Total Posts:65|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Charlie Hebdo Attacks: Politics, not Religion

Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 12:49:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is an episode of the Caspian Report which examines the motives behind the attacks, the long-term effects, and how they aid the cause of Islamic extremists.

"Yesterday morning, three masked gunmen stormed the headquarters of the French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo. The attackers forced one of the cartoonists to open the door with a security code. And then headed straight towards the paper"s editor, Stephane Charbonnier better known as Charb, who was in an editorial staff meeting. In the encounter the gunmen killed Charb, his bodyguard and many more journalists. Minutes later the attackers left the building and shot a police officer and escaped with a vehicle. Ten journalists and two police officers were killed, it was the deadliest terrorist attack on French soil in fifty years.

Representatives of ISIS quickly praised the massacre as an act of revenge for the magazine"s insults against Islam and the Prophet Muhammed. But a closer look at the long term implications reveals a more complex and a profound motive that is meant to shake Europe and radicalize European Muslims."

Thoughts?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 12:57:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 12:49:36 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is an episode of the Caspian Report which examines the motives behind the attacks, the long-term effects, and how they aid the cause of Islamic extremists.



"Yesterday morning, three masked gunmen stormed the headquarters of the French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo. The attackers forced one of the cartoonists to open the door with a security code. And then headed straight towards the paper"s editor, Stephane Charbonnier better known as Charb, who was in an editorial staff meeting. In the encounter the gunmen killed Charb, his bodyguard and many more journalists. Minutes later the attackers left the building and shot a police officer and escaped with a vehicle. Ten journalists and two police officers were killed, it was the deadliest terrorist attack on French soil in fifty years.

Representatives of ISIS quickly praised the massacre as an act of revenge for the magazine"s insults against Islam and the Prophet Muhammed. But a closer look at the long term implications reveals a more complex and a profound motive that is meant to shake Europe and radicalize European Muslims."

Thoughts?
Psalm 92
5: How great are thy works, O LORD! Thy thoughts are very deep!
6: The dull man cannot know, the stupid cannot understand this:
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 2:24:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 12:49:36 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is an episode of the Caspian Report which examines the motives behind the attacks, the long-term effects, and how they aid the cause of Islamic extremists.



"Yesterday morning, three masked gunmen stormed the headquarters of the French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo. The attackers forced one of the cartoonists to open the door with a security code. And then headed straight towards the paper"s editor, Stephane Charbonnier better known as Charb, who was in an editorial staff meeting. In the encounter the gunmen killed Charb, his bodyguard and many more journalists. Minutes later the attackers left the building and shot a police officer and escaped with a vehicle. Ten journalists and two police officers were killed, it was the deadliest terrorist attack on French soil in fifty years.

Representatives of ISIS quickly praised the massacre as an act of revenge for the magazine"s insults against Islam and the Prophet Muhammed. But a closer look at the long term implications reveals a more complex and a profound motive that is meant to shake Europe and radicalize European Muslims."

Thoughts?

- Since my University is a few kms from the site of the attack, there are a lot of theories going on about the whole action we saw on TV. & it's almost a dominant feeling amongst muslims here & some french also that there is more to the story than just 'terrorism'.

- There are enormous plot holes in the accounts of the killings, plus, all the perpetrators are dead! & there were a lot of slips on TV about the accounts, obvious slips that tell the Truth, such as one reporter reported the testimony of an eye witness & said: 'the witness saw the face of one of the masked man, & said he had beautiful blue eyes' & just a sec later, the reporter retracted it like it never happened.

- The international reaction is unprecedented, dozens of heads of state coming to 'support' France!!!!! There are far more deadly & more despicable acts of terrorism in the World. The government of France itself is involved in a nasty killing spree in Mali, as are most governments whose representatives appeared on Sunday, they are all killing muslims & getting together to support each-other because some crazy 'muslim'!? killed their own, which all muslims & Islam condemns. This is hypocrisy at its best.

- After the Charlie Hebdo attacks the magazine sold 150 times more copies than it did usually, the TV channels are now more hateful than ever, they portrayed Muhammad & played the nastiest theatre around him, which they would've never done before. The muslim community is ever humiliated by these shameless acts. They call despicable insults, inciting of hate, disgraceful disrespect, humiliation of the other Freedom of Speech! & that's only against muslims, against Jews, it's called anti-semitism. Which is not surprising, because this country is controlled by Zionists, nothing new about this.

=> It's one thing to have Values & stick to them, no matter how odd they might seem to others, but when you preach these Values & you don't uphold them yourself & instead you exploit them to enforce your bias on some & completely throw them away with others, then no decent intelligent person is gonna respect you, nor is he gonna be inclined to uphold your Values.

- IMO, the West is trying to exploit the situation to somehow justify a coalition attack on ISIS in the future, as they did with Iraq & Afghanistan before. & you see signs of this unfolding on TV already. & France, as ever, is trying to force the muslim community into becoming westernised; things in here are not like in the UK or the US where it's acceptable to have a multicultural society, as they say in french: 'La France, tu l'aimes, ou tu la quittes' / 'France, you either love it, or leave it', which I can not contest, this country may have the worst policies, but damn it has its Charm & Beauty only a fool would try to disturb it, like those $^%"+@ terrorists, who ruined it for everybody!
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 2:40:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Seems ridiculous, but then what do I know. I have been thinking of it as some aftershock of that whole North Korea/The Interview debacle, though; as if ISIS baring its teeth, not to be cast alongside the likes of North Korea, or perhaps to equal its shove; but I guess I'm not altogether too up to date on world events to blow it off like that. Still...

And I mean it was two men, not some blatantly highly tactical operation... That video seems to spin off into wild conjecture over relatively simple mechanics. Though, granted, circumstances may come to bear exactly as detailed as a result of the attack. I don't know. I don't, lol. Maybe there's some Illuminati-tier Muslim organisation going on. Maybe they have a game plan going years down the line. Or maybe they're just a bunch of nutcases. I don't know. I'm inclined towards the latter, though. I think it was Islamic extremists propping themselves up as actually something in comparison to North Korea, living in the glory days of 9/11.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 2:42:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
JE SUIS CHARLIE

I was pleased to see a cartoon of both Mohammed and Jesus holding a Je Suis Charlie banner.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 4:33:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 2:24:23 AM, YassineB wrote:
- Since my University is a few kms from the site of the attack, there are a lot of theories going on about the whole action we saw on TV. & it's almost a dominant feeling amongst muslims here & some french also that there is more to the story than just 'terrorism'.

- There are enormous plot holes in the accounts of the killings, plus, all the perpetrators are dead! & there were a lot of slips on TV about the accounts, obvious slips that tell the Truth, such as one reporter reported the testimony of an eye witness & said: 'the witness saw the face of one of the masked man, & said he had beautiful blue eyes' & just a sec later, the reporter retracted it like it never happened.

- The international reaction is unprecedented, dozens of heads of state coming to 'support' France!!!!! There are far more deadly & more despicable acts of terrorism in the World. The government of France itself is involved in a nasty killing spree in Mali, as are most governments whose representatives appeared on Sunday, they are all killing muslims & getting together to support each-other because some crazy 'muslim'!? killed their own, which all muslims & Islam condemns. This is hypocrisy at its best.

- After the Charlie Hebdo attacks the magazine sold 150 times more copies than it did usually, the TV channels are now more hateful than ever, they portrayed Muhammad & played the nastiest theatre around him, which they would've never done before. The muslim community is ever humiliated by these shameless acts. They call despicable insults, inciting of hate, disgraceful disrespect, humiliation of the other Freedom of Speech! & that's only against muslims, against Jews, it's called anti-semitism. Which is not surprising, because this country is controlled by Zionists, nothing new about this.

What do you think about the political analysis of the video. Do you think that radicals are targeting journalists and other public figures in an effort to fuel the far-right movements gaining steam in Europe, and thus isolate moderate Muslims and make them easier to radicalize?

=> It's one thing to have Values & stick to them, no matter how odd they might seem to others, but when you preach these Values & you don't uphold them yourself & instead you exploit them to enforce your bias on some & completely throw them away with others, then no decent intelligent person is gonna respect you, nor is he gonna be inclined to uphold your Values.

- IMO, the West is trying to exploit the situation to somehow justify a coalition attack on ISIS in the future, as they did with Iraq & Afghanistan before. & you see signs of this unfolding on TV already. & France, as ever, is trying to force the muslim community into becoming westernised; things in here are not like in the UK or the US where it's acceptable to have a multicultural society, as they say in french: 'La France, tu l'aimes, ou tu la quittes' / 'France, you either love it, or leave it', which I can not contest, this country may have the worst policies, but damn it has its Charm & Beauty only a fool would try to disturb it, like those $^%"+@ terrorists, who ruined it for everybody!

Do you think that Muslims in western society shouldn't assimilate at all? Or are you referring to things like the forced hijab bans, which are hypocritical in the light of free speech?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 4:48:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 2:40:58 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Seems ridiculous, but then what do I know. I have been thinking of it as some aftershock of that whole North Korea/The Interview debacle, though; as if ISIS baring its teeth, not to be cast alongside the likes of North Korea, or perhaps to equal its shove; but I guess I'm not altogether too up to date on world events to blow it off like that. Still...

And I mean it was two men, not some blatantly highly tactical operation... That video seems to spin off into wild conjecture over relatively simple mechanics. Though, granted, circumstances may come to bear exactly as detailed as a result of the attack. I don't know. I don't, lol. Maybe there's some Illuminati-tier Muslim organisation going on. Maybe they have a game plan going years down the line. Or maybe they're just a bunch of nutcases. I don't know. I'm inclined towards the latter, though. I think it was Islamic extremists propping themselves up as actually something in comparison to North Korea, living in the glory days of 9/11.

I don't think that the men who executed this attack were necessarily sophisticated people. But those at the heart of these terror campaigns aren't ignorant or uneducated, they are from some of the most prestigious families in the Middle East, were raised in a brutal political climate, were educated extensively, and altogether possess keen minds. Keep in mind that Islamic extremists successfully baited the USA into occupying not just the Afghanistan, as they had the Soviets, but Iraq, thus eliminating the strongest foil to their power in the Middle East and allowing this violent ideology to fill the vacuum. Then they did the same thing with Assad, and extended into that gap when he lost control. I don't think that any of the terror campaigns in the Middle East achieved so much success by accident, especially when the same sort of people have been involved in each domino falling. And I definitely I don't think its prudent to suppose that the same power politics and delicate geopolitical maneuverings which take place in the West are somehow above the grasp of Muslims, or any other group of people; to make such an assumption is blind oneself to potential threats.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 5:30:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 4:33:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
What do you think about the political analysis of the video. Do you think that radicals are targeting journalists and other public figures in an effort to fuel the far-right movements gaining steam in Europe, and thus isolate moderate Muslims and make them easier to radicalize?

- The fact that the opposite is happening (since the far right are losing support because of the incident) does not go well with the theory. What is more likely to happen is a sort of polarisation between the moderate & the non-moderate muslims.

- However, the only & only cause of radicalisation of muslims is the actions of the West against muslims & muslim countries. Muslims constitute about 14% of the population in Paris, there is no possible scenario such large number of people would be isolated, they are everywhere, expanded into every class of society, every type of education & profession. & so, if the West keeps doing what they are doing & meddling with what they have no business in meddling with, only more radicals are gonna appear.

Do you think that Muslims in western society shouldn't assimilate at all? Or are you referring to things like the forced hijab bans, which are hypocritical in the light of free speech?

- I believe in Traditionalism, & I believe that Democracy, although endorses the Rule of the Majority, must accommodate to the Minority. Meaning: History, Culture, Diversity, Religion, & Human Condition in general are good things & they should be preserved in a Democratic society & they should be allowed to mutually exist. Strict Democracy is the enemy of Diversity & multi-cultural societies & it's wrong.

- Asking about Muslims assimilating the western society is the same as asking non-muslims (including westerners) to assimilate it. They all live together, muslims, non-muslims, westerners, asians, whatever, they are all part of the fabric of the society, they all bring to the culture & share its diversity, they all should contribute to it, & they all should be recognised in it.

- Blaming muslims for conserving their cultural & religious background & forcing them to detach themselves from their roots is abysmal & is a sign of bigotry & hypocrisy. You can not force your culture on another & call it Tolerance & Freedom. If western countries did not want other cultures in their territories they should not have given citizenship to foreigners. & oddly enough, this tension of cultural coexistence can only be seen clearly in the relation Islam/West. (it was previously seen in White/Black)

- Finally, the reason why I think the West does not want to accept muslims as they did other groups is because Islam is not yet (or mildly) corrupted by Materialism & all its aspects (such as Capitalism). Because if History taught us anything, it is the fact that Western Materialism is the Religion uniting the West, & it has the properties of a Religion, just look at how Communism was seen in the West, for when it comes to Communism or communists, the West becomes a fanatic alliance ready to kill. A fact that has not changed when Islam came into the picture.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 5:55:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It seem to me to be a mistake to assume that the motivation must be either political, or religious. The religious have never been above utilizing political plots to further their agendas.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 6:10:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Is it too much to ask people not to be swayed by emotions or the politicizing of racist hate speech.
If you had a Muslim friend, neighbour or associate., would you present him with a Charlie Hebdo magazine to cheer/humour him?
It is because the French have not assimilated Muslim immigrants into their society.muslims are viewed as outsiders or worse and their feeling and beliefs are disregarded with contempt.
But there are 1.6 billion Muslims that cannot be ignored or their faith and beliefs mocked and trampled on.
Freedom of speech without any consideration for its content is foolhardy. As you sow so shall you reap.
In the fight to support the right to freedom. of speech. Are the French prepared to give up all their other rights and become a police state with security and national paranoia Intruding in every aspect of their lives. All this for a few bad people on both sides of the struggle to diminish each other to cartoonish ridicule.
America spends billions on national security with airport searches, video surveillance and internet eavesdropping, profiling and. drone attacks. Yet they could not prevent the Boston bombers. This war of attrition has to stop.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 6:19:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 12:49:36 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is an episode of the Caspian Report which examines the motives behind the attacks, the long-term effects, and how they aid the cause of Islamic extremists.



Sorry, but what is the Caspian Report?
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 6:21:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 5:55:30 PM, Beastt wrote:
It seem to me to be a mistake to assume that the motivation must be either political, or *organized religious. The organized religious have never been above utilizing political plots to further their agendas.

*fix'd
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 6:25:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 6:19:21 PM, fazz wrote:
At 1/14/2015 12:49:36 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is an episode of the Caspian Report which examines the motives behind the attacks, the long-term effects, and how they aid the cause of Islamic extremists.

Sorry, but what is the Caspian Report?

It's run by a political science student (now graduate) in Azerbaijan, a traditionally neutral country, like the Switzerland of Central Asia. As such, he offers unique, largely unbiased, and very intelligent insight into international affairs.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 6:35:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Americans are staying out of the French politics. No US high level official joined the French in their freedom march. The French have to do better than pick on a dead prophet to mock if they want the world to pay attention to what they are protesting about. They lost the language war ,next it will be the speech war.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 6:40:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 5:30:37 PM, YassineB wrote:
- The fact that the opposite is happening (since the far right are losing support because of the incident) does not go well with the theory. What is more likely to happen is a sort of polarisation between the moderate & the non-moderate muslims.

The only indication that I've seen of this has been Le Pen's sidelining during the united response to the shooting, and that was a political maneuver more than a public abandonment of her cause. To the best of my knowledge, the National Front is receiving record support. Is there a new metric which shows a reversal of the trend?

- However, the only & only cause of radicalisation of muslims is the actions of the West against muslims & muslim countries. Muslims constitute about 14% of the population in Paris, there is no possible scenario such large number of people would be isolated, they are everywhere, expanded into every class of society, every type of education & profession. & so, if the West keeps doing what they are doing & meddling with what they have no business in meddling with, only more radicals are gonna appear.

I didn't mean a literal isolation, but rather more heavy-handed government programs which would breed resentment and hostility if nationalist groups gained more ground.

Do you think that Muslims in western society shouldn't assimilate at all? Or are you referring to things like the forced hijab bans, which are hypocritical in the light of free speech?

- I believe in Traditionalism, & I believe that Democracy, although endorses the Rule of the Majority, must accommodate to the Minority. Meaning: History, Culture, Diversity, Religion, & Human Condition in general are good things & they should be preserved in a Democratic society & they should be allowed to mutually exist. Strict Democracy is the enemy of Diversity & multi-cultural societies & it's wrong.

Yes, I definitely agree with that; if you've read the Federalist Papers (not sure how big you are on US political history) you'll know that a suspicion of democracy is foundational in America. That sentiment, however, does not extend quite as strongly to Europe, especially continental Europe, which has deep cultural traditions.

- Asking about Muslims assimilating the western society is the same as asking non-muslims (including westerners) to assimilate it. They all live together, muslims, non-muslims, westerners, asians, whatever, they are all part of the fabric of the society, they all bring to the culture & share its diversity, they all should contribute to it, & they all should be recognised in it.

I think that, in certain countries, it's essential for their societal coherence. For example, language in France is a bare minimum. They are almost insane about the preservation of their language, and anyone seeking to live their ought to learn it. That is a degree of assimilation. Loyalty to the general principles of French Republicanism is another. A country and a culture needs something to bind it together, which means that people joining that society must ameliorate themselves to it to some degree.That doesn't mean that Muslims need to give up their religion (the protests over Eid al'Adha and the hijab are hypocritical), but everyone needs to adopt something of their new homeland.

- Blaming muslims for conserving their cultural & religious background & forcing them to detach themselves from their roots is abysmal & is a sign of bigotry & hypocrisy. You can not force your culture on another & call it Tolerance & Freedom. If western countries did not want other cultures in their territories they should not have given citizenship to foreigners. & oddly enough, this tension of cultural coexistence can only be seen clearly in the relation Islam/West. (it was previously seen in White/Black)

I wouldn't say that. China, for example, forces Tibet to conform to their societal expectations. The same goes for the Uyghur people, and the various groups which Russia has assimilated, often on a brutally forcible level. It's playing out right now with various hispanic nationalities in North America, with some crazy fringe elements advocating the forced removal of 17% of the American population.

- Finally, the reason why I think the West does not want to accept muslims as they did other groups is because Islam is not yet (or mildly) corrupted by Materialism & all its aspects (such as Capitalism). Because if History taught us anything, it is the fact that Western Materialism is the Religion uniting the West, & it has the properties of a Religion, just look at how Communism was seen in the West, for when it comes to Communism or communists, the West becomes a fanatic alliance ready to kill. A fact that has not changed when Islam came into the picture.

I would argue that it goes much deeper than that. Europe is an intensely diverse area; it needs something to bind it together, and in the absence of that binding agent every group flies at the other's throats. The first uniting factor was the Roman Empire, then upon their collapse we have centuries of warfare, until it was united by the Church. Then the entire north fractured and begin a period of absolutely brutal infighting, and defense against the Church. Eventually, alliances formed between Protestant forces in England, the Netherlands, and France, while French, Italian, and Spanish Catholics formed a new bloc.

France went through its bloody revolution and succession of Emperors, Republics, and Catholic monarchies, eventually disestablishing. But in the tumultuous process it allied itself strongly with America, tying itself to Britain eventually (and ironically). Germany lay shattered from the Reformation, and when it finally reunified and modernized the old ties came into play. Spain had been devastated by it's war with Napoleonic France, and remained neutral, but other than that the forces of Italy and the old Holy Roman Empire bound them together, while the liberalism of England, France, and America drew the battle lines on that side. Italy back-stabbed its allies in WWI for territorial gains, but after the fascist takeover allied with Germany and Central Europe during WWII.

The traditional alliances were dismantled after their losses, and Europe was partitioned between the victors, the US and the USSR. The resulting Cold War was a battle over which force would act as the new unifying factor in war-weary Europe. The Romans had ruled through might and a shared culture, the Church had ruled through faith and shrewd manipulations, and the new order would rule through a global ideology and culture, as well as military might. America won that battle, and Europe was united in its, as you put it, materialism.

Europe, when united, often resists and attempts to expunge any influences which threaten its unifying factor vehemently. You can see this turned against Jews, and by extension Christians, during the last hours of pagan Rome, a form of dissension which Rome found particularly odious. Later on it was focused through Crusades and Inquisitions targeting Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Hell, the union itself was ushered in under the expulsion of Muslims from France by Charles Martel.

The new order is relatively young, and the mechanism is still a useful one to European countries. The battle now is between their liberalism and the defense of what they see as unifying values. The battle, in my opinion, is fought on the edge of a knife. A successful resolution will require concessions from Muslims, such as acknowledgement of free speech, acceptance of European law, and some degree of assimilation. It will acquire concessions from Europeans, such as the recognition that their liberalism doesn't need to threaten their culture, that they don't need to be a melting pot.

Failure on the part of either the Europeans or Muslims will result in a regression to oppressive practices by Europeans and the radicaliza
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 6:52:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 6:10:12 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Is it too much to ask people not to be swayed by emotions or the politicizing of racist hate speech.
If you had a Muslim friend, neighbour or associate., would you present him with a Charlie Hebdo magazine to cheer/humour him?
It is because the French have not assimilated Muslim immigrants into their society.muslims are viewed as outsiders or worse and their feeling and beliefs are disregarded with contempt.
But there are 1.6 billion Muslims that cannot be ignored or their faith and beliefs mocked and trampled on.
Freedom of speech without any consideration for its content is foolhardy. As you sow so shall you reap.
In the fight to support the right to freedom. of speech. Are the French prepared to give up all their other rights and become a police state with security and national paranoia Intruding in every aspect of their lives. All this for a few bad people on both sides of the struggle to diminish each other to cartoonish ridicule.
America spends billions on national security with airport searches, video surveillance and internet eavesdropping, profiling and. drone attacks. Yet they could not prevent the Boston bombers. This war of attrition has to stop.

When you tell a Westerner to abrogate free speech, I am not sure you are aware of the magnitude of what you are asking. It is a sacred right, one of those for which for hundreds and hundreds of years men and women have shed their blood for on European soil. For which they went to the stake to be burned alive, turned against empire and nation to found new ones, watched loved ones die only to rest in shallow graves, watched entire cities burn. It is at the root of our sciences, our art, our everything: the idea, as John Milton put it, that "and though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licencing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter. Her confuting is the best and surest suppressing."

In essence, you are asking Europe to scrap the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, the crowning achievement salvaged from centuries and centuries of torrid bloodshed, for the emotional sake of a new arrival on her shores. This is an unreasonable request, it is a request which will turn dialogue off, which will cause you to be cast, perhaps intransigently, as the 'other', the enemy, the conqueror, even in Europe, which abrogates it to small degrees. In America, it would be tantamount to treason in most people's eyes.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 6:57:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I say the Islamists will bankrupt Europe with their jihadist activities. . It is cheap to develop the know how , train and buy weapons to counter the security suggested by anti-terrorist agencies.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 7:09:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 12:49:36 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is an episode of the Caspian Report which examines the motives behind the attacks, the long-term effects, and how they aid the cause of Islamic extremists.



"Yesterday morning, three masked gunmen stormed the headquarters of the French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo. The attackers forced one of the cartoonists to open the door with a security code. And then headed straight towards the paper"s editor, Stephane Charbonnier better known as Charb, who was in an editorial staff meeting. In the encounter the gunmen killed Charb, his bodyguard and many more journalists. Minutes later the attackers left the building and shot a police officer and escaped with a vehicle. Ten journalists and two police officers were killed, it was the deadliest terrorist attack on French soil in fifty years.

Representatives of ISIS quickly praised the massacre as an act of revenge for the magazine"s insults against Islam and the Prophet Muhammed. But a closer look at the long term implications reveals a more complex and a profound motive that is meant to shake Europe and radicalize European Muslims."

Thoughts?

Any number of theories will come forth about who was really behind the attack, and why. People are still arguing about all the "inconsistencies" of 9/11. I have a strong feeling, however, that the world just got a lot more polarized.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 7:23:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 6:21:24 PM, fazz wrote:
At 1/14/2015 5:55:30 PM, Beastt wrote:
It seem to me to be a mistake to assume that the motivation must be either political, or *organized religious. The organized religious have never been above utilizing political plots to further their agendas.

*fix'd

Well, thank you. But if you're going to fix my post, I wish you'd have caught that I wrote "It seem to me", when I intended "It seems to me". And I would suggest that the correction you did offer is incorrect. Are you completely unfamiliar with all of the damage done by rather small religious cults?

The problem isn't just "organized religion", but religion itself. Living life by attempting to apply fanciful superstitious fairytales has never been beneficial, and it never will be. But throughout history, it has lead to bigotry, war, terrorism and ignorance.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 7:38:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 5:55:30 PM, Beastt wrote:
It seem to me to be a mistake to assume that the motivation must be either political, or religious. The religious have never been above utilizing political plots to further their agendas.

My argument is that the political, far-term goal of terrorist acts is the intended impact, and the deeply damaging one. The religion is just a useful justification, as the Machiavelli quote in the video explores. Religion is the tool to politics, and not the other way around. We assume that the reverse is true to our own detriment because we react with emotion to what we see as simplistic barbarism, not realising that the terrorism was intended to bait us into self-destructive action. He has another video which further examines the politics behind terrorist attacks.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 7:43:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 7:38:36 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/14/2015 5:55:30 PM, Beastt wrote:
It seem to me to be a mistake to assume that the motivation must be either political, or religious. The religious have never been above utilizing political plots to further their agendas.

My argument is that the political, far-term goal of terrorist acts is the intended impact, and the deeply damaging one. The religion is just a useful justification, as the Machiavelli quote in the video explores. Religion is the tool to politics, and not the other way around. We assume that the reverse is true to our own detriment because we react with emotion to what we see as simplistic barbarism, not realising that the terrorism was intended to bait us into self-destructive action. He has another video which further examines the politics behind terrorist attacks.



Either way, eliminate religion, and your reduce the problem significantly. That's my point.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:00:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 7:43:57 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/14/2015 7:38:36 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/14/2015 5:55:30 PM, Beastt wrote:
It seem to me to be a mistake to assume that the motivation must be either political, or religious. The religious have never been above utilizing political plots to further their agendas.

My argument is that the political, far-term goal of terrorist acts is the intended impact, and the deeply damaging one. The religion is just a useful justification, as the Machiavelli quote in the video explores. Religion is the tool to politics, and not the other way around. We assume that the reverse is true to our own detriment because we react with emotion to what we see as simplistic barbarism, not realising that the terrorism was intended to bait us into self-destructive action. He has another video which further examines the politics behind terrorist attacks.

Either way, eliminate religion, and your reduce the problem significantly. That's my point.

I don't see how, considering that the problem is born out of the nature of human political interactions, conflict between opposed parties, and the usefulness of fear in psychological warfare. One could easily argue that the Mongols were terroristic, yet they had no strong religious backbone to their empire. People will sacrifice, kill, and die just as readily for an ideology as for a religion, just look at the use of terror by Soviet communists. Even Hitchens freely admits this at the conclusion of his famous defense of free speech before the Canadian Parliament, when he concludes the the irrationality which he sees as the heart of religion is an ineradicable part of being human, akin to fear of the dark or fear of dying, and based in biology.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:16:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 8:00:50 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/14/2015 7:43:57 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/14/2015 7:38:36 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/14/2015 5:55:30 PM, Beastt wrote:
It seem to me to be a mistake to assume that the motivation must be either political, or religious. The religious have never been above utilizing political plots to further their agendas.

My argument is that the political, far-term goal of terrorist acts is the intended impact, and the deeply damaging one. The religion is just a useful justification, as the Machiavelli quote in the video explores. Religion is the tool to politics, and not the other way around. We assume that the reverse is true to our own detriment because we react with emotion to what we see as simplistic barbarism, not realising that the terrorism was intended to bait us into self-destructive action. He has another video which further examines the politics behind terrorist attacks.

Either way, eliminate religion, and your reduce the problem significantly. That's my point.

I don't see how
That it itself seems to be a learned response.

considering that the problem is born out of the nature of human political interactions, conflict between opposed parties, and the usefulness of fear in psychological warfare.
As you said, religion is often the motivation. Remove the motivation and you find people are far less willing to take the violent actions. Do you think politicians are going to actually soil their own hands?

One could easily argue that the Mongols were terroristic, yet they had no strong religious backbone to their empire.
No one said that the loss of religion would eliminate all violence.

People will sacrifice, kill, and die just as readily for an ideology as for a religion
In most cases, that's simply not true. Religion is one of the greatest motivators known to man, and remains the single greatest motivation for war.

just look at the use of terror by Soviet communists. Even Hitchens freely admits this at the conclusion of his famous defense of free speech before the Canadian Parliament, when he concludes the the irrationality which he sees as the heart of religion is an ineradicable part of being human, akin to fear of the dark or fear of dying, and based in biology.
The first step to removing the problem of religion is to stop promoting it.
The second step is to treat those who hold such beliefs as they should be treated - as gullible, foolish and ignorant.

When you take the reward out of religion, you open the door to understanding it for what it really is - ignorant superstition. And far fewer people want to be considered gullible, ignorant and foolish, than loyal, holy and godly.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:29:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 8:16:03 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:00:50 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/14/2015 7:43:57 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/14/2015 7:38:36 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/14/2015 5:55:30 PM, Beastt wrote:
It seem to me to be a mistake to assume that the motivation must be either political, or religious. The religious have never been above utilizing political plots to further their agendas.

My argument is that the political, far-term goal of terrorist acts is the intended impact, and the deeply damaging one. The religion is just a useful justification, as the Machiavelli quote in the video explores. Religion is the tool to politics, and not the other way around. We assume that the reverse is true to our own detriment because we react with emotion to what we see as simplistic barbarism, not realising that the terrorism was intended to bait us into self-destructive action. He has another video which further examines the politics behind terrorist attacks.

Either way, eliminate religion, and your reduce the problem significantly. That's my point.

I don't see how
That it itself seems to be a learned response.

considering that the problem is born out of the nature of human political interactions, conflict between opposed parties, and the usefulness of fear in psychological warfare.
As you said, religion is often the motivation. Remove the motivation and you find people are far less willing to take the violent actions. Do you think politicians are going to actually soil their own hands?

I said no such thing. I said that it was the excuse. As in, adopted after the fact.

One could easily argue that the Mongols were terroristic, yet they had no strong religious backbone to their empire.
No one said that the loss of religion would eliminate all violence.

You claimed that it would reduce terrorism significantly. My whole point is that it just serves as an excuse, not a motivation, and that a new excuse would just be chosen, like ideology.

People will sacrifice, kill, and die just as readily for an ideology as for a religion
In most cases, that's simply not true. Religion is one of the greatest motivators known to man, and remains the single greatest motivation for war.

I will debate that in a heartbeat. Of all of the wars in the history of the world, I can think of only a handful which were legitimately motivated by religion (Frankish Crusades are a big one), and even many of those are dubious.

just look at the use of terror by Soviet communists. Even Hitchens freely admits this at the conclusion of his famous defense of free speech before the Canadian Parliament, when he concludes the the irrationality which he sees as the heart of religion is an ineradicable part of being human, akin to fear of the dark or fear of dying, and based in biology.
The first step to removing the problem of religion is to stop promoting it.
The second step is to treat those who hold such beliefs as they should be treated - as gullible, foolish and ignorant.

Lol, because everyone of every religion hasn't been doing that to everyone of every other religion from time immemorial.

When you take the reward out of religion, you open the door to understanding it for what it really is - ignorant superstition. And far fewer people want to be considered gullible, ignorant and foolish, than loyal, holy and godly.

It's just a set of unfounded beliefs. Just about everyone has them.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:36:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 8:00:50 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/14/2015 7:43:57 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/14/2015 7:38:36 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/14/2015 5:55:30 PM, Beastt wrote:
It seem to me to be a mistake to assume that the motivation must be either political, or religious. The religious have never been above utilizing political plots to further their agendas.

My argument is that the political, far-term goal of terrorist acts is the intended impact, and the deeply damaging one. The religion is just a useful justification, as the Machiavelli quote in the video explores. Religion is the tool to politics, and not the other way around. We assume that the reverse is true to our own detriment because we react with emotion to what we see as simplistic barbarism, not realising that the terrorism was intended to bait us into self-destructive action. He has another video which further examines the politics behind terrorist attacks.

Either way, eliminate religion, and your reduce the problem significantly. That's my point.

I don't see how, considering that the problem is born out of the nature of human political interactions, conflict between opposed parties, and the usefulness of fear in psychological warfare. One could easily argue that the Mongols were terroristic, yet they had no strong religious backbone to their empire. People will sacrifice, kill, and die just as readily for an ideology as for a religion, just look at the use of terror by Soviet communists. Even Hitchens freely admits this at the conclusion of his famous defense of free speech before the Canadian Parliament, when he concludes the the irrationality which he sees as the heart of religion is an ineradicable part of being human, akin to fear of the dark or fear of dying, and based in biology.

You consider the fear of dying to be irrational? =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:38:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 8:36:58 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:00:50 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/14/2015 7:43:57 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/14/2015 7:38:36 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/14/2015 5:55:30 PM, Beastt wrote:
It seem to me to be a mistake to assume that the motivation must be either political, or religious. The religious have never been above utilizing political plots to further their agendas.

My argument is that the political, far-term goal of terrorist acts is the intended impact, and the deeply damaging one. The religion is just a useful justification, as the Machiavelli quote in the video explores. Religion is the tool to politics, and not the other way around. We assume that the reverse is true to our own detriment because we react with emotion to what we see as simplistic barbarism, not realising that the terrorism was intended to bait us into self-destructive action. He has another video which further examines the politics behind terrorist attacks.

Either way, eliminate religion, and your reduce the problem significantly. That's my point.

I don't see how, considering that the problem is born out of the nature of human political interactions, conflict between opposed parties, and the usefulness of fear in psychological warfare. One could easily argue that the Mongols were terroristic, yet they had no strong religious backbone to their empire. People will sacrifice, kill, and die just as readily for an ideology as for a religion, just look at the use of terror by Soviet communists. Even Hitchens freely admits this at the conclusion of his famous defense of free speech before the Canadian Parliament, when he concludes the the irrationality which he sees as the heart of religion is an ineradicable part of being human, akin to fear of the dark or fear of dying, and based in biology.

You consider the fear of dying to be irrational? =)

"Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and, when death is come, we are not."
- Epicurus -
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:40:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 8:38:33 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:36:58 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:00:50 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/14/2015 7:43:57 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/14/2015 7:38:36 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/14/2015 5:55:30 PM, Beastt wrote:
It seem to me to be a mistake to assume that the motivation must be either political, or religious. The religious have never been above utilizing political plots to further their agendas.

My argument is that the political, far-term goal of terrorist acts is the intended impact, and the deeply damaging one. The religion is just a useful justification, as the Machiavelli quote in the video explores. Religion is the tool to politics, and not the other way around. We assume that the reverse is true to our own detriment because we react with emotion to what we see as simplistic barbarism, not realising that the terrorism was intended to bait us into self-destructive action. He has another video which further examines the politics behind terrorist attacks.

Either way, eliminate religion, and your reduce the problem significantly. That's my point.

I don't see how, considering that the problem is born out of the nature of human political interactions, conflict between opposed parties, and the usefulness of fear in psychological warfare. One could easily argue that the Mongols were terroristic, yet they had no strong religious backbone to their empire. People will sacrifice, kill, and die just as readily for an ideology as for a religion, just look at the use of terror by Soviet communists. Even Hitchens freely admits this at the conclusion of his famous defense of free speech before the Canadian Parliament, when he concludes the the irrationality which he sees as the heart of religion is an ineradicable part of being human, akin to fear of the dark or fear of dying, and based in biology.

You consider the fear of dying to be irrational? =)

"Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and, when death is come, we are not."
- Epicurus -

Yet fear of death is not about the current state, but rather an attempt to assess a future state. If fear of death can prevent death, would that not be better than to not be?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:48:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 8:40:18 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:38:33 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:36:58 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:00:50 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/14/2015 7:43:57 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/14/2015 7:38:36 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/14/2015 5:55:30 PM, Beastt wrote:
It seem to me to be a mistake to assume that the motivation must be either political, or religious. The religious have never been above utilizing political plots to further their agendas.

My argument is that the political, far-term goal of terrorist acts is the intended impact, and the deeply damaging one. The religion is just a useful justification, as the Machiavelli quote in the video explores. Religion is the tool to politics, and not the other way around. We assume that the reverse is true to our own detriment because we react with emotion to what we see as simplistic barbarism, not realising that the terrorism was intended to bait us into self-destructive action. He has another video which further examines the politics behind terrorist attacks.

Either way, eliminate religion, and your reduce the problem significantly. That's my point.

I don't see how, considering that the problem is born out of the nature of human political interactions, conflict between opposed parties, and the usefulness of fear in psychological warfare. One could easily argue that the Mongols were terroristic, yet they had no strong religious backbone to their empire. People will sacrifice, kill, and die just as readily for an ideology as for a religion, just look at the use of terror by Soviet communists. Even Hitchens freely admits this at the conclusion of his famous defense of free speech before the Canadian Parliament, when he concludes the the irrationality which he sees as the heart of religion is an ineradicable part of being human, akin to fear of the dark or fear of dying, and based in biology.

You consider the fear of dying to be irrational? =)

"Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and, when death is come, we are not."
- Epicurus -

Yet fear of death is not about the current state, but rather an attempt to assess a future state. If fear of death can prevent death, would that not be better than to not be?

What does fear do to prevent death? It is an emotional response, it clouds reasoning, which is what is actually required to avoid dying. Certainly death is not desirable, but steps taken to avoid it must be guided by understanding, nor fear.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2015 8:50:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/14/2015 8:29:50 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:16:03 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/14/2015 8:00:50 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/14/2015 7:43:57 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/14/2015 7:38:36 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/14/2015 5:55:30 PM, Beastt wrote:
It seem to me to be a mistake to assume that the motivation must be either political, or religious. The religious have never been above utilizing political plots to further their agendas.

My argument is that the political, far-term goal of terrorist acts is the intended impact, and the deeply damaging one. The religion is just a useful justification, as the Machiavelli quote in the video explores. Religion is the tool to politics, and not the other way around. We assume that the reverse is true to our own detriment because we react with emotion to what we see as simplistic barbarism, not realising that the terrorism was intended to bait us into self-destructive action. He has another video which further examines the politics behind terrorist attacks.

Either way, eliminate religion, and your reduce the problem significantly. That's my point.

I don't see how
That it itself seems to be a learned response.

considering that the problem is born out of the nature of human political interactions, conflict between opposed parties, and the usefulness of fear in psychological warfare.
As you said, religion is often the motivation. Remove the motivation and you find people are far less willing to take the violent actions. Do you think politicians are going to actually soil their own hands?

I said no such thing. I said that it was the excuse. As in, adopted after the fact.
Then I misunderstood you. You're just wrong.

- Palestine (Jews v. Muslims)
- The Balkans (Orthodox Serbians v. Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians v. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims)
- Northern Ireland (Protestants v. Catholics)
- Kashmir (Muslims v. Hindus)
- Sudan (Muslims v. Christians and animists)
- Nigeria (Muslims v. Christians)
- Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims v. Christians)
- Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists v. Tamil Hindus)
- Indonesia (Muslims v. Timorese Christians)
- The Caucasus (Orthodox Russians v. Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis v. Catholic and Orthodox Armenians)
*Note these are all contemporary wars. Religion IS the single largest motivator of war.


One could easily argue that the Mongols were terroristic, yet they had no strong religious backbone to their empire.
No one said that the loss of religion would eliminate all violence.

You claimed that it would reduce terrorism significantly.
Is there something about the difference between "reduce" and "eliminate" which evades your notice?

My whole point is that it just serves as an excuse, not a motivation, and that a new excuse would just be chosen, like ideology.
Which is a nice little assertion on your part, but tends to fall short on support.

People will sacrifice, kill, and die just as readily for an ideology as for a religion
In most cases, that's simply not true. Religion is one of the greatest motivators known to man, and remains the single greatest motivation for war.

I will debate that in a heartbeat. Of all of the wars in the history of the world, I can think of only a handful which were legitimately motivated by religion (Frankish Crusades are a big one), and even many of those are dubious.
First you need to understand that you have to separate the political excuses offered to hide the true agenda of war, and the motivation among the combatants themselves. When you get right down to it, even the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have strong religious motivation behind them. That's why Bush was careful to keep telling the public that he "listens to God". It won him the support of the majority (the US is about 75% Christian), after the U.N. made it clear that such wars would constitute a violation of international law. Without the support of the religious majority, he illegal wars would not have been possible.

just look at the use of terror by Soviet communists. Even Hitchens freely admits this at the conclusion of his famous defense of free speech before the Canadian Parliament, when he concludes the the irrationality which he sees as the heart of religion is an ineradicable part of being human, akin to fear of the dark or fear of dying, and based in biology.
The first step to removing the problem of religion is to stop promoting it.
The second step is to treat those who hold such beliefs as they should be treated - as gullible, foolish and ignorant.

Lol, because everyone of every religion hasn't been doing that to everyone of every other religion from time immemorial.
Now focus a bit. Do you think atheists are more, or less trusted than the average Christian in Christian societies? Even non-Christians who don't look to the realities tend to believe that the religious are more law abiding, more moral and nicer people. The statistics show quite the opposite. The religious actually tend to be less trust-worthy, more likely to engage in serious criminal activity, and far less moral.

When you take the reward out of religion, you open the door to understanding it for what it really is - ignorant superstition. And far fewer people want to be considered gullible, ignorant and foolish, than loyal, holy and godly.

It's just a set of unfounded beliefs. Just about everyone has them.
Few people hold any beliefs as ridiculously unfounded and contrary to reality as those perpetuated by religion. As Sam Harris likes to point out; religion allows people to hold - by the billions - ideas that only lunatics can believe on their own. If you wake up thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes will turn them into the body of Elvis Presley, you are absolutely crazy. But if you think essentially the same thing about a cracker and the Body of Jesus, you're just a Catholic.

Religion perpetuates ridiculous ideas and irrational beliefs. It appeals to emotion over reason, and elicits strong emotional responses - so much so, that otherwise decent people will kill over their religious beliefs.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire