Activist Atheist divided regarding criticism of Islam

[Carn]

If the Islamic scriptures had "not existed as they are", to paraphrase you, then the world would have been a massively different place.

Formulated that way it sounds like you are implying that Islamic scripture had a considerable effect upon the world.

Counterfactual reasoning in itself is epistemologically sketchy (such that historians are usually extremely careful to at all engage in it), let alone when extrapolated over 1400 years.

But actually this is the method in law to determine who the "guilty party" is.

And when the issue is whether a different wording of a sentence first written down in 7th, 8th or 9th century would have made a difference whether in 20th and 21th centuries some murder would have happened (which is at least possible if the murder quotes verbatim the 7th/8th/9th century sentence as his supposed motivation), then we are in such difficult situation. But that is not a reason to avoid the issue entirely.


And i am still interested whether you see yourself at odds with Karn Armstrong who said:

"Terrorism has nothing to do with Muhammad, any more than the Crusades had anything to do with Jesus."

while you said:

I have at no point suggested jihad is not a thing, nor that this idea plays no role today.

Are these two statements excluding each other?

 

[theprestige]

But even taking your assertions at face value, look at the "jihad" waged by terrorist groups today. To whatever degree one can speak of an Islamic tradition of waging holy war, they don't really seem to be a continuous part of it, because they certainly don't care about the traditional rules:

- They are not lead by a widely recognized caliph.
- They engage in takfir (accusing Muslims of not being true Muslims).
- They frivolously harm civilians.
- They kill fellow Muslims en masse.
- They needlessly put their own lives at risk (suicide bombing).

... and so forth. I believe Bonner's Jihad in Islamic History is one of the briefer texts that cover this well, though honestly I haven't read it myself.

Interesting point. Do you have a cite for the traditional rules of jihad?

 

[IanS]

Yes, yes, the Islamic world is a blobby, jihad-waging "they". Your line of thinking is worth no more effort to adress intellectually than that of a rabid antisemite.

I don't expect you to have anything credible or objective to say as a response to what I have said to you here or what authors & activists such as Sam Harris have explained for you. By your own admission, you are not listening, not reading, and you refuse to pay any attention. That's up to you. There is no law that says you must pay more honest objective attention to the evidence and the "facts" that are being set out in detail for you. You are in the fortunate position of being able to idle away your time on the internet disregarding it all and instead acting as an apologist for Islamic fundamentalists like IS. But whilst you do that, other people all around the world are paying with their lives ... many tens of thousands of them every year ... all deliberately slaughtered and often in the most appalling and barbaric ways, by the fanatical religious maniacs for whom you are inadvertently providing support.

I do not say that the best response of western democracies is to bomb IS or to have a military invasion of either of Iraq or Syria, or even to have that first invasion into Afghanistan with it's attempt to remove Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. I was not advocating that at the time of 9-11, and I'm not advocating it now. But what I am advocating is the need for us all to be honest with ourselves as to what is actually motivating groups like IS, Al-Q, the Taliban, Boku Haram etc. And I am pointing out to you the inescapable fact that all those terrorist groups themselves say that their primary motivation is deeply religious ... the only aim that they ever claim to have is to create by force of Jihad Islamic fundamentalist rule wherever they can in all lands where they are active ...

... that's a religious aim, not a political one. There is no mention (ever) in the mission statements of wishing to build more & better hospitals, to have better and more benevolent care and support for the needy, disadvantaged, or disabled in their society ... nothing about funding more & improved schools & education, nothing about creating better more modern transport links, nothing like that at all. Instead the only aim is to create by force of mass murder and total subjugation of the people, a series of fundamentalist religious states governed entirely by self-appointed religious dictators acting out the literal words from the Koran.

Until religious apologists like you start admitting the truth of that situation, you are preventing the rest of the world from ever facing up to the root of the problem and ever hoping to find an effective solution.

The ultimate solution of course will have to be education. Education which explains to people in all countries, why religious belief in ancient gods and holy books etc., has been exposed by science as certainly nothing more than ancient ignorant superstition ... the insistent belief in gods, devils, miracles, prayers, and the actual words of gods in holy books that must be obeyed etc. But in the meantime, whilst we are waiting for apologists like you as well as the members of IS and Al-Q to avail themselves of a properly objective scientific education where they are able to tell what actually is genuine evidence vs what is not at all evidence of that which is being claimed, in that meantime it would help if the apologists are faced with the evidence that shows very clearly why their apologies for the atrocities of religions like Islam are only ever likely to be seen by IS and its' naive western recruits as a green light to go right ahead with their fanatical beliefs about a worldwide jihad not just against western military forces ("as you bomb us, so we bomb you"), but far more often directed against fellow Muslims who IS regard as "the wrong sort of Muslims" i.e. not sufficiently Islamic, not following exactly the word of Allah taken literally from his own words in the holiest book of all.

 

[Belz...]

1. Sam Harris is a twit who will not get a second of my time.

Translation: he disagrees with you.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, yes, the Islamic world is a blobby, jihad-waging "they".

Did you even read what Ian wrote? Of course, if you ignore the arguments of people, or don't even bother to read them in the first place, you can create any strawman your mind concocts.

If the Islamic scriptures had "not existed as they are", to paraphrase you, then the world would have been a massively different place.

Well, according to you it wouldn't have changed a whiff about terrorism.

But even taking your assertions at face value, look at the "jihad" waged by terrorist groups today. To whatever degree one can speak of an Islamic tradition of waging holy war, they don't really seem to be a continuous part of it, because they certainly don't care about the traditional rules:

- They are not lead by a widely recognized caliph.
- They engage in takfir (accusing Muslims of not being true Muslims).
- They frivolously harm civilians.
- They kill fellow Muslims en masse.
- They needlessly put their own lives at risk (suicide bombing).

... and so forth. I believe Bonner's Jihad in Islamic History is one of the briefer texts that cover this well, though honestly I haven't read it myself.

And? Does that mean they're not motivated by religion, somehow?

 

[IanS]

You need to step back and forget what ISIS or Al-Qaeda say, and instead think about what allowed such groups to get power and soft support in the first place.

When you say "think about what allowed such groups to get power and soft support in the first place", that quoted sentence (your sentence) assumes that IS and Al Qaeda already existed as groups (that means some number of people had already formed into those groups) before what you then describe as them getting "soft support" and "power". Is that what you actually meant to say?

If you meant to say that, then why do you think Al Qaeda (and later IS) ever formed in the first place?

What do you think their aim/mission was? Because they themselves have told you exactly what their mission has always been.

Incidently, since Al Qaeda and Bin laden were based in Afghanistan fighting alongside the Taliban who eventually seized power and declared the country to be under religious rule, what is your explanation for such things as the Taliban shooting 15 year old Malala Yousafzai through the head?

Malala Yousafzai was targeted for execution because she was using the internet to speak out for the education of girls in the Swat Valley region. The local Taliban leaders decided that was un-Islamic, and that her punishment should be to kill her. Was that a political act? Was she bombing the Taliban? Or were the Taliban acting as they themselves repeatedly said, from a sense of religious indignation, where they insisted that Malala Yousafzai was violating the laws of Allah?

What about the murder of 12 cartoonist journalists from the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris? Were the IS inspired Islamic attackers murdering those cartoonists on the streets of Paris because the cartoonists were bombing IS members? Was that a case of “so you bomb us, so we bomb you”? Or were the French cartoonists murdered because their cartoons offended religious beliefs about Muhammed? Do you think their religion is some sort of reasoned excuse for murdering 12 cartoonists in France?

 

[Dancing David]

...if your opinion is not offensive.

"Your idea is stupid and ethically revolting".

How do you see this? Is it an attack against the idea or the person? Or both?

I am waiting your answer.

By the rules of the forum that is a discussion of the idea not the person, it may not be civil.

 

[Loss Leader]

There is no mention (ever) in the mission statements of wishing to build more & better hospitals, to have better and more benevolent care and support for the needy, disadvantaged, or disabled in their society ... nothing about funding more & improved schools & education, nothing about creating better more modern transport links, nothing like that at all.

Does that matter? I don't remember Thomas Payne writing that we needed our independence from England so we could build more hospitals. The American Revolution wasn't about creating better roads. It was basically, "Screw England!"

Even after we won, we floundered for years with multiple currencies and a nearly useless federal government. It was only after we tried to govern ourselves for a while that we rewrote a Constitution that made sense. Even then, all the civil rights stuff was thrown together as an afterthought (which is why they're amendments).

The French Revolution was "We really hate taxes." The Russians had to drop out of WWI to work on some sort of philosophy of government.

 

[Carn]

- They are not lead by a widely recognized caliph.

Since nobody noted it so far:

Whoever brings forth this point as somehow an argument that today islamists are breaching the rules of "jihad", has not sufficient knowledge to say anything about the issue.

Because at minimum there are two different issues:

- offensive jihad; thats when the caliph orders the attack upon some infidel land in need of being attacked; for this the order of the caliph is necessary (meaning without a caliph offensive jihad is not an option)

- defensive jihad; thats when some infidel army is operating within islamic land without consent of the legitimate ruler; in that circumstance no order by the caliph is necessary; instead any able-bodied muslim is to some extent required to act without any direct orders and any local legitimate ruler can also in islamic sense legitimately engage in jihad


So for something like attacking Israel soldiers in the modern state of Israel (which are infidels operating within Islamic land, as the modern state of Israel has no legitimacy in islamic thought) no order by a caliph is necessary; every single muslim is free to have a go at that; able-bodied muslims in the region have to some extent a religious duty for attacking Israel soldiers (though of course mindlessly attacking is not required and there might be other competing duties)

And also killing here and there some US soldiers being guests of a government not enforcing sharia law (which makes the governemtn illegitimate) is perfectly fine without orders from caliph (the issue of course which governements are legitimate and which aren't not clear; but when a group arrives at the conclusion that some government is illegtimate, all foreign soldiers are free game).

And also illegitimate rulers being proxies of infidels and their soldiers are of course also free game (being the henchmen of infidels of course makes one an infidel army).


So a lot of jihad slaughter in islamic lands is perfectly possible under rules of jihad even if no caliph ordered it.

Who is not aware of that, is simply too ignorant for any relevant statements about law of jihad.


There being no order by a caliph is usually only an issue, when attacking targets outside islamic countries.

 

[David Mo]

By the rules of the forum that is a discussion of the idea not the person, it may not be civil.

Are you polite with ideas or with persons?

Do you consider the possibility that rule 12 was not clear on distinction between persons and ideas?

 

[David Mo]

In the last post, i have tried to get an answer from you, (…)
As i explained several times, when i say something about Muhammad or the Koran i do not say anything about any Muslims much less about Muslims as a whole block.(…)
Whatever observation of Mosques would take place, that does not include all Muslims, as not all Muslims do attend a mosque.(…)
Koran is at least a very relevant factor for islamistic terrorism. If someone thinks this statement is intended as an attack on every Muslim, then that person is simply wrong; it is intended as an attack against a book.(…)

My question was not limited to the last comment, but what we are discussing along this thread. Please, answer this question: What we have been discussing during these days?

You continue with your confuse use of “Muslim” that allows you playing with words.
You have said in other comment: “All Muslims have Islam as religion.” The mosque is a sacred place for the Islam and the Muslims, therefore any attack against the mosque is an attack against Muslims as a whole. You have not precised what do you intend to say with “observation”, therefore I can not discuss if this is an attack. But I am sure that nobody feels well if the police consider you a suspect of terrorism ony because of the colour of your skin or your belief in the Paradise.

To explain with another example, i might say that Karl Marx (…)

You are confussing again. Supporters of Marx are not called “Socialist” but Marxists. Even Socialism and Communism are different things. Your personal attack —was it personal?— would offend Marxist Communists. In any case, in order to proselitize somo of them I find it a little stupid — the idea, not you—. It would be better to argue without insults. The insult usually reveals a lack of security.

You are aware that defending someone does not mean agreement with everything the person says?

We have been discussing the ideas uttered by Wilders, Hirsi Ali o Dawkins. Not the individuals.

(…)Think of the "classic" silend kidnapper issue:
Police has kidnapper and he even admits kidnapping. (…)
And just the same with the obsrvation of religious centers, e.g.:
(…)
And by the way, long work in human rights group actually might hinder in fully contemplating such questions.
Because for a human rights group it is always also an issue of policy and how the public perceives some issue.
And while the answers that police must let the victim die because kidnapper's rights are so important or that maybe the police has to scrap some more bodies of the street because scrutinity into murder-inciting religious teachings is an absolute no-go might be the legally correct one, they are hard to sell.
Hence, such groups have a tendency not to give the actual correct answer but to instead make statements that are not actually answers to the questions (with the kidnapping case it is often "torture does not work"; which is not an answer, cause the question wasn't whether torture "works") but are helpful to politically promote what the human rights group think is the legally correct answer.

Are you telling the story of a film? No; your screenplay is not similar to a real case of terrorism. It is a Hollywood-like simplification. Torturers and executioners are not so nice in reality as in films. A police system where the torturers make law is not beautiful. I have a first-hand experience of that.

You continue to defend bad means in the name of good ends. Your screenplay is a classic. This is the argument of any totalitarian system and police regimes where the civil rights are wet paper. They have a supreme Good, they don’t like the torture, the Gulag, the extra-legal murder, but… Unfortunately it is defended by some “democrats” as Jean-Marie Le Pen or Donald Trump. Legitimacy of torture would involve the entire society in a process of deterioration with general consequences. Democracy cannot be defended by antidemocratic means. The empire of Law cannot be defended by the fall of Law. Have you heard about a certain Senator McCarthy? The case of the President of the Philippines is a paradigmatic one and it is worrying that you don’t want to speak of it.

 

[IanS]

Does that matter? I don't remember Thomas Payne writing that we needed our independence from England so we could build more hospitals. The American Revolution wasn't about creating better roads. It was basically, "Screw England!"

Even after we won, we floundered for years with multiple currencies and a nearly useless federal government. It was only after we tried to govern ourselves for a while that we rewrote a Constitution that made sense. Even then, all the civil rights stuff was thrown together as an afterthought (which is why they're amendments).

The French Revolution was "We really hate taxes." The Russians had to drop out of WWI to work on some sort of philosophy of government.

Of course it matters. They (IS, the Taliban, Al Queda, etc.) do provide mission statements, and they have made those public statements many hundreds of times. They are telling everyone what they are intending to do. Their aim is entirely religious.

But also - (1) I doubt if you are right in thinking that none of those other cases that you mention ever had the protagonists setting out the changes they wanted to see in their country. And (2) the examples you give are things that happened hundreds of years ago when the world was very different place. But we are talking here about what IS and similar groups are doing now in the 21st century … many hundreds of years ago there were all sorts of religious conquests and religious persecutions which at the time many people no doubt thought were fully justified in maintaining the supremacy of a religion which was universally believed and thought to be totally supported by God himself … people once believed it was absolutely correct for Christian armies to conqcour like that … but we are talking here about the present day, and nobody now thinks it's acceptable for the Christian church to compel millions of followers to wage religious wars.

But perhaps more importantly – I think you may have misunderstood the point I was making. The point was not say that IS and Al-Qaeda etc. would be expected to make constant statements setting out something like an election manifesto of plans about all the changes they wanted to make. The point I am making is that IS and Al-Q have made hundreds of statements saying exactly what their aim is … but the only stated aim is to overthrow existing governments such as the one in Saudi Arabia purely and entirely because they insist that a much more radical reading of the Koran must be imposed on the population … that is their own stated reason (their only stated reason) for attempting to seize power in the lands where they are fighting … their reason or stated aim is not that they think existing taxation is punishing the people and needs to be reduced, or that they want to remove a government that actually exists not Saudi Arabia but thousands of miles away in another country such as the UK. No, none of that. Instead their clearly stated mission is to impose by force upon the population, hard-line strict rule directly from the 7th century commands of the Koran ... and that is very different indeed from the cases which you raised.

 

[Carn]

My question was not limited to the last comment, but what we are discussing along this thread. Please, answer this question: What we have been discussing during these days?

We have among other things discussed, whether Islamic scripture/teachings is a relevnat factor in islamistic terrorism.

And we have discussed, if and how it would be ok to voice such criticism against Islam (which on should't as i understood you).

And now i tried to get an answer from you, what the police might or might not do in case some religious teachings are a relevant factor.

That are different questions and the answer of one of the questions does not determine the answer to another one.

You continue with your confuse use of “Muslim” that allows you playing with words.

You are the confused one. "Muslim" denotes some human beings holding certain ideas dear, "Islam" denotes these ideas.

In my mind an attack on some ideas i hold dear is NOT an attack on me (which is probably to the better; otherwise i would have quite some beef with a lot of people). And i expect the same from any adult.

But i notice, that this is apparently too much to ask of some.

And the main difference between us, which seems impossible to be bridged.

You have not precised what do you intend to say with “observation”, therefore I can not discuss if this is an attack. But I am sure that nobody feels well if the police consider you a suspect of terrorism ony because of the colour of your skin or your belief in the Paradise.

You could have said, if there are any things not an attack that the police might do.

But to help you:
Sending once a month an arabic (or whatever language is most useful) speaking undercover cop to the mosque to listen, whether any of the known problematic teachings are preached or talked about and whether problematic material is distributed/sold there; adjusting the frequency depending on the results (e.g. if several times in a row the cop finds nothing problematic, frequency is reduced or even the center is not checked upon anymore).

Note that such a police action does not treat anyone as a suspect; it treats effectively religious teachings as suspicious, which one could argue to be justified, as some religious teachings where incitement to murder (in the scenario described).


And treating color of skin issues exactly like dislike of some beleive is simply beyond the pale of any reasonable legal analysis.

Your personal attack —was it personal?— would offend Marxist Communists. In any case, in order to proselitize somo of them I find it a little stupid — the idea, not you—. It would be better to argue without insults. The insult usually reveals a lack of security.

Which is mine to decide, whether i think the approach is useful or not. But an attack upon Marx is not a personal attack upon anyone holding Marx dear (which socialists also do). And it has nothing to with color of skin as you implied above.

Are you telling the story of a film? No; your screenplay is not similar to a real case of terrorism. It is a Hollywood-like simplification. Torturers and executioners are not so nice in reality as in films. A police system where the torturers make law is not beautiful. I have a first-hand experience of that.

You continue to defend bad means in the name of good ends. Your screenplay is a classic. This is the argument of any totalitarian system and police regimes where the civil rights are wet paper. They have a supreme Good, they don’t like the torture, the Gulag, the extra-legal murder, but… Unfortunately it is defended by some “democrats” as Jean-Marie Le Pen or Donald Trump. Legitimacy of torture would involve the entire society in a process of deterioration with general consequences. Democracy cannot be defended by antidemocratic means. The empire of Law cannot be defended by the fall of Law. Have you heard about a certain Senator McCarthy? The case of the President of the Philippines is a paradigmatic one and it is worrying that you don’t want to speak of it.

Ah, ok.

That explains a lot.

What i am supposed to say about Duterte? That he is guilty of murder for all i know? That is pretty obvious, but for you:
For all i know, Duterte is guilty of murder.

 

[Carn]

Actually the discussion is somehow crazy.

I cite the words of Mohammed, though not the 7th century one, but someone with last name Atta:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/sep/30/terrorism.september113
"THE LAST NIGHT

...

3) Read al-Tawba and Anfal [traditional war chapters from the Qur'an] and reflect on their meanings and remember all of the things God has promised for the martyrs.

...

Do not seek revenge for yourself. Strike for God's sake. One time Ali bin Abi Talib [a companion and close relative of the prophet Muhammad], fought with a non-believer. The non-believer spit on Ali, may God bless him. Ali [unclear] his sword, but did not strike him. When the battle was over, the companions of the prophet asked him why he had not smitten the non-believer. He said, 'After he spat at me, I was afraid I would be striking at him in revenge for myself, so I lifted my sword.' After he renewed his intentions, he went back and killed the man. This means that before you do anything, make sure your soul is prepared to do everything for God only.
..."

Literally in preparation for mass murder that guy made reading Koran and reflecting on the meaning an item on his checklist and reminded himself not to "strike" out of revenge but to "strike" for "God" only cause some buddy of Mohammed (7th century) supposedly also made sure not to strike out of revenge.

And yet here we have 16 years later a discussion effectively about whether its ok to raise the issue of whether Islamic scripture has something to do with islamistic terrorism and the one main argument is that circumstances, revenge, etc. are the only realy relevant issue and the other main argument is that its somehow too impolite.

It is plain ridiculous.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Given that the thread mostly appears to alternate between those advancing a thesis with supporting examples, and those claiming a statistically non-discriminating set of generic tit-for-tat causes for evil in the world, the only way to advance, perhaps, is to forge ahead with development of supported argument, stragglers be damned. So continuing on: given there seems to be great difficulty in accepting any thesis originating, or appearing to originate, with a post's author, while external references seem to somehow carry magic weight, as might name-dropping, I thought I'd cite a very recent paragraph from The Atlantic, in reference to the recent mass shooting in Texas.

Mass shootings are often committed by lonely and unrooted men, suffering from both grandiose aspirations and petty grievances. The postmortem descriptors are practically rote: He was cold, weird, withdrawn, a loner (and, one must note, always “he”). It’s astonishingly rare to read the antonyms: He is almost never warm, welcoming, the most popular kid in school. Even when mass shootings are not, strictly speaking, terrorism, they still seem to adhere to a sort of dark and nearly invisible ideology of oppressive self-aggrandizement, a bid for greatness that requires the destruction of others. Just because there is no formal institution like ISIS to symbolize this strain of white rage doesn’t mean that the rage isn’t ideological. It’s possible that many instances of white-male mass-shooting violence are, in fact, driven by a media-inspired religion of grievance and greatness—a mass-distributed sickness for which male outcasts are most vulnerable to infection.

The above refers, with two examples, to what I have been calling an enabling narrative. An enabling narrative is that set of ideas and related actions found in any ideology or broader social worldview (see antebellum Old South) that expressly sanctions otherwise socially unacceptable behavior, including the denial of rights, mistreatment, and/or death of innocent victims, usually previously dehumanized and identified as valid targets.

Earlier in the same article, the author cites outside research:

Diseases spread among individuals, but the contagion of mass shootings seems to spread through broadcast media. In an interview with The Atlantic in 2015, Sherry Towers, the ASU paper’s lead author, hypothesized that television, radio, and other media exposure might be the vectors through which one mass shooting infects the next perpetrator. Like a commercial, each event’s extraordinary coverage offers accidental advertising for depravity. One reason why mass-media coverage of shootings might inspire more shootings is that public glorification inspires some mass murderers.

And here we have a reference to what I have been terming "real or imagined cheering from the peanut gallery." That is, the effect on a potential actor of the perceived future approval from a peer group one wishes to please.

In the real world, it would appear there is indeed recognition of the relation between ideas and actions, between ideology and sanctioned behaviors, and between imagined grievance and peer groups authorizing remedial action from the shadows/social media (or in the open).

 

[David Mo]

We have among other things discussed, whether Islamic scripture/teachings is a relevnat factor in islamistic terrorism.
And we have discussed, if and how it would be ok to voice such criticism against Islam (which on should't as i understood you).
And now i tried to get an answer from you, what the police might or might not do in case some religious teachings are a relevant factor.
That are different questions and the answer of one of the questions does not determine the answer to another one.

I disagree: they are linked questions and the answer to the last question depends of the others.
The first problem entails a different answer to the last question. If you believe that the Islam is the main cause of the Islamic terrorism you would confront the police action in a strong way and you can said that “We are in war against Islam”. This is the way of Wilders, Le Pen and others.
If I think that one of the most important causes of Islamic terrorism is an interpretation of Islam —among others—, I cannot say that the Islam is our enemy and I cannot justify a police action that implies the culpability of Muslims as a whole.

You are the confused one. "Muslim" denotes some human beings holding certain ideas dear, "Islam" denotes these ideas.
In my mind an attack on some ideas i hold dear is NOT an attack on me ...

The first proposition doesn’t support the second proposition. A man is his beliefs and emotions. Without your beliefs, etc., you are nothing. If you ridicule his beliefs you ridicule himself. If you attack his ideas you attack himself. I am aware that when I attack Islam I am attacking Muslims. But to offend is other thing. I will try that my attack wouldn't be offensive for those that don't deserve it. Noblesse oblige.

You could have said, if there are any things not an attack that the police might do.
But to help you:
Sending once a month an arabic (or whatever language is most useful) speaking undercover cop to the mosque to listen, whether any of the known problematic teachings are preached or talked about and whether problematic material is distributed/sold there; adjusting the frequency depending on the results (e.g. if several times in a row the cop finds nothing problematic, frequency is reduced or even the center is not checked upon anymore).
Note that such a police action does not treat anyone as a suspect; it treats effectively religious teachings as suspicious, which one could argue to be justified, as some religious teachings where incitement to murder (in the scenario described).

The practice of undercover agents and informers is usual in may fields of police action. I suppose that the same police will consider useless to place one of them in every mosque. I suppose that they have sufficient hints of what places to survey and what not. This has nothing to do with measures against Islam as a whole. I thought that you was defending other thing.

ADDED NOTE: A big amount of terrorists were indoctrinated by Internet and not in regular mosques. I don't know the exact amount but the news frequently tell so.

Which is mine to decide, whether i think the approach is useful or not. But an attack upon Marx is not a personal attack upon anyone holding Marx dear (which socialists also do).

You have a strange idea of what a Socialist is. Majority of Socialists don’t “hold Marx dear”. Only Communists do. Except libertarian Communists, of course.

That explains a lot.

I am glad of this.

For all i know, Duterte is guilty of murder.

He is more than so. He has implemented a police regime that eliminates people without trial and fosters denunciation and police impunity. This apparatus of power is aimed against the low layers of street delinquents but also against democratic opponents. His system is factually a dictatorship supported by a majority that only sees the superficial effects of this repressive policy and is bombed with a massive propaganda.
This began with claims for a “War against crime” and the necessity of going beyond legal limitations. You can take this path but you never will know where it ends.

 

[IanS]

Does that matter? I don't remember Thomas Payne writing that we needed our independence from England so we could build more hospitals. The American Revolution wasn't about creating better roads. It was basically, "Screw England!"

Even after we won, we floundered for years with multiple currencies and a nearly useless federal government. It was only after we tried to govern ourselves for a while that we rewrote a Constitution that made sense. Even then, all the civil rights stuff was thrown together as an afterthought (which is why they're amendments).

The French Revolution was "We really hate taxes." The Russians had to drop out of WWI to work on some sort of philosophy of government.

Of course it matters. ...

.... etc as posted above.

.

Just to be clear; I could have put my above reply more simply by noting that the examples you gave were not religious wars. In none of those examples were the people/nations fighting to impose a religious dictatorship from a 7th century holy book, and for that reason the examples were not comparable. That's really the point, and it's a huge difference.

In the present case of IS, Al Qaeda, Al Shabaab, Boko Haram and others, they are fighting a religious world war taken directly from what they insist are Gods commands in their holy book.

 

[Carn]

I disagree: they are linked questions and the answer to the last question depends of the others.

But you just answered the third question:

The practice of undercover agents and informers is usual in may fields of police action. I suppose that the same police will consider useless to place one of them in every mosque. I suppose that they have sufficient hints of what places to survey and what not.

The third question was a question based on presuming a certain answer to the first question. Hence it could be answered independently upon what the answer to the first question is, as you just demonstrated.

The first proposition doesn’t support the second proposition. A man is his beliefs and emotions. Without your beliefs, etc., you are nothing. If you ridicule his beliefs you ridicule himself. If you attack his ideas you attack himself. I am aware that when I attack Islam I am attacking Muslims. But to offend is other thing. I will try that my attack wouldn't be offensive for those that don't deserve it. Noblesse oblige.

So you are in favor of treating 18+ year old human beings as non-adults and instead treat them like inferior children. Ok, not my approach.

He is more than so. He has implemented a police regime that eliminates people without trial and fosters denunciation and police impunity. This apparatus of power is aimed against the low layers of street delinquents but also against democratic opponents. His system is factually a dictatorship supported by a majority that only sees the superficial effects of this repressive policy and is bombed with a massive propaganda.
This began with claims for a “War against crime” and the necessity of going beyond legal limitations. You can take this path but you never will know where it ends.

"more"?

Above murder in my view there is only mass murder and/or genocide. I called out Duterte for the worst crime i am confident to call him out (though maybe mass murderer would already fit, but i am not certain how many murders are realy incited by Duterte in a legal sense; so due to benefit of doubt for the accused i settel for murder).

Some hypothetical dictator who somehow gets along without murdering anybody would not rank as low in my eyes as a murderer (though in real life such dictators probably do not exist).

 

[David Mo]

So you are in favor of treating 18+ year old human beings as non-adults and instead treat them like inferior children.

Why? I don’t think that respect is a matter of age.

"more"?
Above murder in my view there is only mass murder and/or genocide. I called out Duterte for the worst crime i am confident to call him out (though maybe mass murderer would already fit, but i am not certain how many murders are realy incited by Duterte in a legal sense; so due to benefit of doubt for the accused i settel for murder).

More things than a murderer. Dictatorship is also a crime against other things than life. Independence of justice, for example.

 

[Carn]

Why? I don’t think that respect is a matter of age.

Because you treat them from the assumption that they are emotionally and intelectually not able to differentiate between attacks on them and attacks on some idea they hold dear. And such a character flaw is usually something i only find unproblematic in minors; with adults it is irritating at best.

To make you understand, presume for a second Amnesty International should refrain from attacking ideas i hold dear. So that if i say to Amnesty: "The way you publically act and argue, you attack this idea dear to me in this way and in this way, etc. , please do not do it."

Should then Amnesty realy say: "Ok, you are just 1 out of 7 billion, but since we follow David Mo's suggestion not to attack ideas hold dear by somebody, we will adjust as follows: ..."

Is that what you suggest? That due my personal sensibilities an entire organization should adjust it's approach to some matter?

More things than a murderer. Dictatorship is also a crime against other things than life. Independence of justice, for example.

Which is compared to one or several murders a less important crime.

Violations of independece of justice happen regularly even in states with awareness about the importance of an independent justice (it's just not regularly noticed).