• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dozens held after Islamists attack Algerian gas field!!!![W:280]

it's rather amazing that the entirety of this thread now seems to be focused on people fishing for accusations of bigotry, as opposed to anyone addressing the actual data.

Edit: Well, at least Luther was willing to dismiss it out of hand, most of the others haven't even shown an inclination to do that
 
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ack-algerian-gas-field-14.html#post1061370887




actually support for radicalism, though seemingly maintaining a minority, can represent a pretty significant segment of the population within some countries (i recall seeing figures like 20% before for support, maybe more). But the real issue is hardcore fundamentalism which does seem to represent a majority, or very close to it

I think both radicalism and fundamentalism are absolutely horrible, and I'd gladly rid the earth of both. The definition of fundamentalism, however, can very easily be applied to just about any religion, especially christianity. The only thing that separates a christian from a muslim is the fact that most christians live in a society that has evolved past the point of allowing them to run around and kill non-believers. Most muslims aren't lucky enough to live in such a secular society that will hold them accountible for their actions.

So all in all, the bible and the koran are equally as violent, but their countries just haven't reached the intellectual capacity that ours has.
 
I think both radicalism and fundamentalism are absolutely horrible, and I'd gladly rid the earth of both. The definition of fundamentalism, however, can very easily be applied to just about any religion, especially christianity.

lol, not this again. Again, while I recognize that christian history and even the biblare full of violence, you can't really compare their modern incarnations. In point of fact, the survey I quoted earlier gives levels of of support for apostasy executions at 84% in egypt, and "moderate Indonesia rates at 30% support. Though a minority, that is an insanely significant percentage of the population.

I know of no main stream christian movements that even come close to adopting such views. Hell, even Fred Phelps doesn't call for the killing of gays, but Yusuf al-Qaradawi openly calls for killing them on his hugely popular tv show

Again, are there violent fringe elements within Christianity? Yes, undoubtedly so. Are you likely to find large majority segments of the christian population supporting the death penalty over heresy? Absolutely not.

Why? because Christianity has largely been modernized through actions like the reformation.

Islam not so much. In Islam literalism seems to be the rule, not the exception. Hence large swaths of the population supporting execution for things like apostasy


Most muslims aren't lucky enough to live in such a secular society that will hold them accountible for their actions.

Yes, I am well aware of the issues within Islamic culture and society. That's why I have been writing about them while you deny their existence and claim the issue only rests with a small minority. Not sure it absolves anyone from personal responsibility though. Being that 80% of the Egyptian population isn't farming dirt clods and communicating with stick figures in the dirt. And people decide to remove themselves from these ideals and conditions all the time.

Difficult? Yes. Impossible? No




So all in all, the bible and the koran are equally as violent, but their countries just haven't reached the intellectual capacity that ours has.

see above
 
Last edited:
lol, not this again. Again, while I recognize that christian history and even the biblare full of violence, you can't really compare their modern incarnations. In point of fact, the survey I quoted earlier gives levels of of support for apostasy executions at 84% in egypt, and "moderate Indonesia rates at 30% support. Though a minority, that is an insanely significant percentage of the population.

I know of no main stream christian movements that even come close to adopting such views. Hell, even Fred Phelps doesn't call for the killing of gays, but Yusuf al-Qaradawi openly calls for killing them on his hugely popular tv show

Again, are there violent fringe elements within Christianity? Yes, undoubtedly so. Are you likely to find large majority segments of the christian population supporting the death penalty over heresy? Absolutely not.

Why? because Christianity has largely been modernized through actions like the reformation.

Islam not so much. In Islam literalism seems to be the rule, not the exception. Hence large swaths of the population supporting execution for things like apostasy

Your argument is based entirely on the fact that islam and christianity are separated by about 300 years, but in reality, other than that, they are completely identical. It wasn't the christians who woke up one day and decided to stop listening to their holy book, it was the secular society that decided to stop letting them.

Yes, I am well aware of the issues within Islamic culture and society. That's why I have been writing about them while you deny their existence and claim the issue only rests with a small minority. Not sure it absolves anyone from personal responsibility though. Being that 80% of the Egyptian population isn't farming dirt clods and communicating with stick figures in the dirt. And people decide to remove themselves from these ideals and conditions all the time.

Difficult? Yes. Impossible? No
Personally nothing would make me happier if religion didn't exist at all. But I just find it ridiculous when christians (not saying you are) point their fingers at muslims for being violent, while their religion is equally violent. Neither religion has fundamentally changed over the last 1000 years, only society's reaction to it.
 
Your argument is based entirely on the fact that islam and christianity are separated by about 300 years, but in reality, other than that, they are completely identical.


this doesn't even make sense. I never cited any disparity between the time of their existence, so clearly my argument isn't based on it. However, it is possible that Islam will liberalize, secularize, and reform if given time (though such is hardly guranteed). And I really question "just waiting" as a formulated means of addressing the issue

It wasn't the christians who woke up one day and decided to stop listening to their holy book, it was the secular society that decided to stop letting them.

Again, I am unsure how this would undermine any of my arguments, but I never claimed Christianity liberalized and secularized of it's own accord. In fact, I mentioned the exact opposite in the very post you are quoting above. What was challenged was your continuous claims that Christianity "has never changed" and that the levels of violence between the two are currently comparable.

Both are clearly not true.


Personally nothing would make me happier if religion didn't exist at all. But I just find it ridiculous when christians (not saying you are) point their fingers at muslims for being violent, while their religion is equally violent. Neither religion has fundamentally changed over the last 1000 years, only society's reaction to it.

Yes, if you ignore all the ways you are wrong, and all the points I raised above, I can see the cause for frustration ... But beyond that, religion can and often does change in response to social trends. See the various christian churches that now accept homosexuality on some level
 
Your argument is based entirely on the fact that islam and christianity are separated by about 300 years, but in reality, other than that, they are completely identical. It wasn't the christians who woke up one day and decided to stop listening to their holy book, it was the secular society that decided to stop letting them.
This is nonsense speak. There should (doctrine being equal) no worldwide difference in development except for the backwards precepts of Islam.
Islam quashes social development (even more so) in Rich Saudi Arabia as well as poor Yemen or middlling Indonesia.
They are NOT remotely "identical except for time".
One religion was founded/dreamed up by a Warlord the other not even close.

Societies (in this case many worldwide) do not develop in a vacuum, no one with centuries of communication/interaction can be 300 years "behind" someone else.

RabidAlpaca said:
Personally nothing would make me happier if religion didn't exist at all. But I just find it ridiculous when christians (not saying you are) point their fingers at muslims for being violent, while their religion is equally violent. Neither religion has fundamentally changed over the last 1000 years, only society's reaction to it.
Christianity is Much less scripturally (and in practice) Violent that Islam.

A Christian Fundamentalist is a Missionary, a Muslim Fundamentalist Kills him.
 
Last edited:
....What was challenged was your continuous claims that Christianity "has never changed" and that the levels of violence between the two are currently comparable.

Both are clearly not true.




Yes, if you ignore all the ways you are wrong, and all the points I raised above, I can see the cause for frustration ... But beyond that, religion can and often does change in response to social trends. See the various christian churches that now accept homosexuality on some level


I agree that Christianity in practice has changed in many ways. So has Islam in practice in many places. However,on the violence scale, Islam is way behind Christianity if you include all the wars. WWII alone puts the Christians ahead in violence. (only communist dictators Stalin and Mao top the Christians in the last century.) There's also all the USA's bombing wars and occupation, the "secret" wars by stealth and proxy ,and Europe's attempts to hold onto their empires.

Of course, you will say that these wars were not driven directly by religion, and you'll be partially right, but the overall North American-European/Capitalist/Christian worldview has proven to be one of the world's most deadly. We're the people that invented the guillotine, the machine gun, the gas chamber and the nuclear bomb.

"But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."
Jesus
 
I agree that Christianity in practice has changed in many ways. So has Islam in practice in many places. However,on the violence scale, Islam is way behind Christianity if you include all the wars. WWII alone puts the Christians ahead in violence.

In what sense was ww2 a "christian" war? We are not talking about violence simply involving people that belong in the islamic world, or profess a belief in Mohammad as the last profit. But violence waged and justified in a name of a religion and based on specific interpretation of a religous text. In fact, such a distinction is so obvious I am left wondering why I need to explain it to you


(only communist dictators Stalin and Mao top the Christians in the last century.) There's also all the USA's bombing wars and occupation, the "secret" wars by stealth and proxy ,and Europe's attempts to hold onto their empires.

See above

Of course, you will say that these wars were not driven directly by religion, and you'll be partially right, but the overall North American-European/Capitalist/Christian worldview has proven to be one of the world's most deadly. We're the people that invented the guillotine, the machine gun, the gas chamber and the nuclear bomb.

1) odd that you would recognize the inherent issues of the comparison and make it anyway

2) if you are saying the west and the developed world has issues and nasty legacies, then I don't think anyone claimed otherwise. But I am unsure how that would address the attitudes and issues under discussion, besides as a means to confuse and deflect from them

3) Dynamics surrounding foreign policy, relations between states, and struggles over various resources are fundamentally different than wide acceptance of the religious belief that apostates should be put to death. And I doubt you would find many in modern liberalized democracies supporting the execution of people simply for being muslim or communists. Which is, if you want to cite the affects of an ideology in relation to another idealogy, in the comparison you want to make.

The comparison you make above takes one ideology, in it's present form, and then tries to compare it historically to a rather large geographic region (the west). Ignoring that geographic region encompassed a very broad collection of ideologies, some that were totally incompatible or even outright abandoned

to say they are not the same thing and unfit for such a comparison, would, again, be pointing out the obvious

4) I'm not sure a comparison of the underlying ideologies that comprise western liberalism and islam really pans out in Islams favor, but mileage likely varies



"But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."
Jesus

Again, no one denied the historical violence of Christianity (in fact, I have cited it numerous times). What was denied was the comparison concerning modern Christianity and islam
 
Last edited:
A Christian Fundamentalist is a Missionary, a Muslim Fundamentalist Kills him.
I guess you missed about 1,000 years of our history where the bible was taken literally and society let them run amok. Their society hasn't evolved, and they're still allowing religion to terrorize their people. Luckily we put a muzzle on christianity, I can't wait until the middle east does the same with islam.
 
I guess you missed about 1,000 years of our history where the bible was taken literally and society let them run amok. Their society hasn't evolved, and they're still allowing religion to terrorize their people. Luckily we put a muzzle on christianity, I can't wait until the middle east does the same with islam.

Being that this branch of the discussion started out with you and others claiming something totally different

I deny that anywhere near a majority of muslims are violent.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...rian-gas-field-w-280-a-26.html#post1061373339


Whether 500 years ago, or today, neither religions have changed in over 1000 years.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...rian-gas-field-w-280-a-27.html#post1061373417


and vigorously defending it

Christianity is founded entirely on the bible, and the bible hasn't changed in over 1500 years.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...rian-gas-field-w-280-a-27.html#post1061373453

That's right, you're just saying most are, not all.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...rian-gas-field-w-280-a-27.html#post1061373453


the attempt to move the goal posts here are rather blatant . Normally I wouldn't be a dick about such things, but your propensity to make vague insults, out right attempts to distort and mischaracterize arguments you disagree with, endlessly repeating yourself, and outright refusal to even acknowledge evidence that goes against your own personal beliefs, while making attempts to buff your own credentials as some type of enlightened rationalist, proved to be a particularly annoying combination.

I suggest that in the future you might take time off from posting and spend some time studying basic logic, with particular focus on the formal and informal fallacies
 
PS also, one might assume that if we are arguing that societal pressures need to be put on islam if it wants a place in the modern world that we also recognizes the lack of such things currently ...
 
Being that this branch of the discussion started out with you and others claiming something totally different


http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...rian-gas-field-w-280-a-26.html#post1061373339



http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...rian-gas-field-w-280-a-27.html#post1061373417


and vigorously defending it


http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...rian-gas-field-w-280-a-27.html#post1061373453


http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...rian-gas-field-w-280-a-27.html#post1061373453


the attempt to move the goal posts here are rather blatant . Normally I wouldn't be a dick about such things, but your propensity to make vague insults, out right attempts to distort and mischaracterize arguments you disagree with, endlessly repeating yourself, and outright refusal to even acknowledge evidence that goes against your own personal beliefs, while making attempts to buff your own credentials as some type of enlightened rationalist, proved to be a particularly annoying combination.

I suggest that in the future you might take time off from posting and spend some time studying basic logic, with particular focus on the formal and informal fallacies

Normally you wouldn't be a dick? Every time I've talked to you, you've proven the opposite.

I've remained intellectually consistent through all of this. I've claimed that the religions themselves are violent, both christianity and islam, but the individual practitioners of those religions are not inherently violent because of a group of fringe radicals. So I'll restate my point, so you can try to BS me again about what you actually believe: A relatively small percentage of muslim terrorists does not make all, most, or any other muslims terrorists or violent by association of religion.
 
I've remained intellectually consistent through all of this.

as usual, you are right. If we ignore the evidence above and all those points at which you were intellectually inconsistent, we can clearly conclude, that indeed, you were intellectually consistent.

I've claimed that the religions themselves are violent

making a straw man argument (distortion) and ignoring evidence contextually relevant to the discussion: check

but the individual practitioners of those religions are not inherently violent because of a group of fringe radicals.

distortion: check

So I'll restate my point, so you can try to BS me again about what you actually believe: A relatively small percentage of muslim terrorists does not make all, most, or any other muslims terrorists or violent by association of religion.

ignoring evidence, distortion, repeating yourself: check
 
Last edited:
as usual, you are right. If we ignore the evidence above and all those points at which you were intellectually inconsistent, we can clearly conclude, that indeed, you were intellectually consistent.



making a straw man argument (distortion) and ignoring evidence contextually relevant to the discussion: check



distortion: check



ignoring evidence, distortion, repeating yourself: check

I'm getting really tired of your ****, to be honest. I made a nice neat little summary of what I've been saying in the entire thread, and you responded with absolutely nothing on topic. Either you disagree, and think that a few terrorists make other muslims violent by association, or you agree and are just being a troll.

Either way, I don't see that we have anything else to discuss.

Good day, I bid you adieu.
 
I'm getting really tired of your ****, to be honest. I made a nice neat little summary of what I've been saying in the entire thread, and you responded with absolutely nothing on topic. Either you disagree, and think that a few terrorists make other muslims violent by association, or you agree and are just being a troll.

Either way, I don't see that we have anything else to discuss.

Good day, I bid you adieu.

yes, if we ignore the entirety of the discussion such makes sense
 
Rapid Alpaca, I would say the difference between Christianity and Islam currently is the positions of power and authority and respect violent extremists and supporters of such have within Islamic society.

You would be hard pressed to find extremists Christians that would condone and support terrorist activities to achieve religious/political objectives. That is not the case with radical islam.
 
Rapid Alpaca, I would say the difference between Christianity and Islam currently is the positions of power and authority and respect violent extremists and supporters of such have within Islamic society.

You would be hard pressed to find extremists Christians that would condone and support terrorist activities to achieve religious/political objectives. That is not the case with radical islam.

the army of god comes to mind, or the LRA if you want a particularly poignant example. But neither of those groups receive wide spread public support, or much of any, at all. And short of the LRA, which is about as fringe to mainstream Christianity as you can get, their ability and interest to wage violence has been rather limited
 
Rapid Alpaca, I would say the difference between Christianity and Islam currently is the positions of power and authority and respect violent extremists and supporters of such have within Islamic society.

You would be hard pressed to find extremists Christians that would condone and support terrorist activities to achieve religious/political objectives. That is not the case with radical islam.

Terrorism is the most effective form of warfare for those fighting from a position of powerlessness. The powerful have police armies, prisons, and military weapons. When we bomb from an airplane we kill as many innocents as the terrorists do, but we ignore that fact. Despite all the claims about evil Muslims, even in the last ten years the USA has killed more people, including more non-combatants, than all the Islamist terrorist combined. We killed 500,000 to million in Iraq alone and that country never attacked or threatened us. It may make you feel better to think there is no equivalency between bombing a nation from the air and blowing up a bus but the differences are imaginary.
 
Terrorism is the most effective form of warfare for those fighting from a position of powerlessness. The powerful have police armies, prisons, and military weapons. When we bomb from an airplane we kill as many innocents as the terrorists do, but we ignore that fact. Despite all the claims about evil Muslims, even in the last ten years the USA has killed more people, including more non-combatants, than all the Islamist terrorist combined. We killed 500,000 to million in Iraq alone and that country never attacked or threatened us. It may make you feel better to think there is no equivalency between bombing a nation from the air and blowing up a bus but the differences are imaginary.


Still clinging to Lancet are we? Even after their number has been so widely discredited, that to bring it up in any circle of people that know what they are talking about would prompt out right laughter.....

The closer number in my opinion is somewhere around 121,000 civilian deaths through Dec. 2012.


You need to read this....

Iraq Body Count
 
Last edited:
Terrorism is the most effective form of warfare for those fighting from a position of powerlessness. The powerful have police armies, prisons, and military weapons. When we bomb from an airplane we kill as many innocents as the terrorists do, but we ignore that fact. Despite all the claims about evil Muslims, even in the last ten years the USA has killed more people, including more non-combatants, than all the Islamist terrorist combined. We killed 500,000 to million in Iraq alone and that country never attacked or threatened us. It may make you feel better to think there is no equivalency between bombing a nation from the air and blowing up a bus but the differences are imaginary.

I like how you've magically assigned all murders committed by terrorists in Iraq into the United States murder column (500,000 - 1 million?). With stats computed like that I'm not surprised you reached the conclusion you did.

There's no reason to be sympathetic to terrorists. The vast majority of people they kill aren't their oppressors. They aren't the powerless, they generally prey on the powerless.
 
Still clinging to Lancet are we? Even after their number has been so widely discredited, that to bring it up in any circle of people that know what they are talking about would prompt out right laughter.....


The closer number in my opinion is somewhere around 121,000 civilian deaths through Dec. 2012.

The Lancet figure has never been credibly challenged. Your opinionated apologist number has the stench of bovine rectum.
 
Still clinging to Lancet are we? Even after their number has been so widely discredited, that to bring it up in any circle of people that know what they are talking about would prompt out right laughter.....

The closer number in my opinion is somewhere around 121,000 civilian deaths through Dec. 2012.


You need to read this....

Iraq Body Count

Anytime the US is engaged, the humanitarian/leftist pacifists always include every death as a US casualty even if it was a 90 year old man with cancer ("Well the US didn't save him"). It is always garbage statistics.
 
Terrorism is the most effective form of warfare for those fighting from a position of powerlessness. The powerful have police armies, prisons, and military weapons. When we bomb from an airplane we kill as many innocents as the terrorists do, but we ignore that fact. Despite all the claims about evil Muslims, even in the last ten years the USA has killed more people, including more non-combatants, than all the Islamist terrorist combined. We killed 500,000 to million in Iraq alone and that country never attacked or threatened us. It may make you feel better to think there is no equivalency between bombing a nation from the air and blowing up a bus but the differences are imaginary.

Acually, terrorism/assymetrical warfare has failed to achieve the objective more times than it accomplished it.
 
Terrorism is the most effective form of warfare for those fighting from a position of powerlessness. The powerful have police armies, prisons, and military weapons. When we bomb from an airplane we kill as many innocents as the terrorists do, but we ignore that fact. Despite all the claims about evil Muslims, even in the last ten years the USA has killed more people, including more non-combatants, than all the Islamist terrorist combined. We killed 500,000 to million in Iraq alone and that country never attacked or threatened us. It may make you feel better to think there is no equivalency between bombing a nation from the air and blowing up a bus but the differences are imaginary.

Im sorry, I dont subscribe to the idea that conventional warfare is the same as terrorist warfare---morally or subjectively. The difference between bombing a bus from the air and blowing it up with a suicide bomber is the airman isnt trying to bomb the bus because its a civilian transport and considered offlimits; the terrorist actively seeks to kill as many innocents as possible to make his point as horrific as possible.

Your 500k to 1mill claim is badly staged propaganda because you cannot substantiate or corroborate that number; no one can in an active warfront.

Bottom line, terrorism is an accepted course of political action in Islamic culture and condemnation is weak and has no teeth.
 
I like how you've magically assigned all murders committed by terrorists in Iraq into the United States murder column (500,000 - 1 million?). With stats computed like that I'm not surprised you reached the conclusion you did.

There's no reason to be sympathetic to terrorists. The vast majority of people they kill aren't their oppressors. They aren't the powerless, they generally prey on the powerless.


Even accepting the 121,000 Iraqi death figure, the Christian west is still ahead in the body count.

I am not calling for sympathy for terrorists and/or Islamists, I am calling for a better understanding of the phenomena by knowing recent history, most of which is not taught in our schools and is rarely in the news papers. If we allow propaganda to portray our enemies as simply crazed religious fanatics then we will fail to deal with the problems of interfacing with them effectively.

Consider the info below re. Algeria. In my view it is impossible to understand the reality of the current situation without consideration of this history:

The worst of the bloodshed began in 1945, when French troops responded brutally to a spate of uprisings, killing tens of thousands. The official war for Algerian independence didn’t begin until 1954, and hundreds of thousands (the exact figure is widely disputed) lost their lives during the following six years of combat. About 100 Algerians were also killed in Paris in 1961.

“...He stopped short of an official apology, which Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika has been demanding since 2003. But at this point, the people of Algeria seem willing to let it slide.

More than half a century has passed since a series of bloody atrocities took place during the years leading up to Algerian independence in 1962. Until that time, the country was a department of France, but Muslim Arabs and Berbers there were largely disenfranchised. Even when they gained the right to vote in 1944, unjust district mapping practices made sure they would remain unable to exercise their fair share of political power

For 132 years, what Algeria was subjected to was profoundly brutal and unfair,” said Hollande in a speech to Algerian lawmakers on Wednesday......"
December 20 2012
Economy Trumps Apology As France Admits To Algerian Massacres
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom