The War on Terror /Central Asia/Mid East/Africa thread

[Birds in Hell]

Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

Not all "regressive views" on women and homosexuals are equal. Surely you see a difference between being "pro-life" and against gay marriage and the total oppression of women and the criminalization of homosexuality in many Islamic states.

There's a difference, but I'm also fairly comfortable believing that it's not that these views are softer in the US, as much as it is that there are enough counter currents pushing back against them so that you can't get away with as much.

You can't seriously believe that American conservatives on the whole would support criminalising homosexuality (or worse) if only they could get away with it.

[Simple Torture]

Or, anyone can answer that. Didn't mean to single you out!

[Norah]

Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

Not all "regressive views" on women and homosexuals are equal. Surely you see a difference between being "pro-life" and against gay marriage and the total oppression of women and the criminalization of homosexuality in many Islamic states.

There's a difference, but I'm also fairly comfortable believing that it's not that these views are softer in the US, as much as it is that there are enough counter currents pushing back against them so that you can't get away with as much.

You can't seriously believe that American conservatives on the whole would support criminalising homosexuality (or worse) if only they could get away with it.

You don't have to go that far back in time to get to police raids on gay bars.

[stip]

Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

Not all "regressive views" on women and homosexuals are equal. Surely you see a difference between being "pro-life" and against gay marriage and the total oppression of women and the criminalization of homosexuality in many Islamic states.

There's a difference, but I'm also fairly comfortable believing that it's not that these views are softer in the US, as much as it is that there are enough counter currents pushing back against them so that you can't get away with as much.

You can't seriously believe that American conservatives on the whole would support criminalising homosexuality (or worse) if only they could get away with it.

oh god yes. Some of the more extreme ones. This country is full of reactionary lunatics

[BurtReynolds]

Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

Not all "regressive views" on women and homosexuals are equal. Surely you see a difference between being "pro-life" and against gay marriage and the total oppression of women and the criminalization of homosexuality in many Islamic states.

sure, and there's a difference between supporting the criminalizing of homosexuality in your own country and attacking western countries that allow it

Burt touched on this: What happens when a "moderate" who supports criminalizing homosexuality in their own country (man, "moderate" does not seem appropriate for such a view) is transplanted to a western country?

Probably depends on the person. I mean, are they the type that advocates for their views through rhetoric or through force?

How much does it matter if its by force or by political power, if what they advocating is so abhorrent? You're assuming that only by advocating through rhetoric, they can't change anything. That's not true.

[LoathedVermin72]

LV, how do you think you'd start a conversation about this with someone who truly believes that their religious faith is not an ideology that's been chosen by them or beaten into their heads by a parent, but is rather the one true path to answer all of the mysteries of the universe?

Ha, it depends on the person. I have had such discussions many times (my mom is one of those people).

[Norah]

Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

Not all "regressive views" on women and homosexuals are equal. Surely you see a difference between being "pro-life" and against gay marriage and the total oppression of women and the criminalization of homosexuality in many Islamic states.

sure, and there's a difference between supporting the criminalizing of homosexuality in your own country and attacking western countries that allow it

Burt touched on this: What happens when a "moderate" who supports criminalizing homosexuality in their own country (man, "moderate" does not seem appropriate for such a view) is transplanted to a western country?

Probably depends on the person. I mean, are they the type that advocates for their views through rhetoric or through force?

How much does it matter if its by force or by political power, if what they advocating is so abhorrent? You're assuming that only by advocating through rhetoric, they can't change anything. That's not true.

i'm not sticking up for these views, and successfully implementing them via politics is still awful, for sure. but i'm still separating that type of person from the type of person that shoots up a concert hall.

[LoathedVermin72]

Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

Not all "regressive views" on women and homosexuals are equal. Surely you see a difference between being "pro-life" and against gay marriage and the total oppression of women and the criminalization of homosexuality in many Islamic states.

sure, and there's a difference between supporting the criminalizing of homosexuality in your own country and attacking western countries that allow it

Burt touched on this: What happens when a "moderate" who supports criminalizing homosexuality in their own country (man, "moderate" does not seem appropriate for such a view) is transplanted to a western country?

Probably depends on the person. I mean, are they the type that advocates for their views through rhetoric or through force?

How much does it matter if its by force or by political power, if what they advocating is so abhorrent? You're assuming that only by advocating through rhetoric, they can't change anything. That's not true.

i'm not sticking up for these views, and successfully implementing them via politics is still awful, for sure. but i'm still separating that type of person from the type of person that shoots up a concert hall.

And I'm condemning the views of both.

[Norah]

Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

Not all "regressive views" on women and homosexuals are equal. Surely you see a difference between being "pro-life" and against gay marriage and the total oppression of women and the criminalization of homosexuality in many Islamic states.

sure, and there's a difference between supporting the criminalizing of homosexuality in your own country and attacking western countries that allow it

Burt touched on this: What happens when a "moderate" who supports criminalizing homosexuality in their own country (man, "moderate" does not seem appropriate for such a view) is transplanted to a western country?

Probably depends on the person. I mean, are they the type that advocates for their views through rhetoric or through force?

How much does it matter if its by force or by political power, if what they advocating is so abhorrent? You're assuming that only by advocating through rhetoric, they can't change anything. That's not true.

i'm not sticking up for these views, and successfully implementing them via politics is still awful, for sure. but i'm still separating that type of person from the type of person that shoots up a concert hall.

And I'm condemning the views of both.

i also condemn people who double park but they're not as bad as terrorists

[LoathedVermin72]

Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

Not all "regressive views" on women and homosexuals are equal. Surely you see a difference between being "pro-life" and against gay marriage and the total oppression of women and the criminalization of homosexuality in many Islamic states.

sure, and there's a difference between supporting the criminalizing of homosexuality in your own country and attacking western countries that allow it

Burt touched on this: What happens when a "moderate" who supports criminalizing homosexuality in their own country (man, "moderate" does not seem appropriate for such a view) is transplanted to a western country?

Probably depends on the person. I mean, are they the type that advocates for their views through rhetoric or through force?

How much does it matter if its by force or by political power, if what they advocating is so abhorrent? You're assuming that only by advocating through rhetoric, they can't change anything. That's not true.

i'm not sticking up for these views, and successfully implementing them via politics is still awful, for sure. but i'm still separating that type of person from the type of person that shoots up a concert hall.

And I'm condemning the views of both.

i also condemn people who double park but they're not as bad as terrorists

[Norah]

Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

Not all "regressive views" on women and homosexuals are equal. Surely you see a difference between being "pro-life" and against gay marriage and the total oppression of women and the criminalization of homosexuality in many Islamic states.

sure, and there's a difference between supporting the criminalizing of homosexuality in your own country and attacking western countries that allow it

Burt touched on this: What happens when a "moderate" who supports criminalizing homosexuality in their own country (man, "moderate" does not seem appropriate for such a view) is transplanted to a western country?

Probably depends on the person. I mean, are they the type that advocates for their views through rhetoric or through force?

How much does it matter if its by force or by political power, if what they advocating is so abhorrent? You're assuming that only by advocating through rhetoric, they can't change anything. That's not true.

i'm not sticking up for these views, and successfully implementing them via politics is still awful, for sure. but i'm still separating that type of person from the type of person that shoots up a concert hall.

And I'm condemning the views of both.

i also condemn people who double park but they're not as bad as terrorists

All I'm saying if you can condemn person a, condemn person b, and admit that person a is much worse than person b.

[BurtReynolds]

Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

Not all "regressive views" on women and homosexuals are equal. Surely you see a difference between being "pro-life" and against gay marriage and the total oppression of women and the criminalization of homosexuality in many Islamic states.

sure, and there's a difference between supporting the criminalizing of homosexuality in your own country and attacking western countries that allow it

Burt touched on this: What happens when a "moderate" who supports criminalizing homosexuality in their own country (man, "moderate" does not seem appropriate for such a view) is transplanted to a western country?

Probably depends on the person. I mean, are they the type that advocates for their views through rhetoric or through force?

How much does it matter if its by force or by political power, if what they advocating is so abhorrent? You're assuming that only by advocating through rhetoric, they can't change anything. That's not true.

i'm not sticking up for these views, and successfully implementing them via politics is still awful, for sure. but i'm still separating that type of person from the type of person that shoots up a concert hall.

And I'm condemning the views of both.

i also condemn people who double park but they're not as bad as terrorists

All I'm saying if you can condemn person a, condemn person b, and admit that person a is much worse than person b.

Who is arguing otherwise?

[@SkitchP]

Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

Not all "regressive views" on women and homosexuals are equal. Surely you see a difference between being "pro-life" and against gay marriage and the total oppression of women and the criminalization of homosexuality in many Islamic states.

sure, and there's a difference between supporting the criminalizing of homosexuality in your own country and attacking western countries that allow it

Burt touched on this: What happens when a "moderate" who supports criminalizing homosexuality in their own country (man, "moderate" does not seem appropriate for such a view) is transplanted to a western country?

Probably depends on the person. I mean, are they the type that advocates for their views through rhetoric or through force?

How much does it matter if its by force or by political power, if what they advocating is so abhorrent? You're assuming that only by advocating through rhetoric, they can't change anything. That's not true.

i'm not sticking up for these views, and successfully implementing them via politics is still awful, for sure. but i'm still separating that type of person from the type of person that shoots up a concert hall.

And I'm condemning the views of both.

i also condemn people who double park but they're not as bad as terrorists

All I'm saying if you can condemn person a, condemn person b, and admit that person a is much worse than person b.

Who is arguing otherwise?

pma

[Norah]

Even if this is the case, this should not make it easier for us to justify violence against these people, or make the assumption that regressive views about women, etc. make them predisposed to violence. They just become a region where a number of people happen to believe a lot of loathsome things.

As do millions of Americans.

Not all "regressive views" on women and homosexuals are equal. Surely you see a difference between being "pro-life" and against gay marriage and the total oppression of women and the criminalization of homosexuality in many Islamic states.

sure, and there's a difference between supporting the criminalizing of homosexuality in your own country and attacking western countries that allow it

Burt touched on this: What happens when a "moderate" who supports criminalizing homosexuality in their own country (man, "moderate" does not seem appropriate for such a view) is transplanted to a western country?

Probably depends on the person. I mean, are they the type that advocates for their views through rhetoric or through force?

How much does it matter if its by force or by political power, if what they advocating is so abhorrent? You're assuming that only by advocating through rhetoric, they can't change anything. That's not true.

i'm not sticking up for these views, and successfully implementing them via politics is still awful, for sure. but i'm still separating that type of person from the type of person that shoots up a concert hall.

And I'm condemning the views of both.

i also condemn people who double park but they're not as bad as terrorists

All I'm saying if you can condemn person a, condemn person b, and admit that person a is much worse than person b.

Who is arguing otherwise?

My initial jump into this discussion because I was getting the sense that people were saying:

A: Only a tiny minority of Muslims are extremists.
B: What are you talking about! Look how many think women shouldn't have rights and gays shouldn't be tolerated!

[Rangi Guy]

I find it slightly amusing that some of this seems to have turned into condemning 'person a' cause there views are seen as abhorrent regardless of them fighting for those views, and they're the one attacking us cause our views/beliefs are seen as abhorrent - seems a bit ironic.

[Simple Torture]

My initial jump into this discussion because I was getting the sense that people were saying:

A: Only a tiny minority of Muslims are extremists.
B: What are you talking about! Look how many think women shouldn't have rights and gays shouldn't be tolerated!

I feel like that misrepresents what a few of us were talking about. I know that I was trying to clarify LV's point--which I mostly agree with--that it'd be a disservice to constantly say, "Not all Muslims are extremists," without also pointing out that millions upon millions of "non extremist" Muslims subscribe to an Islamic ideology that fosters extremists. No one's saying that not allowing women to drive is the same as shooting up an Eagles of Death Metal show, but some people are arguing that a seemingly oppressive ideology does have something to do with the rise of ISIS and other groups. Maybe I was too glib when I brought up women's and gay rights earlier, because I wasn't referring to women not having their licenses or gay people being called sissy-nannies--but I was referencing child sexual slavery, honor killings, and punishing criminalized homosexuality by death, which does happen. Capisce?

[LoathedVermin72]

I find it slightly amusing that some of this seems to have turned into condemning 'person a' cause there views are seen as abhorrent regardless of them fighting for those views, and they're the one attacking us cause our views/beliefs are seen as abhorrent - seems a bit ironic.

It's not ironic: it's exactly the root of this whole clash. Their values are antithetical to ours, and vice versa. I don't really give a shit if I come off self-righteous by saying that I unequivocally believe my values - freedom of speech, expression, religion, sexuality, and equality for women and all races - are morally superior. I don't want to live in a society that doesn't share those values. And you bet your ass I'm gonna condemn any views pushing against any of them.

[nyquillyn]

Are we really gonna pretend that oppressive societies aren't generally more violent?

No. that's true. And there's clearly more violence. I would argue that the violence is not inherent in the religion.

Not sure about that.

[BurtReynolds]

when this issue comes up it is almost always in the context of 'because these people are non-progressive/conservative/reactionary we should treat them like terrorist suspects. And that's what people push back against--treating the entire religion in that capacity. Speaking of straw men, how often do you see prominent liberal voices defending the values and ideology of islam on these issues (other than denying an innate connection between islam and violence)? As opposed to the quite prominent string of conservative voices who strongly imply or outright assert the above?

I don't know man, you're perspective seems severely skewed here. Based on comments like "oh god yes. Some of the more extreme ones. This country is full of reactionary lunatics", I doubt we'll find much common ground. You must have to deal with some severely stupid kids at school. What I am seeing is probably skewed in the opposite direction because of the people I'm surrounded with.

We should push back, but we shouldn't be willfully ignorant or silent out of fear of causing more harm or aiding one side or the other. We should seek truth. With many of your posts, you seem to be implying that we shouldn't talk about it because of Trump or whatever.

edited for clarity.

[BurtReynolds]

My initial jump into this discussion because I was getting the sense that people were saying:

A: Only a tiny minority of Muslims are extremists.
B: What are you talking about! Look how many think women shouldn't have rights and gays shouldn't be tolerated!

I feel like that misrepresents what a few of us were talking about. I know that I was trying to clarify LV's point--which I mostly agree with--that it'd be a disservice to constantly say, "Not all Muslims are extremists," without also pointing out that millions upon millions of "non extremist" Muslims subscribe to an Islamic ideology that fosters extremists. No one's saying that not allowing women to drive is the same as shooting up an Eagles of Death Metal show, but some people are arguing that a seemingly oppressive ideology does have something to do with the rise of ISIS and other groups. Maybe I was too glib when I brought up women's and gay rights earlier, because I wasn't referring to women not having their licenses or gay people being called sissy-nannies--but I was referencing child sexual slavery, honor killings, and punishing criminalized homosexuality by death, which does happen. Capisce?

and this