Another terrorist attack - London Bridge

DragonLady said:
Then those followers who refuse are facing constant pressure from their families, teachers, civic leaders, etc to join the ranks and recommit to their faith, heritage, traditions and values.

Then those followers who refuse are perceived as sympathetic to the enemy, with all the attendant anger, isolation, ostracism that always comes from walking away from such a group. It's social death.

Then those followers face the very real consequence of guilt by association with their enemies, and receiving the same treatment.

If the subject is criminals vs law enforcement, then LEO who spend time partying with known criminals face being looked down upon and snubbed by their coworkers, face being arrested and prosecuted if they're present when said criminals are caught breaking the law.

If we've been seeing "mainstream Islamic beliefs" in the wrong light and failing to recognize these terrorists are actually the "True Believers".

The peaceful, benevolent faces we're all told to accept as the "normal" are actually the backsliders and fringe members. If so, we need to recognize and correct that blunder post haste, or the killings will continue 'til one side has destroyed the other.

There is no compromise; just as the Bible does not compromise in its stand on homosexuality or witchcraft.
Click to expand...

Or the ideology is crap to start with - applicable to the bible too.
 
Reeco said:
I'd like to think that many Muslim communities wouldn't do what you suggest. That they would understand the reasoning behind something that I admit is fundamentally unpleasant. You seem to have a bad opinion of Muslims.

The system wouldn't be self administered at all.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't believe only Muslims would attempt to destroy that awful system. I'd probably register myself on it and hope others would do likewise.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Holy cow I love that image.
Click to expand...

It is a good image.

However, the intellectual dishonesty shown by many politicians, religious leaders and people of say, regarding current problems, will turn the image upside down.

That is my true fear.
 
Last edited:
Belgian thought said:
You might have to apologize for that one ;)
Click to expand...

I do mean religion in general; and not any particular belief system.

I'll even go so far as to say I think most religions are a positive influence on individuals overall, but many (all?) have vulnerabilities that allow them to be used as weapons, too.
 
Reeco said:
This is the tough part obviously.

The best I've been able to come up with is a data-finding and registration process, resulting in a database (MuslimNet for the rest of this post) that is then kept current by a combination of work by the authorities and the Muslim communities themselves . There are issues no doubt, and would beg the question 'why not all religions?' but that's where I think we (as in the UK) need to be resolute and accept that it will be impossible to tackle this problem without treading some uncomfortable ground.

I'll admit that I haven't thought every detail through, but basically Muslim communities would be identified and recorded on MuslimNet as entities. They would elect a leader or team of leaders that would be responsible for keeping their house in order on the database via a web portal interface, online forms and other tools. Mosques would also be registered as entities, as would the users of those Mosques. Communities and mosques could be scored (activities of persons of interest, low registration rates, missing data) and actions triggered by a high score. High scoring communities would therefore find themselves dealing with the authorities more regularly, which would hopefully make them get their act together.

It seems like a whole load of red tape, but this wouldn't be a 'make life difficult for Muslims' thing. The idea is to make community leaders accountable and responsible for helping the authorities weed out their radicalised, or potentially radicalised members. As I said before, I suspect this accountability and responsibility isn't acknowledged to the extent it needs to be, once the premise that Islam is at the heart of the problem is acknowledged. MuslimNet would force that acknowledgement, which isn't ideal - but this is the situation we are in.
Click to expand...

On 13 February 1940, Hans Böhmcker, Seyss Inquart's deputy for Amsterdam, summoned Abraham Asscher, diamond trader and chair of the central synagogue, as well as prof. David Cohen, to his offices and instructed them to become the chairmen of the newly-founded Jewish Council for Amsterdam, which would be an intermediary between the Nazi occupation regime and the Jewish population of Amsterdam (later the whole Netherlands). This Jewish Council would be instrumental in getting Jews to be registered with their religious affiliation in the civic registry, thus getting them a yellow star and a "J" stamped in their ID. Etc. etc.

You know the rest of the story. This is a really bad idea.
 
DragonLady said:
Christian beliefs are not so varied; it's the PRACTISE that is varied.

Christian beliefs come from the Holy Bible, but Christian practices are a mish-mash of scripture, tradition, culture, etc.

One cannot be both gay, and devoutly Christian, because the tenants of Christianity do not allow a person to be gay. Period. Full stop. However, many people accept those who are gay, and continue to consider themselves Christians because they also accept or believe other tenants of Christianity.

We have people who were born into Christianity, attend church every week, and say "amen" at the end of every sentence but have never read the Bible and have never given any serious consideration to the roots of the religion.

We have people who read every word of the Bible two or three times every year, follow many of the old laws, take some passages to extremes, and will not accept those who do not. These are often lauded by their fellows as being "Great Christians" and "on fire for Jesus" and "a sterling example of Christian values".

It is what it is, and it's not a particularly bad thing, until someone uses it as a platform for violence.

I would be quite shocked if Islamic people are any different. I suspect you have those who read the texts, pray every day, follow every tenant of the religious laws to the letter, and take some things to extremes. I'm also coming to the conclusion the more extreme views are more mainstream, or at least more mainstream in some areas.



To the highlighted: would you know if you did? We have plenty of Christians in the USA who seem very relaxed, broadminded, socially and politically progressive and all-round good eggs around outsiders, but are much more narrow minded and bigoted when they're at home with their families or surrounded by those of the same mindset.



Yes; it is, and I'm not sure, either. I'm willing to hear whatever argument you want to make, and read whatever data you want to point to.



A million, trillion, septaoctofilliongrillion gay Christians would not be evidence that the Bible is not against homosexuality. I suspect the same with Muslim/Islam beliefs.

Again, the TENANTS of the belief does not vary; despite how widely the PRACTISE might.



Fine. I live waaaaay out in the boondocks, so I personally don't know a single person who claims to be either Muslim or Islamic. Nor do I have enough interest in the subject to travel an hour plus to someplace I might find one. Everything I *think* about the whole religion comes from reading on the internet or watching the news.



In what way would it look different? A huge number of Christians believe the whole USA is in the hands of Satan. They believe the separation of church and state is an abomination, the acceptance of gay marriage is a one-way trip to Hell.

But they don't act on these beliefs because of various pressures from the outside -they want to keep their jobs, keep their homes, send their kids to school (in some cases just to avoid "persecution"), and lobby the supreme court to make their beliefs into laws.



True; but the subject under scrutiny at the moment is murders being committed to bring our attention to a religious tradition.

I'm beginning to suspect these attacks are being seen by the larger Islamic community as the works of "Great Believers". Just like the FLDS communities of polygamists; even those who do not participate are standing aside and allowing it to happen.



Sure; I can agree with that. Very little human behavior has just one cause. We can say "humans eat because we starve if we don't" but that doesn't speak a word about the huge range of diets, traditions, health issues and lifestyles that have grown up around this basic drive. So to say "there's one root cause of eating" is narrowly true, but obviously it's only the tippy-top pointy part of any discussion of food.

Religion and belief systems are all the same in that regard: we have a basic need to believe there is something beyond our selves, and from there on it's a mish-mash of influencers, drivers, teachings and traditions that can vary so widely it can be nearly impossible to identify them all.

Thankfully, we're only looking for ONE right now.



(nods) This is true. However, would that remain true if we just put down the weapons and tried to walk away from the situation? Or would we find ourselves on the receiving end of even more attacks?



I agree that something happened to cause the scales to tip and get this ball rolling. But as whatever it was is done, how do we UNDO it now? Or how do we mitigate the effects to try to right the situation?

I think it has to start with identifying the absolute root cause. So for me, the first question is still: Do the Islamic peoples see these terrorist acts as a problem?

Do they privately and quietly express disapproval for these fringe extremists 'round the dinner tables and in their prayer group discussions? Or do they privately and quietly express outright or tacit approval for the actions of these "Great Believers"?

If the latter, then we have a huge problem, and our easy-going live-and-let-live attitudes are going to have to change.
Click to expand...

To address your question in good I think the problem is that you are still asking about Islamic peoples as one block. There will be a diversity of views no doubt. However yes the vast majority see these terrorists as a problem. Many many for the very same reasons that you do. Others because they see it as unIslamic. Others because they feel it damages the religion. Etc etc etc.

No doubt some sympathise with them or have some level of mixed feelings. Perhaps they support what they see as the aims but not then​ methods. Of perhaps they see it as rightful retaliation for our attacks on them. Perhaps some others do see it as following Gods will.

Issues like this are always a tangled mess of things. I know a guy from the other side of the world who praises the IRA despite being neither Irish nor Catholic nor even a white European becauss he was fed a narrative that made sense to him by some people he befriended at a time when he was open to being influenced. And now its stuck.

Drawing battle lines and defining us Vs them dichotomies is only going to make more young kids receptive to bad ideas. On both sides.
 
ddt said:
On 13 February 1940, Hans Böhmcker, Seyss Inquart's deputy for Amsterdam, summoned Abraham Asscher, diamond trader and chair of the central synagogue, as well as prof. David Cohen, to his offices and instructed them to become the chairmen of the newly-founded Jewish Council for Amsterdam, which would be an intermediary between the Nazi occupation regime and the Jewish population of Amsterdam (later the whole Netherlands). This Jewish Council would be instrumental in getting Jews to be registered with their religious affiliation in the civic registry, thus getting them a yellow star and a "J" stamped in their ID. Etc. etc.

You know the rest of the story. This is a really bad idea.
Click to expand...


Do I recall reading somewhere the USA used data from the census bureau in the same way, to identify those of Japanese descent during ww2?

I do agree asking anyone to "register" their faith, renounce their faith, or rewrite their faith is a bad idea.

But just as many Christians have found ways to open their doors to homosexual members, I believe even hardcore adherents of other religions can be reasoned with on the individual level and come to terms with compromises that allow everyone to establish a stable, and peaceful coexistence.

But, first we have to absolutely identify the "hot button". I can't help but wonder if perhaps the concept of "jihad" is actually a misdirection; and that these terrorists are responding to something deeper or much less obvious.
 
DragonLady said:
My beliefs on this matter are 1) rather recent -I've been pretty happy accepting the idea these terrorist acts are the domain of a few; a radical subset of a larger group and 2) based somewhat on my own evangelical Christian background.

The church I grew up in always made it very clear that anyone who wasn't actively recruiting new members, or wasn't willing to sever ties with anyone who didn't believe was "lukewarm" and therefore not a true Christian.

I'm beginning to believe that Islamic beliefs are the same way. That a true believer must not compromise, must not accept any other belief system, must not tolerate anyone who does. If so, then every member would be under some [probably varying] pressure to participate in a worldwide campaign to either convert or destroy. Those individuals who choose not to play, are then seen as allowing wickedness.*
Click to expand...
Your problem is, I think, in the two highlighted words. While evangelicals - or some evangelicals, "evangelical" is also a description of a wide variety of beliefs - may be instructed that they should go around proselytizing and severing ties with non-believers, this is certainly not true for the vast majority of Christians. I've never met a Christian in my life who tried to convert me (save the Jehovas who come knocking at the door).

Likewise, such an uncompromising attitude is not general to Islam, or to all Muslims, but only to a small subset which we normally denote as "Islamism".
 
Belgian thought said:
It is a good image.

However, the intellectual dishonesty shown by many politicians, religious leaders and people of say, regarding current problems, will turn the image upside down.

That is my true fear.
Click to expand...


Yes we can only hope the reactionary nonsense from the right will calm down when they stop being intellectually dishonest about their positions and start examining facts and evidence and reflecting on their abhorrent behaviour. I won't hold my breath though.
 
To address your question in good I think the problem is that you are still asking about Islamic peoples as one block.
Click to expand...

The peoples, no.

The principles, yes.

Just as the Bible contains the Christian principles -both those embraced by the mainstream, and those not- I suspect the Islamic principles are contained within their texts or oral history or other traditional sources.
 
Giordano said:
The key problem remains- I simply do not see how one can prevent an individual from ramming a car into a random group of innocents and killing some and injuring many. Whatever their motivation. Drunk people, people on drugs, and angry sociopaths just fired from their jobs do this (although they don't make the news as much as terrorists) and have been doing this for years. One can put down barriers in the most obvious places, but there will always be 1000 more places unprotected. How can this kind of terrorist action be stopped? It is not even something that needs to be coordinated by a central organization, nor can one reasonably expect that we can prevent everyone from becoming radicalized if we clamp down on the spread of the violent ideologies on the web, in the streets, or in the mosques/churches/etc.

Preventing ideas from spreading, even bad ideas, is not something that has worked well in the past, and driving them further underground has usually made the situation worse.

It might be possible to better control suicide bombings, but even here it seems that completely preventing access to materials that can be turned into bombs is very difficult.

Do I have a solution? Not particularly. My point in posting here is to question many of the "solutions" proposed in this thread that would undermine the core concepts of our civilization and throw away what is crucial in our civilization to achieve the unachievable. In an unthinking reaction that we do not apply to other problems that kill far more people per year.
Click to expand...

If a person is willing to die in order to kill others, there's nothing you can do to stop them from taking that action. The best you can hope for is to keep them from getting to their target.

It's absurd, it's ridiculous, but the only really effective thing that can be done is to prevent them and anyone like them from entering your country. You end up right back at the other end of the spectrum, banning anyone from predominantly Muslim countries being allowed within your borders.

There is no good solution to this. There's not even a reasonable solution. The only things that seem like they have any chance of being effective... and unreasonable isolationist solutions.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Yes we can only hope the reactionary nonsense from the right will calm down when they stop being intellectually dishonest about their positions and start examining facts and evidence and reflecting on their abhorrent behaviour. I won't hold my breath though.
Click to expand...

You have missed my point entirely - we have to address the elephant in the room.

Others Muslims are doing so, and good for them too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISEk2ALt3c8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZZMXV_PRXk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy3Fd5JwArM

And if we skeptics want to criticize or even laugh at, without fear, a ridiculous ideology, we should be free to do so.

That form of criticism led to Europe's and the West's enlightenment by removing the shackles of religion.

I do not want to go backwards based on the sensitivities of one group.

By not doing so i.e. criticizing Islam, we are being condescending (and could be argued racist) since we assume that the ideology and the followers being criticized do not have the intellectual capacity for debate.

That too is intellectual dishonesty.


ETA ... and we in the West need to do it before the extreme Right Wing take the baton and twist it to their non intellectual but purely perverse and ugly emotive argument.
 
Last edited:
applecorped said:
A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion says, "Because if I do, I will die too."

The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream,the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp "Why?"

Replies the scorpion: "Its my nature..."
Click to expand...

Very similar to the young woman and the rattlesnake. "You knew I was a snake when you picked me up"...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom