View Poll Results: Is it important that terrorists be identified as either Muslim or Islamic?

Voters
172. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes (Please explain why)

    18 10.47%
  • No

    114 66.28%
  • Other

    40 23.26%
Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 112

Thread: Is it important that terrorists be identified as either Muslim or Islamic?

  1. #71
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Is it important that terrorists be identified as either Muslim or Islamic?

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Yes (Please explain why)
    No
    Other
    To me - no.

    There is a serious problem going on, though, where that seems to be the only thing people care about IN LIEU of action or opposition in any other form. It's as if 'what they're called' has become the only thing ot discuss.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  2. #72
    Professor
    SBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    01-18-16 @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,523

    Re: Is it important that terrorists be identified as either Muslim or Islamic?

    Quote Originally Posted by German guy View Post
    Okay:

    First the point I agree with you on: Islam, as it exists today, the way mainstream clerics and believers interpret it, is a problem. It was never tamed by age of enlightenment or liberalism, as Christianity and Judaism were (and arguably, Islam is more violent in the first place than at least Christianity). Because of that, way too large numbers of Muslims sympathize with islamist terrorism, and support measures and ideas that are in contradiction to our Western values.

    That said, moderate and modern interpretations of Islam do exist. Just that they're unfortunately much less numerous than in case of other religions (so far). As examples, I'd mention the Ankara School or the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat. Look them up if you want to learn more.

    And then, much more important: Just like in case of every other religion too, there is a damn huge number of Muslims who simply don't take their own religion very seriously, or even give a **** about it. You know, just like Christians who don't pray or go to church, except for weddings or funerals.

    Also, islamism (the ideology that drives terrorism in the name of Islam) is an ideology that is based on a very specific interpretation of Islam and incorporates many political demands and views. It is just as much a political ideology as it is a religious one, and it significantly differs from orthodox Islam or even mainstream Islam, even if the latter may not be without problems either.

    Lumping all these people together, as if Islam was the Borg collective, is extremely ignorant. And it doesn't help us finding solutions either. The only thing it will do is fueling hatred against Muslims in general, creating backlashs, and that's playing into the hands of the islamists.
    Your first paragraph was quite good, the rest however....

    As far as moderate interpretations of Islam, I will look those up, but for the sake of time please confirm that they think it's ok for others to talk bad about Muhammed, draw his picture, drink booze, have sex outside marriage, blaspheme, ok for people to be gay, women can drive, etc. And please confirm that they think Shariah law based on Haddith is a very bad idea, that they are willing to fight to protect western values against what you apparently think is a more extreme version of Islam.

    I don't think anyone is worrying about the person that used to be Muslim and isn't practicing anymore. By definition that person is not Muslim. I'm not an ethnocentric, but you seem to be confusing Islam with ethnic Middle Eastern person.

    I don't get the reasoning behind your 3rd paragraph. Is this just a context builder?

    Your last paragraph is interesting. First, nice job sneaking in a star trek term, second of course it's not a collective. It would be the most disfunctional borg collective ever because all of the borg would be trying to kill each other over who is the rightful successor to chief borg Muhammad. Joking aside, it does not function as a self aware instrument, but the uniting principle behind Islam is intolerance and taken as a group, over time this can and will erode our liberalism if we allow it to.

    No one mentioned backlashes except you. I don't think stopping the free flow of Muslims into the Western world is a backlash. Rather, I think it is a defense against an incompatible ideology. Similar to communism. We wouldn't have allowed free flow of known communists into the western world when that was a threat to liberal democracy. Why then are we allowing it now? Have we become so PC that we aren't allowed to identify a threat and take practical measures to stop it?

  3. #73
    Professor
    SBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    01-18-16 @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,523

    Re: Is it important that terrorists be identified as either Muslim or Islamic?

    Quote Originally Posted by German guy View Post
    Okay:

    First the point I agree with you on: Islam, as it exists today, the way mainstream clerics and believers interpret it, is a problem. It was never tamed by age of enlightenment or liberalism, as Christianity and Judaism were (and arguably, Islam is more violent in the first place than at least Christianity). Because of that, way too large numbers of Muslims sympathize with islamist terrorism, and support measures and ideas that are in contradiction to our Western values.

    That said, moderate and modern interpretations of Islam do exist. Just that they're unfortunately much less numerous than in case of other religions (so far). As examples, I'd mention the Ankara School or the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat. Look them up if you want to learn more.

    And then, much more important: Just like in case of every other religion too, there is a damn huge number of Muslims who simply don't take their own religion very seriously, or even give a **** about it. You know, just like Christians who don't pray or go to church, except for weddings or funerals.

    Also, islamism (the ideology that drives terrorism in the name of Islam) is an ideology that is based on a very specific interpretation of Islam and incorporates many political demands and views. It is just as much a political ideology as it is a religious one, and it significantly differs from orthodox Islam or even mainstream Islam, even if the latter may not be without problems either.

    Lumping all these people together, as if Islam was the Borg collective, is extremely ignorant. And it doesn't help us finding solutions either. The only thing it will do is fueling hatred against Muslims in general, creating backlashs, and that's playing into the hands of the islamists.
    Your first paragraph was quite good, the rest however....

    As far as moderate interpretations of Islam, I will look those up, but for the sake of time please confirm that they think it's ok for others to talk bad about Muhammed, draw his picture, drink booze, have sex outside marriage, blaspheme, ok for people to be gay, women can drive, etc. And please confirm that they think Shariah law based on Haddith is a very bad idea, that they are willing to fight to protect western values against what you apparently think is a more extreme version of Islam.

    I don't think anyone is worrying about the person that used to be Muslim and isn't practicing anymore. By definition that person is not Muslim. I'm not an ethnocentric, but you seem to be confusing Islam with ethnic Middle Eastern person.

    I don't get the reasoning behind your 3rd paragraph. Is this just a context builder?

    Your last paragraph is interesting. First, nice job sneaking in a star trek term, second of course it's not a collective. It would be the most disfunctional borg collective ever because all of the borg would be trying to kill each other over who is the rightful successor to chief borg Muhammad. Joking aside, it does not function as a self aware instrument, but the uniting principle behind Islam is intolerance and taken as a group, over time this can and will erode our liberalism if we allow it to.

    No one mentioned backlashes except you. I don't think stopping the free flow of Muslims into the Western world is a backlash. Rather, I think it is a defense against an incompatible ideology. Similar to communism. We wouldn't have allowed free flow of known communists into the western world when that was a threat to liberal democracy. Why then are we allowing it now? Have we become so PC that we aren't allowed to identify a threat and take practical measures to stop it?

  4. #74
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,358

    Re: Is it important that terrorists be identified as either Muslim or Islamic?

    Quote Originally Posted by German guy View Post
    Not so sure about Hamas, but in case of Hezbollah, you perhaps indeed have a better chance of understanding the threat they're posing (and for whom) when you rather see them as a political terror group in favor of Shai Iran with mainly geopolitical goals, than a (usually Sunni) international islamist group with the goal of defeating and converting "the infidels".

    Doesn't mean any is morally better than the other. But you need different approaches to treat pestilence and cholera.

    Hezbollah essentially has imprisoned the whole of Lebanon. While it is a useful tool of Iran, it is the people of Lebanon who will suffer the consequences of Hezbollah's actions. Their leaders and fighters will be holed up in some tunnel while the population gets bombed in retaliation for the bombing of Israeli cities.

    I guess from where you come from bombing Israeli cities is probably more merciful than what would have happened to their parents and grandparents had they not left Europe.

  5. #75
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Is it important that terrorists be identified as either Muslim or Islamic?

    I have no problem either way. I have no problem calling Islamic terrorist groups who carry out terrorist attacks, "Islamic terrorism" and I also have no problem just labeling terrorist attacks, "terrorism. Doesnt make a difference to me, either way. But often times when we give things such as terror attacks religious labels, it deteriorates into the pathetic argument of "my god/my religion is better than yours".


  6. #76
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,465

    Re: Is it important that terrorists be identified as either Muslim or Islamic?

    If they're Muslims, then what else are we to call them?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #77
    Sage
    German guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 06:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    5,187

    Re: Is it important that terrorists be identified as either Muslim or Islamic?

    Quote Originally Posted by SBu View Post
    Your first paragraph was quite good, the rest however....

    As far as moderate interpretations of Islam, I will look those up, but for the sake of time please confirm that they think it's ok for others to talk bad about Muhammed, draw his picture, drink booze, have sex outside marriage, blaspheme, ok for people to be gay, women can drive, etc. And please confirm that they think Shariah law based on Haddith is a very bad idea, that they are willing to fight to protect western values against what you apparently think is a more extreme version of Islam.

    I don't think anyone is worrying about the person that used to be Muslim and isn't practicing anymore. By definition that person is not Muslim. I'm not an ethnocentric, but you seem to be confusing Islam with ethnic Middle Eastern person.

    I don't get the reasoning behind your 3rd paragraph. Is this just a context builder?

    Your last paragraph is interesting. First, nice job sneaking in a star trek term, second of course it's not a collective. It would be the most disfunctional borg collective ever because all of the borg would be trying to kill each other over who is the rightful successor to chief borg Muhammad. Joking aside, it does not function as a self aware instrument, but the uniting principle behind Islam is intolerance and taken as a group, over time this can and will erode our liberalism if we allow it to.

    No one mentioned backlashes except you. I don't think stopping the free flow of Muslims into the Western world is a backlash. Rather, I think it is a defense against an incompatible ideology. Similar to communism. We wouldn't have allowed free flow of known communists into the western world when that was a threat to liberal democracy. Why then are we allowing it now? Have we become so PC that we aren't allowed to identify a threat and take practical measures to stop it?
    There are actually quite a few polls about the opinions and attitudes of Muslims, and you'll find there are indeed significant numbers (sometimes a clear majority, sometimes just a large minority) who indeed hold opinions compatible with Western values, depending on the respective region or country. That doesn't mean the many others aren't a problem, or that Islam cannot be the problem -- that's not what I'm saying.

    However, what you find is that Muslims too are just people. And when they're living together with people of a different faith and different values over a longer period of time, many Muslims too are going to adopt some elements of their environment. For example, I know a couple of Muslim women who decided to take off their scarf and have sex before marriage, to the horror of their parents, because that's what they witnessed living here in a Western country and they wanted to do the same as their non-Muslim peers.

    And even if these Muslims who get influenced by Western way of life are just 20%, or 30%, or 40% -- that's enough to warrant the statement that "Muslims in general are not the problem". Islam maybe is, but Muslims in general aren't.

    There was also an extensive study about the attitudes of Muslims in three dozen different Muslim countries, and it yielded a similar result: The most moderate, most compatible with Western values Muslims lived in Bosnia and Albania (sourrounded by Christian and atheist neighbors for centuries), and in former Soviet republics (apparently, 70 years of anti-religious communism was good for one thing, at least).

    By backlash, I did not mean organized policies in favor of a more selective and restrictive immigration. As far as I am concerned, when a Muslim immigrant refuses to accept the constitution and its values, kick him out. I mean angry non-Muslim people shooting random Muslims over parking lots, arson attacks on mosques, KKK-like manhunts and discrimination in everyday life. This is has all happened and is still happening, i.e. in Europe.

    Creating such an atmosphere of mutual distrust and hatred is exactly Al Qaida's strategy -- has it been in Iraq too, btw: Attack the Europeans so often, until they're reactng in a backlash way. In return, Muslims in Western countries will feel more threatened and recruitment for Al Qaida will be easier among them.


    Even if half of the Muslims are idiots, it's still a human duty to judge them individually, when we meet them. That's not just basic decency, it's also necessary for a constructive approach of the problem.
    "Not learning from mistakes is worse than committing mistakes. When you don't allow yourself to make mistakes, it is hard to be tolerant of others and it does not allow even God to be merciful."

  8. #78
    Sage
    German guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 06:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    5,187

    Re: Is it important that terrorists be identified as either Muslim or Islamic?

    Quote Originally Posted by washunut View Post
    Hezbollah essentially has imprisoned the whole of Lebanon. While it is a useful tool of Iran, it is the people of Lebanon who will suffer the consequences of Hezbollah's actions. Their leaders and fighters will be holed up in some tunnel while the population gets bombed in retaliation for the bombing of Israeli cities.

    I guess from where you come from bombing Israeli cities is probably more merciful than what would have happened to their parents and grandparents had they not left Europe.

    I'm pretty sure you haven't understood what I wrote. Maybe you should try again.
    "Not learning from mistakes is worse than committing mistakes. When you don't allow yourself to make mistakes, it is hard to be tolerant of others and it does not allow even God to be merciful."

  9. #79
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,880

    Re: Is it important that terrorists be identified as either Muslim or Islamic?

    So what's the point? A Muslim is someone who follows Islam. Islamic is anything to do with Islam. I don't get this thread at all.

    The great prophet of this religion, Mohammed, himself was a militant leader and politician. Before his death in 600 something AD he had managed to unify Arabia. Then he conquered Alexandria in Egypt and finished off the Byzantine rule in that country around 620. With each conquest he put into place a government ruled by his religion and enforced by his military. He waged war against the entire Byzantine Empire. In AD 630, Muhammad led an army of about 30,000 jihadists northward to fight the Byzantines. After he died his patriarchs carried on with their caliphate with the mission to turn the known world to Islam by military force. Hard to believe that Turkey was mainly Christian for almost a 1000 years before they were conquered. It then turned Muslim. But if you have read the accounts on how these people who called themselves Christians were forced to convert it would make the hair on the back of your head stand up and cause your stomach to become quite queasy. So now we have ISIS, the new caliphate. New name, old style.
    Last edited by vesper; 02-15-15 at 01:19 AM.

  10. #80
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    06-27-15 @ 05:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    2,191

    Re: Is it important that terrorists be identified as either Muslim or Islamic?

    Yes.


    Islam is a violent lunatic cult just as Christianity was in its more primordial days. Either way it should be opposed as should all religion. That said, Christianity is more advanced than Islam culturally and is what helped foster the miracle that is Western European civilization.

Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •