Nono Fresh Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,224
    Location:
    Western Europe
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    I meant --- of course --- within the country where the religion dominates.

    Not many. Most of the ones I know are emigrés.

    Still, if you go to a banlieue (by which I mean ghetto) like Clichy-sous-Bois, you could be forgiven for wondering exactly which cultural sphere you find yourself in, and for concluding that it isn't really France. Indeed, as an outsider you actually hear people refer to "France" as the place outside the banlieue. My longtime first-aid instructor used to be a fireman in Paris, and he told me this. People (even third generation) would actually say to him: "In France you do X or Y, but that's not how we do things here."

    I knew Kreuzberg somewhat in the 1970s. I was told it was the fourth-biggest Turkish-speaking city, just as Montreal was (and may still be) the second-largest French-speaking city in the world. It seemed overwhelmingly Turkish to me.

    Was it a "free society"? Sure, it was part of the Federal Republic. And yet .... Is rural Mississippi a "free society"? In many ways yes, but not in all ways I think.

    I know what you mean. Many Muslims whose parents or even grandparents came to live in Germany are thoroughly integrated. But your name doesn't have to be Thilo Sarrazin to note that ghetto-ization is still a bit of a problem. It's been a long time since I lived in Germany, and I understand that the German authorities finally came to grips with the reality that these people weren't really "guest-workers" and that they weren't going to leave. So a lot of things have probably changed for the better.
    • TL;DR TL;DR x 1
  18. Nono

    Nono Fresh Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,224
    Location:
    Western Europe
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    As I was saying recently (posts 12 and 24), both halal and kosher enjoy a special dispensation under the Ontario Animal Welfare Act.
    I think that's the whole story right there.
    • TL;DR TL;DR x 1
  19. K.

    K. Sober

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    27,298
    Ratings:
    +31,281
    And I grew up in Westkreuz in the 1980s. Same problem. But that's about economic ghettos first. We just end up locking a majority of one colour, religion, subculture, or whatever in there. The Christians weren't any better there, and the Muslims outside the ghettos aren't any worse than their equally middle-class neighbours.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  20. Shirogayne

    Shirogayne Gay™ Formerly Important

    Joined:
    May 17, 2005
    Messages:
    42,321
    Location:
    San Diego
    Ratings:
    +55,950
    At the end of the day, well fed people make fewer problems for the rest of society and don't go looking for scapegoats to blame.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  21. Nono

    Nono Fresh Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,224
    Location:
    Western Europe
    Ratings:
    +1,009
    PS I had coffee with the above-mentioned Sitara today and asked her about how Muslims view the Koran. She confirms that to them it is the very word of God, as dictated to Mohammad. (I'm sure she personally believes no such thing ...)

    She also reminded me that no translation of the Koran is considered truly authentic, since Allah spoke to Mohammad in Arabic. As a translator, I find this extremely sensible ---- always beware of translations (including the freaking Bible).
    [​IMG]
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • TL;DR TL;DR x 1