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

[Norah]

You are correct. But I would go a step further: my problems with Islam don't stop merely with extremism - like I said, I think there are troubling issues inherent within the ideology itself. Of course I am not saying there aren't plenty of nice, peaceful Muslims out there. But even among those moderates, what are their views on homosexuality? Women's rights? Sexual freedom? Freedom of speech (extended to criticizing/insulting Islam)? Now, again, I am not saying all Muslims have backwards views on these topics. But I think, realistically, the "tiny percentage" is the one that accepts those things, and that's because abhorrent things are inherent in the ideology. When terrorists talk about killing infidels and shit, they're not pulling that out of their ass - it's in the teachings.

Now, again, stip - I am not, in any way, shape, or form, saying all, or even the majority, of Muslims are terrorists or extremists or anything. I am not, in fact, even saying anything about Muslims as people. I am talking about Islam - the religion, the ideology - which I find to be utterly toxic. Political correctness has reached a dangerous place when critics of an ideology/religion (especially one as backwards and despicable as Islam) are greeted with knee-jerk accusations of racism and xenophobia. Islam is NOT a race - it's a belief system. Liberals have become so blindly focused on appearing progressive and tolerant that, in the case of Islam, it seems as though they're not even bothering to apply moral scrutiny of make distinctions between people and ideology (which is wildly condescending and, frankly, a little racist).

I have made my feelings very clear on Christianity before. Islam is not the only religion I take issue with. But that shouldn't matter. It shouldn't be "useful context." It's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Do I also think abhorrent things are inherent in Christianity? Bet your ass. Are there plenty of Christians who have a double standard for Islam? Of course. But I'm not one of them, and that isn't what we're talking about. Projecting the lowest common denominator onto anyone who raises a concern with Islam is deflective, unproductive, and only serves to restrict discourse.

I was wondering how do you differentiate between a belief system and the people who follow it?
To explain a little better. In practice there isn't one Islam as there isn't one Christianity and this is largely defined by the way people follow these belief systems regardless of the formal movements.

I'm coming from the fact that i grew up around catholics, orthodox christians and muslims and the muslims didn't really seem to be following the despicable side of Islam.

I really don't understand this? How do you NOT differentiate? This feels like saying, "How do you insult a movie without insulting the people who love it?" Since when are individuals and an ideology one entity? People can interpret and cherry-pick however they want, but the ideology and fundamental teachings remain.

it's really not that simple. plenty of catholics i know in my neck of the woods disagree entirely with core aspects of the dogma, yet still find ways to remain "catholic" despite their beliefs. people want to stay in their tribe, and find ways to make it fit their world view.

That's great. I'm not talking about them, and it doesn't affect Catholicism as an institution or an ideology. Like I said:

People can interpret and cherry-pick however they want, but the ideology and fundamental teachings remain.

except the cherrypicking actually extends to the ideology and fundamental teachings in a lot of cases

...For the individual doing it. You guys seriously can't help conflating individual with ideology? I don't understand this.

i'm just saying if the individual is going to cherry pick the ideology, you can absolutely "insult the movie and not the people in it"

[Mine]

You are correct. But I would go a step further: my problems with Islam don't stop merely with extremism - like I said, I think there are troubling issues inherent within the ideology itself. Of course I am not saying there aren't plenty of nice, peaceful Muslims out there. But even among those moderates, what are their views on homosexuality? Women's rights? Sexual freedom? Freedom of speech (extended to criticizing/insulting Islam)? Now, again, I am not saying all Muslims have backwards views on these topics. But I think, realistically, the "tiny percentage" is the one that accepts those things, and that's because abhorrent things are inherent in the ideology. When terrorists talk about killing infidels and shit, they're not pulling that out of their ass - it's in the teachings.

Now, again, stip - I am not, in any way, shape, or form, saying all, or even the majority, of Muslims are terrorists or extremists or anything. I am not, in fact, even saying anything about Muslims as people. I am talking about Islam - the religion, the ideology - which I find to be utterly toxic. Political correctness has reached a dangerous place when critics of an ideology/religion (especially one as backwards and despicable as Islam) are greeted with knee-jerk accusations of racism and xenophobia. Islam is NOT a race - it's a belief system. Liberals have become so blindly focused on appearing progressive and tolerant that, in the case of Islam, it seems as though they're not even bothering to apply moral scrutiny of make distinctions between people and ideology (which is wildly condescending and, frankly, a little racist).

I have made my feelings very clear on Christianity before. Islam is not the only religion I take issue with. But that shouldn't matter. It shouldn't be "useful context." It's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Do I also think abhorrent things are inherent in Christianity? Bet your ass. Are there plenty of Christians who have a double standard for Islam? Of course. But I'm not one of them, and that isn't what we're talking about. Projecting the lowest common denominator onto anyone who raises a concern with Islam is deflective, unproductive, and only serves to restrict discourse.

I was wondering how do you differentiate between a belief system and the people who follow it?
To explain a little better. In practice there isn't one Islam as there isn't one Christianity and this is largely defined by the way people follow these belief systems regardless of the formal movements.

I'm coming from the fact that i grew up around catholics, orthodox christians and muslims and the muslims didn't really seem to be following the despicable side of Islam.

I really don't understand this? How do you NOT differentiate? This feels like saying, "How do you insult a movie without insulting the people who love it?" Since when are individuals and an ideology one entity? People can interpret and cherry-pick however they want, but the ideology and fundamental teachings remain.

it's really not that simple. plenty of catholics i know in my neck of the woods disagree entirely with core aspects of the dogma, yet still find ways to remain "catholic" despite their beliefs. people want to stay in their tribe, and find ways to make it fit their world view.

This is also pretty standard for catholics in Europe.

[b_i_revisited]

I used to have such a hard-on for this thread.

[LoathedVermin72]

You are correct. But I would go a step further: my problems with Islam don't stop merely with extremism - like I said, I think there are troubling issues inherent within the ideology itself. Of course I am not saying there aren't plenty of nice, peaceful Muslims out there. But even among those moderates, what are their views on homosexuality? Women's rights? Sexual freedom? Freedom of speech (extended to criticizing/insulting Islam)? Now, again, I am not saying all Muslims have backwards views on these topics. But I think, realistically, the "tiny percentage" is the one that accepts those things, and that's because abhorrent things are inherent in the ideology. When terrorists talk about killing infidels and shit, they're not pulling that out of their ass - it's in the teachings.

Now, again, stip - I am not, in any way, shape, or form, saying all, or even the majority, of Muslims are terrorists or extremists or anything. I am not, in fact, even saying anything about Muslims as people. I am talking about Islam - the religion, the ideology - which I find to be utterly toxic. Political correctness has reached a dangerous place when critics of an ideology/religion (especially one as backwards and despicable as Islam) are greeted with knee-jerk accusations of racism and xenophobia. Islam is NOT a race - it's a belief system. Liberals have become so blindly focused on appearing progressive and tolerant that, in the case of Islam, it seems as though they're not even bothering to apply moral scrutiny of make distinctions between people and ideology (which is wildly condescending and, frankly, a little racist).

I have made my feelings very clear on Christianity before. Islam is not the only religion I take issue with. But that shouldn't matter. It shouldn't be "useful context." It's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Do I also think abhorrent things are inherent in Christianity? Bet your ass. Are there plenty of Christians who have a double standard for Islam? Of course. But I'm not one of them, and that isn't what we're talking about. Projecting the lowest common denominator onto anyone who raises a concern with Islam is deflective, unproductive, and only serves to restrict discourse.

I was wondering how do you differentiate between a belief system and the people who follow it?
To explain a little better. In practice there isn't one Islam as there isn't one Christianity and this is largely defined by the way people follow these belief systems regardless of the formal movements.

I'm coming from the fact that i grew up around catholics, orthodox christians and muslims and the muslims didn't really seem to be following the despicable side of Islam.

I really don't understand this? How do you NOT differentiate? This feels like saying, "How do you insult a movie without insulting the people who love it?" Since when are individuals and an ideology one entity? People can interpret and cherry-pick however they want, but the ideology and fundamental teachings remain.

it's really not that simple. plenty of catholics i know in my neck of the woods disagree entirely with core aspects of the dogma, yet still find ways to remain "catholic" despite their beliefs. people want to stay in their tribe, and find ways to make it fit their world view.

That's great. I'm not talking about them, and it doesn't affect Catholicism as an institution or an ideology. Like I said:

People can interpret and cherry-pick however they want, but the ideology and fundamental teachings remain.

except the cherrypicking actually extends to the ideology and fundamental teachings in a lot of cases

...For the individual doing it. You guys seriously can't help conflating individual with ideology? I don't understand this.

i'm just saying if the individual is going to cherry pick the ideology, you can absolutely "insult the movie and not the people in it"

Wait, what? I've been saying the whole time you can insult the thing and not the people. Are we getting our wires crossed?

[nyquillyn]

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

[Norah]

You are correct. But I would go a step further: my problems with Islam don't stop merely with extremism - like I said, I think there are troubling issues inherent within the ideology itself. Of course I am not saying there aren't plenty of nice, peaceful Muslims out there. But even among those moderates, what are their views on homosexuality? Women's rights? Sexual freedom? Freedom of speech (extended to criticizing/insulting Islam)? Now, again, I am not saying all Muslims have backwards views on these topics. But I think, realistically, the "tiny percentage" is the one that accepts those things, and that's because abhorrent things are inherent in the ideology. When terrorists talk about killing infidels and shit, they're not pulling that out of their ass - it's in the teachings.

Now, again, stip - I am not, in any way, shape, or form, saying all, or even the majority, of Muslims are terrorists or extremists or anything. I am not, in fact, even saying anything about Muslims as people. I am talking about Islam - the religion, the ideology - which I find to be utterly toxic. Political correctness has reached a dangerous place when critics of an ideology/religion (especially one as backwards and despicable as Islam) are greeted with knee-jerk accusations of racism and xenophobia. Islam is NOT a race - it's a belief system. Liberals have become so blindly focused on appearing progressive and tolerant that, in the case of Islam, it seems as though they're not even bothering to apply moral scrutiny of make distinctions between people and ideology (which is wildly condescending and, frankly, a little racist).

I have made my feelings very clear on Christianity before. Islam is not the only religion I take issue with. But that shouldn't matter. It shouldn't be "useful context." It's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Do I also think abhorrent things are inherent in Christianity? Bet your ass. Are there plenty of Christians who have a double standard for Islam? Of course. But I'm not one of them, and that isn't what we're talking about. Projecting the lowest common denominator onto anyone who raises a concern with Islam is deflective, unproductive, and only serves to restrict discourse.

I was wondering how do you differentiate between a belief system and the people who follow it?
To explain a little better. In practice there isn't one Islam as there isn't one Christianity and this is largely defined by the way people follow these belief systems regardless of the formal movements.

I'm coming from the fact that i grew up around catholics, orthodox christians and muslims and the muslims didn't really seem to be following the despicable side of Islam.

I really don't understand this? How do you NOT differentiate? This feels like saying, "How do you insult a movie without insulting the people who love it?" Since when are individuals and an ideology one entity? People can interpret and cherry-pick however they want, but the ideology and fundamental teachings remain.

it's really not that simple. plenty of catholics i know in my neck of the woods disagree entirely with core aspects of the dogma, yet still find ways to remain "catholic" despite their beliefs. people want to stay in their tribe, and find ways to make it fit their world view.

That's great. I'm not talking about them, and it doesn't affect Catholicism as an institution or an ideology. Like I said:

People can interpret and cherry-pick however they want, but the ideology and fundamental teachings remain.

except the cherrypicking actually extends to the ideology and fundamental teachings in a lot of cases

...For the individual doing it. You guys seriously can't help conflating individual with ideology? I don't understand this.

i'm just saying if the individual is going to cherry pick the ideology, you can absolutely "insult the movie and not the people in it"

Wait, what? I've been saying the whole time you can insult the thing and not the people. Are we getting our wires crossed?

well fuck

[BurtReynolds]

You are correct. But I would go a step further: my problems with Islam don't stop merely with extremism - like I said, I think there are troubling issues inherent within the ideology itself. Of course I am not saying there aren't plenty of nice, peaceful Muslims out there. But even among those moderates, what are their views on homosexuality? Women's rights? Sexual freedom? Freedom of speech (extended to criticizing/insulting Islam)? Now, again, I am not saying all Muslims have backwards views on these topics. But I think, realistically, the "tiny percentage" is the one that accepts those things, and that's because abhorrent things are inherent in the ideology. When terrorists talk about killing infidels and shit, they're not pulling that out of their ass - it's in the teachings.

Now, again, stip - I am not, in any way, shape, or form, saying all, or even the majority, of Muslims are terrorists or extremists or anything. I am not, in fact, even saying anything about Muslims as people. I am talking about Islam - the religion, the ideology - which I find to be utterly toxic. Political correctness has reached a dangerous place when critics of an ideology/religion (especially one as backwards and despicable as Islam) are greeted with knee-jerk accusations of racism and xenophobia. Islam is NOT a race - it's a belief system. Liberals have become so blindly focused on appearing progressive and tolerant that, in the case of Islam, it seems as though they're not even bothering to apply moral scrutiny of make distinctions between people and ideology (which is wildly condescending and, frankly, a little racist).

I have made my feelings very clear on Christianity before. Islam is not the only religion I take issue with. But that shouldn't matter. It shouldn't be "useful context." It's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Do I also think abhorrent things are inherent in Christianity? Bet your ass. Are there plenty of Christians who have a double standard for Islam? Of course. But I'm not one of them, and that isn't what we're talking about. Projecting the lowest common denominator onto anyone who raises a concern with Islam is deflective, unproductive, and only serves to restrict discourse.

I was wondering how do you differentiate between a belief system and the people who follow it?
To explain a little better. In practice there isn't one Islam as there isn't one Christianity and this is largely defined by the way people follow these belief systems regardless of the formal movements.

I'm coming from the fact that i grew up around catholics, orthodox christians and muslims and the muslims didn't really seem to be following the despicable side of Islam.

I really don't understand this? How do you NOT differentiate? This feels like saying, "How do you insult a movie without insulting the people who love it?" Since when are individuals and an ideology one entity? People can interpret and cherry-pick however they want, but the ideology and fundamental teachings remain.

it's really not that simple. plenty of catholics i know in my neck of the woods disagree entirely with core aspects of the dogma, yet still find ways to remain "catholic" despite their beliefs. people want to stay in their tribe, and find ways to make it fit their world view.

This is also pretty standard for catholics in Europe.

I would consider that behavior part of the ideology as it currently exists. its not written down and codified, but its there.

[Mine]

You are correct. But I would go a step further: my problems with Islam don't stop merely with extremism - like I said, I think there are troubling issues inherent within the ideology itself. Of course I am not saying there aren't plenty of nice, peaceful Muslims out there. But even among those moderates, what are their views on homosexuality? Women's rights? Sexual freedom? Freedom of speech (extended to criticizing/insulting Islam)? Now, again, I am not saying all Muslims have backwards views on these topics. But I think, realistically, the "tiny percentage" is the one that accepts those things, and that's because abhorrent things are inherent in the ideology. When terrorists talk about killing infidels and shit, they're not pulling that out of their ass - it's in the teachings.

Now, again, stip - I am not, in any way, shape, or form, saying all, or even the majority, of Muslims are terrorists or extremists or anything. I am not, in fact, even saying anything about Muslims as people. I am talking about Islam - the religion, the ideology - which I find to be utterly toxic. Political correctness has reached a dangerous place when critics of an ideology/religion (especially one as backwards and despicable as Islam) are greeted with knee-jerk accusations of racism and xenophobia. Islam is NOT a race - it's a belief system. Liberals have become so blindly focused on appearing progressive and tolerant that, in the case of Islam, it seems as though they're not even bothering to apply moral scrutiny of make distinctions between people and ideology (which is wildly condescending and, frankly, a little racist).

I have made my feelings very clear on Christianity before. Islam is not the only religion I take issue with. But that shouldn't matter. It shouldn't be "useful context." It's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Do I also think abhorrent things are inherent in Christianity? Bet your ass. Are there plenty of Christians who have a double standard for Islam? Of course. But I'm not one of them, and that isn't what we're talking about. Projecting the lowest common denominator onto anyone who raises a concern with Islam is deflective, unproductive, and only serves to restrict discourse.

I was wondering how do you differentiate between a belief system and the people who follow it?
To explain a little better. In practice there isn't one Islam as there isn't one Christianity and this is largely defined by the way people follow these belief systems regardless of the formal movements.

I'm coming from the fact that i grew up around catholics, orthodox christians and muslims and the muslims didn't really seem to be following the despicable side of Islam.

I really don't understand this? How do you NOT differentiate? This feels like saying, "How do you insult a movie without insulting the people who love it?" Since when are individuals and an ideology one entity? People can interpret and cherry-pick however they want, but the ideology and fundamental teachings remain.

My point was that the ideology in the context of religion varies according to who practices it. I don't know if it was discussed here but I've heard earlier today about a person in Paris who leads a moderate following of Islam and among other things preaches cooperation between religions, who is being protected by the police because he's under threat from fundamentalist terrorists.

[BurtReynolds]

ok let's get bogged down by semantics

Well it might matter if you are a conservative

words have multiple means, i meant conservative as in old fashioned and dogmatic

as in a catholic with conservative views on their faith might not eat meat on friday

Off topic but I generally loathe the way those terms are used, especially in America (and by me in this thread). "Liberals" often aren't very liberal, and "Conservatives" aren't very conservative in many ways. I hate that they can mean very different things in very similar contexts, and there should be more concrete definitions for such important concepts. This isn't like "art", which seems to mean whatever the fuck people want it to. Any real communication becomes impossible if people are arguing based on different understandings of the definitions of words.

[BurtReynolds]

This is where Harmless would get really mad at me. RIP

[stip]

and yes. it does suck that it's a deeply unsatisfying answer...

It almost makes you wonder whether, as horrible as it sounds, that a very measured form of force is the most pragmatic policy, in that it satisfies the political desire to Do Something, while also holding off political opponents that would do things that make the situation much worse.

It's an interesting thought

Heh, I think the phrase "measured response" is one of the most destructive phrases in this whole thing. The correct response is the one that ends the threat, not this "eye for an eye" BS. Our leaders are acting like feudal aristocrats fighting recreational war in the summer. Either that or they are so wracked by guilt and shame that they can't do anything that, in their warped minds, might be seen as "unfair".

At this point any response at all is going to feed into set narratives (which many western liberals are happy to stoke, see above), but by all means, lets continue to spend decades placing sanctions and launching "measured" bomb strikes on a region with high percentages of deeply uneducated, homophobic, anti-Semitic people with downright medieval views on women, and then transfer millions of that population directly into Western countries. What could possibly go wrong?

Come on burt, it's such a "tiny percentage" of people who hold those views on women and homosexuals.

Spoiler: show

you can't use stats! That's unfair!

So after bombing the Middle East should we go after the 120 million Americans that apparently agreed?

And I'm not saying that this a statistically progressive religion - just that conservative views do not make you a terrorist

I've been waiting for someone to finally break the link between not having progressive views towards women and violent extremism.

Ummmmmm...

Maybe I've misread when I skim through, but I see a lot of:

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!

At least for me, I'm not really talking about the back asswards conservative views they have when I'm talking about extremists. I'm just talking about the people that strap bombs to themselves or shoot up theaters.

yes I think you are misreading it. I'll explain later, but we seem to be talking over each other. I'm not specifically talking about terrorists, but I also don't think you can ignore that a breeding ground exists within the ideology as it currently stands.

It also depends on what you consider extremism. Their views on women and gays aren't merely "nonprogressive". I suppose whether you would consider it "extreme" would depend on your perspective.

I will say it smacks to me of white liberal racism not to talk about it.

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?

[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. Just like I'm also prepared to believe that not all people living in those countries fully embrace the extremity of the laws that govern them.

[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?

[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?

[stip]

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.

[Simple Torture]

I really don't understand this? How do you NOT differentiate? This feels like saying, "How do you insult a movie without insulting the people who love it?" Since when are individuals and an ideology one entity? People can interpret and cherry-pick however they want, but the ideology and fundamental teachings remain.

i'm just saying if the individual is going to cherry pick the ideology, you can absolutely "insult the movie and not the people in it"

Cutting out the quotes in between, I think it does appear that chud and LV got their wires crossed (i.e., "people who love a movie" vs. "people who are in a movie").

[stip]

did you guys know that the act of homosexual sex only received constitutional protection in the year 2000? that's not that long ago...

Gay marriage has only become more tolerated (and not universally accepted) in the last several years.

By most measures our laws and legislation towards women are regressive compared to our peer nations.

Our society is far more violent than that of our peer nations as well.


So while there's plenty to judge and criticize in middle eastern nations, lets not lie to ourselves about who we are, either.

[LoathedVermin72]

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.

[LoathedVermin72]

did you guys know that the act of homosexual sex only received constitutional protection in the year 2000? that's not that long ago...

Gay marriage has only become more tolerated (and not universally accepted) in the last several years.

By most measures our laws and legislation towards women are regressive compared to our peer nations.

Our society is far more violent than that of our peer nations as well.


So while there's plenty to judge and criticize in middle eastern nations, lets not lie to ourselves about who we are, either.

Why do you keep bringing up irrelevant things?

[Simple Torture]

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?