Jihadi terrorism

[Second Summer]

This is what has been on my mind of late, how to change that sort of thinking? How do you reason with people who want to annihilate everyone who isn't like them in addition to themselves? I don't even know where to start. Sometimes I wonder whether seriously ill people latch onto a cause to justify there desire to be mass murderers. I don't know; I am at such a loss with regard to offering any solutions.

I don't think most of the islamist terrorists are mentally ill exactly, just indoctrinated and/or radicalised to a point where they see terrorism as an acceptable tool, or rather, the only tool left. And why is that? Because the Muslim World and the Western World are at war. In fact, we've been at war, on and off, since the very beginning of Islam. The crusades started as a response to Muslim armies threatening Byzantium, the Christian eastern Roman empire. Fast-forward to today, and the war continues. Where the West isn't directly involved, they're propping up their favourite puppet regimes of dictators, strong-men and ruling elites in the region while the civilians suffer the consequences. Where we are more directly involved, like Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands of civilians have died in the conflicts. All this effort the West makes in order to avoid islamists coming to power.

Let's stop pretending there is no clash of civilizations.

 

[Second Summer]

@Mischief - I think you were looking for an argument?

 

[Mischief]

@Mischief - I think you were looking for an argument?

Oh, we may get to an argument, but maybe we could start with a discussion?

 

[Second Summer]

Oh, we may get to an argument, but maybe we could start with a discussion?

A discussion is better, I agree.

 

[Mischief]

The crusades started as a response to Muslim armies threatening Byzantium, the Christian eastern Roman empire.

There's considerable historical support for the proposition that Urban II called for the First Crusade as a way to re-unite the Eastern and Western churches in an effort to consolidate the power of the (re-united) Church under his leadership. So, hardly an altruistic "let's save the Christians" motive.

If we want to discuss who had the more advanced, inclusive, society back in 1100, I think the Muslims would win out over the Christians.

Not that I find going back to who started what to be particularly useful in any case; the Protestants and the Catholics did a good job of murdering each others for years based on that kind of thinking, to name just one very recent example.

 

[Mischief]

Over 100 people, and at least 42 children, have been killed in U.S.-led coalition airstrikes in eastern Syria since Thursday evening, the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human rights reported Friday. The strikes occurred in al-Mayadin, a town held by the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq (ISIS) near Deir al-Zor.

Two rounds of strikes, beginning Thursday evening, saw the collapse of a building that housed the families of ISIS-members, killing at least 42 children under the age of 16, the Observatory reported. The strikes also leveled a municipal building.

Report: At least 42 children killed in airstrikes on ISIS-held town

We're still way ahead in the "who has killed more children of the other side" sweepstakes, if you want to make it into a religious/cultural contest.

 

[Second Summer]

I was just reading that MI5 thinks there are as many as 23,000 jihadi extremists in the UK, 3,000 of whom are under active investigation in a total of 500 ongoing police operations. (Source.) So this is a massive problem. I'm starting to see why the police here sometimes finds in difficult to find the resources to investigate less serious crime. So what can we do about this problem? Yes, we can fund even more police resources, but that doesn't really make the problem go away, it just makes the potential consequences less severe.

 

[Second Summer]

Report: At least 42 children killed in airstrikes on ISIS-held town

We're still way ahead in the "who has killed more children of the other side" sweepstakes, if you want to make it into a religious/cultural contest.

I'm not disagreeing that the West has its share of the blame for what is going on. In today's conflict, the West and its allies are the main aggressors. And it's exactly this kind of thing (as in the airstrike you point to) that is creating more jihadis. But I don't think we can pretend there isn't a major conflict here, between the West and its allies on one side and the Muslim world on the other. And the roots of that conflict can be traced back to the early history of Islam, though how much of that is relevant for today's conflict is less clear.

 

[Second Summer]

There's considerable historical support for the proposition that Urban II called for the First Crusade as a way to re-unite the Eastern and Western churches in an effort to consolidate the power of the (re-united) Church under his leadership. So, hardly an altruistic "let's save the Christians" motive.

The western church had received a request for assistence by the Byzantine emperor, and the First Crusade was the pope's response. There would be no First Crusade without Islam's expansion into Christian lands.

 

[Mischief]

I'm not disagreeing that the West has its share of the blame for what is going on. In today's conflict, the West and its allies are the main aggressors. And it's exactly this kind of thing (as in the airstrike you point to) that is creating more jihadis. But I don't think we can pretend there isn't a major conflict here, between the West and its allies on one side and the Muslim world on the other. And the roots of that conflict can be traced back to the early history of Islam, though how much of that is relevant for today's conflict is less clear.

Why not blame it on the Christians then? They were constantly invading lands and/or killing off the heathens.

The battle is between people of conscience and compassion, and those without.

 

[Mischief]

I feel more kinship with every Muslim I have encountered than I do with the guy who did this: ‘Final act of bravery’: Men who were fatally stabbed trying to stop anti-Muslim rants identified

ETA: Hell, I feel more kinship with every Muslim I've encountered than I do with any Trump voter I know, and that includes some family members.

 

[Mischief]

I was just reading that MI5 thinks there are as many as 23,000 jihadi extremists in the UK, 3,000 of whom are under active investigation in a total of 500 ongoing police operations. (Source.) So this is a massive problem. I'm starting to see why the police here sometimes finds in difficult to find the resources to investigate less serious crime. So what can we do about this problem? Yes, we can fund even more police resources, but that doesn't really make the problem go away, it just makes the potential consequences less severe.

How many white supremacists in the UK?

 

[beancounter]

I think it is suffice to say that religion is the problem...

 

[FortyTwo]

Religion is not the problem.

People who are evil, or as mentioned earlier people who have mental illnesses that lead them to do violent things, are always searching for rationalization. Very few people truly believe they themselves are on the wrong side of things - if they have violent impulses, a hunger for power, a victimization complex that turns into lashing out, etc. they will always try to find a way to spin it so they can tell themselves they are in the right and believe it.

Remember those girls who stabbed another girl repeatedly and left her for dead in the name of Slenderman? They didn't do that because they read some creepypasta stories, they did it because they were violent, vindictive people (well, one of them was anyway - there's a lot to be said about this particular case in terms of who inspired who and whatever, but that's not relevant here). In 1800 they would have done it because of the ghost of the old lady down the street, or Beelzebub they heard the pastor talking about, or whatever. People latch onto a cause to justify their acts of cruelty - it doesn't work in reverse. Radicalization can bring out some truly repulsive behavior from people, but not repulsive behavior that wasn't already there.

Trying to blame religion for this is pointless. Even if you could somehow eliminate all religion from the world, people who want to hate and destroy would find some other reason to.

 

[Mischief]

Religion is not the problem.

People who are evil, or as mentioned earlier people who have mental illnesses that lead them to do violent things, are always searching for rationalization. Very few people truly believe they themselves are on the wrong side of things - if they have violent impulses, a hunger for power, a victimization complex that turns into lashing out, etc. they will always try to find a way to spin it so they can tell themselves they are in the right and believe it.

Remember those girls who stabbed another girl repeatedly and left her for dead in the name of Slenderman? They didn't do that because they read some creepypasta stories, they did it because they were violent, vindictive people (well, one of them was anyway - there's a lot to be said about this particular case in terms of who inspired who and whatever, but that's not relevant here). In 1800 they would have done it because of the ghost of the old lady down the street, or Beelzebub they heard the pastor talking about, or whatever. People latch onto a cause to justify their acts of cruelty - it doesn't work in reverse. Radicalization can bring out some truly repulsive behavior from people, but not repulsive behavior that wasn't already there.

Trying to blame religion for this is pointless. Even if you could somehow eliminate all religion from the world, people who want to hate and destroy would find some other reason to.

Thank you for stating this so well. I agree with every word.

 

[beancounter]

Religion is not the problem.

People who are evil, or as mentioned earlier people who have mental illnesses that lead them to do violent things, are always searching for rationalization. .

And religion provides them with that rationalization, and has been a convenient tool for those types of people for thousands of years. Sure they might use some other tool, but religion is by far the most effective one of all.

You can convince billions of people to kill in the name of religion, but you can only convince a relative few to kill in the name of Slenderman...

And denying or downplaying the enormous destructiveness that the use of religion has caused over human history just helps perpetuate it's continued use.

 

[FortyTwo]

And religion provides them with that rationalization, and has been a convenient tool for those types of people for thousands of years. Sure they might use some other tool, but religion is by far the most effective one of all.

You can convince billions of people to kill in the name of religion, but you can only convince a relative few to kill in the name of Slenderman...

And denying or downplaying the enormous destructiveness that the use of religion has caused over human history just helps perpetuate it's continued use.

Because I was saying in that post that religion and Slenderman are two equivalent tools for justifying violence.

That is exactly what I was saying there.

 

[Second Summer]

Why not blame it on the Christians then? They were constantly invading lands and/or killing off the heathens.

We're talking about relations between the West/Christians and the Muslim world, not between Christians and others. Anyway, I'm not trying to point The Finger of Blame, just describing the situation as it really is. And I would like to ask the question: What can we do to make this conflict stop and restore peace?

The battle is between people of conscience and compassion, and those without.

I've not seen that on the TV news yet. Or any other influential medium. Afraid we're stuck with the situation as experienced by most people.

 

[Mischief]

And I would like to ask the question: What can we do to make this conflict stop and restore peace?

Perhaps we could make a start by not framing it as "a clash of civilizations" between "the West/Christians and the Muslim world".

After all, just for one example, "the Muslim world" includes 3.3 million Americans, many of whose families have been in this country for many generations, and who are as "Western" as you and I. (Hint: a significant portion of the American Muslim population were brought here as slaves.)

And I am definitely part of "the West" and equally definitely not Christian.

I've not seen that on the TV news yet. Or any other influential medium. Afraid we're stuck with the situation as experienced by most people.

You may "experience" it as a religious war or clash of civilizations. I think a better word is "perceive" rather than "experience."

I, OTOH, perceive it as a clash between tolerance and intolerance. And the intolerance comes just as much from some on your "Western/Christian" side as from your "Muslim" side.

The proposition that "most people believe this so it must be right" is amusing, on a veg*n board.

 

[Second Summer]

Perhaps we could make a start by not framing it as "a clash of civilizations" between "the West/Christians and the Muslim world".

After all, just for one example, "the Muslim world" includes 3.3 million Americans, many of whose families have been in this country for many generations, and who are as "Western" as you and I. (Hint: a significant portion of the American Muslim population were brought here as slaves.)

And I am definitely part of "the West" and equally definitely not Christian.

The same is true for me, I'm not a Christian, but I live in a western country, and I share many values considered western. In many ways I can be said to be culturally Christian because of the extent to which Christianity has shaped our culture.

By "the West/Christians" I mean western countries plus the Christian populations there and elsewhere. These people typically have a shared cultural heritage, and they share many values. (I could have said just "the West", but there are Christians in places like Egypt, Iraq, and Pakistan who are perceived by militant islamists as western allies and therefore increasingly persecuted.)

'A clash of civilizations' is obviously a generalisation, and there are cases where it doesn't adequately explain everything. However, we have to simplify a bit to make sense of the world around us.

You may "experience" it as a religious war or clash of civilizations. I think a better word is "perceive" rather than "experience."

'Perceive', sure, I will grant you that.

I, OTOH, perceive it as a clash between tolerance and intolerance. And the intolerance comes just as much from some on your "Western/Christian" side as from your "Muslim" side.

Have you measured it? If not, how do you know it's just as much?

The proposition that "most people believe this so it must be right" is amusing, on a veg*n board.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that I think a lot of people see it this way, on some level. Their identity tend to be either western or it is muslim. And because so many see it that way, it has a way of becoming that way. That is how group dynamics work.