Manhattan explosion

[McHrozni]

There are two different, related problems. The first is that ISIS has conquered vast parts of Syria and Iraq and has instituted an Islamist terror regime there. The second is that some Muslims in the West feel attracted to ISIS' ideology and either try to get to Syria to join ISIS, or plan and commit terror attacks in their home countries. These radicalized form a small part of the Muslim communities in the West, and they're invariably late teens or twens, and second generation immigrants. That is what happens, and, frankly, I don't understand why that happens either.

It happens because Islam is incompatible with the society around them, so they face a dilemma: their religion or the society around them. Invariably some will choose religion. We call those "radicalized", and the rest "secular".

We have radicalized Christians too in our midst. In some countries they even conduct terror attacks, usually against abortion clinics. The difference is that these people are an actual aberration, an actual tiny minority, whereas in Muslims they're a very substantial minority.

But the vast, vast majority of Western Muslims are against this. Their clerics speak against it; these youngsters typically don't get radicalized in their local mosque, but online. Their parents are against it; often they don't know about it until it's too late, and they're aghast when they find out. There are legion stories of parents going to the police saying "my son wants to join ISIS, please stop him". Look at the figures in the link Aisha posted: 26% of the jihadists that the American security services track, have been tipped off by family or their community.

Look at the figures from a different perspective: in almost 3/4 of cases, the family or their community ignored the warning signs. This isn't evidence a "vast majority" is against it. All evidence points out that there are four groups - radicals, those who agree with radicals but don't actively help them, those that disagree with radicals but don't actively hinder them, and those who are against the radicals and proactive in it.
According to the best numbers this last group amounts to 20-30%, there are 5-15% of radicals, and the other two groups fill out the rest.
None of the groups amounts to a "vast majority". Chances are not one group amounts to anything more than a plurality.

If there was an actual "vast majority" of people who actively hinder the radicals, Islamic terrorism in the West would happen significantly less frequently than Christian terrorism does, simply because Muslims are outnumbered by Christians from 10:1 to 100:1, depending on the country. We can chalk up some of the difference to other factors, but in the case of the United States, we're talking about 1-2 orders of magnitude of difference, which can be accounted for with, well, 'misinterpretations' that passages like:

Sahih Bukhari, 1:2:24: Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."

mean that Mohamed has been commanded to fight non-Muslims until they convert to Islam, when it's obviously an account of utmost tolerance of unbelievers by Islam.

/sarcasm

There are passages like these all over Hadith and other Islamic holy texts. Seriously what's the reason why they aren't a problem? Because not all Muslims agree with them or something?

McHrozni

 

[A'isha]

It happens because Islam is incompatible with the society around them, so they face a dilemma: their religion or the society around them. Invariably some will choose religion. We call those "radicalized", and the rest "secular".

Except, as I've already pointed out to you (twice now) the terrorists target their recruiting efforts towards people who know the least about their religion and specifically avoid the more devout, because the more religious the person is the more resistant they are to the Jihadists' message.

Look at the figures from a different perspective: in almost 3/4 of cases, the family or their community ignored the warning signs.

Or there were no warning signs to see (or no family to see them): Jihadists target the isolated and disaffected for recruitment.

That number isn't "1/4 of families/communities don't ignore warning signs, while 3/4 do", it's "of all the jihadists being watched by authorities for whatever reason, more than 1/4 are on that list because their families/communities alerted those authorities".

If there was an actual "vast majority" of people who actively hinder the radicals, Islamic terrorism in the West would happen significantly less frequently than Christian terrorism does, simply because Muslims are outnumbered by Christians from 10:1 to 100:1, depending on the country.

It does. That's why you've had to focus on things like death counts instead of number of incidents.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You should probably read up on terrorists

Start with the IRA

Suggest you clue up.

 

[Noztradamus]

Precisely, and thank you.

What exactly is the upside of not offending them anyway?

McHrozni

They might kill you last

 

[McHrozni]

Except, as I've already pointed out to you (twice now) the terrorists target their recruiting efforts towards people who know the least about their religion and specifically avoid the more devout, because the more religious the person is the more resistant they are to the Jihadists' message.

And as I've pointed out to you at least twice now, this isn't because of some inherent quality of the religion, but rather that someone without strong preconceived notions about the religion is much easier to convince.

Look at your own 'arguments' as to why Islam isn't a problem and try to look at it from the outside if you can. "I don't interpret it in this way, so it's not a problem" isn't a convincing argument. It's not even an argument, it's a mere assertion based on personal opinion, nothing more.

That number isn't "1/4 of families/communities don't ignore warning signs, while 3/4 do", it's "of all the jihadists being watched by authorities for whatever reason, more than 1/4 are on that list because their families/communities alerted those authorities".

And in the remaining 3/4 of cases this didn't happen. Conceivably that's partially because the warning signs are what we'd consider piety in a different religion, and to some extent because a significant proportion of Muslims actually consider killing the kaffir to be virtuous, they just don't want the non-spiritual baggage that comes with it (permanent vacation in Cuba et.al.). Yet you still claim the religion is not to blame, a claim I find progressively more laughable with every new silly excuse you attempt to make.

It does. That's why you've had to focus on things like death counts instead of number of incidents.

There are many factors that are important - total number of plots, number of plots that come to fruition, number of perpetrators and body count are among them. The number of plots that come to fruition you solely focus on is certainly the least important of the them, not least because law enforcement is more effective if there are many incidents from one particular group.

For example:

Citing research from his institution, Major noted “114 plots or 77 percent of them are self-identified Caliphate plots,” and “about 20 percent” are groups such as “neo-Nazis, anarchists, the anti-government groups.”

http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...ert-threat-of-homegrown-terror-has-escalated/

The number of plots is obviously much more important than the number of plots that succeed, simply because Police is much better at tackling predictable threats than unpredictable ones, for reasons I hope are obvious. Muslims are responsible for over 3/4 of all tracked terror plots in the US, while amounting to only 1% of population. The difference isn't just significant, it's staggering.

However you will, of course, cherry pick the data, focus solely on successful plots where the difference is smaller (but still significant) and pretend the evidence for Islam being a part of the problem doesn't exist.

In a related matter, I noticed you completely ignored the Hadith I quoted. Why is that? Because you think it's been mistranslated or something? You tend to dismiss such evidence without ever giving a compelling reason to do so, which I don't find particularly convincing.

McHrozni

 

[smartcooky]

The number of plots is obviously much more important than the number of plots that succeed, simply because Police is much better at tackling predictable threats than unpredictable ones, for reasons I hope are obvious. Muslims are responsible for over 3/4 of all tracked terror plots in the US, while amounting to only 1% of population. The difference isn't just significant, it's staggering

And the implications are more than just staggering, because that 75% of all terrorist plots being tracked is not being planned by the whole 1% of Muslims living in the US, but by a just small part of that 1%. The disproportionality defies belief.

 

[McHrozni]

And the implications are more than just staggering, because that 75% of all terrorist plots being tracked is not being planned by the whole 1% of Muslims living in the US, but by a just small part of that 1%. The disproportionality defies belief.

Well yes, but the same is true for the remaining 99%. The 23% of plots by 99% of population is also conducted by a very, very tiny minority of the 99%. All evidence suggests this minority is proportionally significantly smaller than the small part of that 1%, which is where the 77-fold difference in the number of plots comes from.

Overall this shows Islam increases the danger of terrorism by approximately two orders of magnitude, and the increased focus of law enforcement and intelligence agencies on Islamic terrorists reduces that by approximately one order of magnitude.

A'isha, alongside many others, completely ignores the textual evidence that strongly supports the observational data and tries to use the cherry-picked observational data to conclude Islam is not a source of problems. I the approach find rather ridiculous. Does she want to end up in a gas chamber, I wonder? Because this is where the whole thing will end if the problem with Islam is not tackled before it escalates beyond control. Burkini bans were already quite popular, even though it was a stupid, counter-productive policy. Even westerners have a tolerance limit, and since that limit is generally much higher than elsewhere, consequences of reaching it will also be much more severe. The only way to prevent that is to change Islam into something radically different than it is. It can still be called Islam and involve pilgrimage to touch a meteorite in Arabia, as the pagan cultist tradition dictates and so on, but it also needs to excise the parts that make it problematic completely and permanently if the catastrophe is to be avoided.

McHrozni

 

[A'isha]

And as I've pointed out to you at least twice now, this isn't because of some inherent quality of the religion, but rather that someone without strong preconceived notions about the religion is much easier to convince.

If someone who doesn't have strong preconceived notions about the religion is much easier to convince to turn to jihadism than someone who is strongly versed in that religion, then it's pretty clearly not the religion itself that's to blame.

Look at your own 'arguments' as to why Islam isn't a problem and try to look at it from the outside if you can. "I don't interpret it in this way, so it's not a problem" isn't a convincing argument. It's not even an argument, it's a mere assertion based on personal opinion, nothing more.

If your "interpretation" were correct, than we wouldn't be seeing what we're seeing regarding jihadist recruiting techniques, we'd be seeing the opposite.

And in the remaining 3/4 of cases this didn't happen. Conceivably that's partially because the warning signs are what we'd consider piety in a different religion, and to some extent because a significant proportion of Muslims actually consider killing the kaffir to be virtuous, they just don't want the non-spiritual baggage that comes with it (permanent vacation in Cuba et.al.).

Conceivable to you, sure, but your speculations already contradict observable reality regarding devoutness vs. recruitment by jihadists.

Citing research from his institution, Major noted “114 plots or 77 percent of them are self-identified Caliphate plots,” and “about 20 percent” are groups such as “neo-Nazis, anarchists, the anti-government groups.”

http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...ert-threat-of-homegrown-terror-has-escalated/

A "security briefing" [EDIT: with no data, methodology, or anything else] given at the International Spy Museum to the Washington Free Beacon by a for-profit "think tank" that not only pushes conspiracy theories that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the Obama Administration, but also peddles "spycraft-themed excursions" such as SpyCruise and SpyRetreat, co-sponsored by crackpot Paul Vallely. Oh, and like every good counterterrorist research organization, they have an official Cafepress site where you can buy T-shirts, coffee mugs, bumper stickers, and beer steins.

Yeah, you're going to have to find a better source than that.

The number of plots is obviously much more important than the number of plots that succeed, simply because Police is much better at tackling predictable threats than unpredictable ones, for reasons I hope are obvious. Muslims are responsible for over 3/4 of all tracked terror plots in the US, while amounting to only 1% of population. The difference isn't just significant, it's staggering.

However you will, of course, cherry pick the data, focus solely on successful plots where the difference is smaller (but still significant) and pretend the evidence for Islam being a part of the problem doesn't exist.

Earlier this year I linked you to Europol's Terrorism Situation and Trend Report, which tallies not just successful attacks, but failed and foiled attacks as well. From 2006 through 2013, there were 2680 failed, foiled, or successful terrorist attacks in the EU, with 17 of them (or 0.6% of them) being Islamist or religiously-inspired. 2111 of them (or 78.7%) were separatist attacks (Northern Irish, Basque, etc.).

In a related matter, I noticed you completely ignored the Hadith I quoted. Why is that? Because you think it's been mistranslated or something? You tend to dismiss such evidence without ever giving a compelling reason to do so, which I don't find particularly convincing.

Mainly because it's off-topic for this thread, and I've already plaued dueling scripture quotations with you and tried telling you what Muslims believe about that. If you want to ignore what Muslims actually believe and prefer to stick to your own personal interpretation instead, you go right ahead and don't let me stop you.

Does she want to end up in a gas chamber, I wonder?

You know, if I'm the one being told to back off my opinions on a message board or I risk being put in a gas chamber when the inevitable genocide against Muslims comes, maybe it's not my ideology that's the problem here.

 

[Belz...]

If someone who doesn't have strong preconceived notions about the religion is much easier to convince to turn to jihadism than someone who is strongly versed in that religion, then it's pretty clearly not the religion itself that's to blame.

Excuse me, but how does that follow?

 

[A'isha]

Excuse me, but how does that follow?

Because if "Islam" were the necessary and sufficient component, jihadist recruiters wouldn't be avoiding already-knowledgeable and devout Muslims in favor of targeting those who are the least knowledgeable and devout: if it were, knowledge of and adherence to Islam would directly correlate with likelihood to follow a jihadist path (ie, the more Muslim you are, the more likely you are to find jihadist arguments compelling), and recruiters would be focusing their efforts on those who are the most religious.

Instead, what we see is an inverse correlation: the less Muslim you are, it seems, the more likely you are to find jihadist arguments compelling (and the more Muslim you are, the less likely you are to find jihadist arguments compelling). That's why jihadists try to recruit those who know the least about the religion and who are the least devout, and specifically warn recruiters off from trying to recruit those who are the most religious.

Obviously, being more Muslim is not any kind of inoculation against jihadism, but it's pretty clear that being more Muslim is not any kind of driver towards jihadism, contrary to what you'd expect if it were Islam itself that were the necessary and sufficient component.

 

[Belz...]

Thank you for the explanation.

 

[jimbob]

It happens because Islam is incompatible with the society around them, so they face a dilemma: their religion or the society around them. Invariably some will choose religion. We call those "radicalized", and the rest "secular".

Really? Not a Fundamentalist, anti-intellectual wing of Islam, but Islam itself?

I have several Muslim colleagues (most Sunni, and a few Shia). I can think of one whose actions often worry me - but only because they involve him trying to commit us to technologically risky projects for customers or wants us to give him very short timescales with no slack for mistakes.

The others? I am no more worried by them than I am by the small group of devout Christians at work (they have had joint Bible/Koran studies before now, not my thing, but I am aware of it).

 

[McHrozni]

If someone who doesn't have strong preconceived notions about the religion is much easier to convince to turn to jihadism than someone who is strongly versed in that religion, then it's pretty clearly not the religion itself that's to blame.

I'm sure you'd agree that I have strong preconceived notions about Islam. Therefore either you need to acknowledge me as an authority on the matter, or else admit your baloney attempt at switching the argument is intellectually dishonest to the point of ridicule.

Would you like to try again maybe?

If your "interpretation" were correct, than we wouldn't be seeing what we're seeing regarding jihadist recruiting techniques, we'd be seeing the opposite.

Would you care to base this on something other than proof by assertion? I'm all ears.

Well, eyes technically, but you know what I mean.

Earlier this year I linked you to Europol's Terrorism Situation and Trend Report, which tallies not just successful attacks, but failed and foiled attacks as well. From 2006 through 2013, there were 2680 failed, foiled, or successful terrorist attacks in the EU, with 17 of them (or 0.6% of them) being Islamist or religiously-inspired. 2111 of them (or 78.7%) were separatist attacks (Northern Irish, Basque, etc.).

Again with the cherry-picking, I see.

Here's a quote from the 2013 report, for example:

A continuous increase in the number of arrests for religiously inspired terrorism has been observed since 2011, whereas arrests for separatist terrorism have significantly decreased.

Not surprisingly, the 2016 report has a whole section on Jihadis. Why?

Because according to page 44 of the report, out of 104 attack in 2015 with a specified source, 17 were Jihadi. This is twice the percentage of Muslims in any European state, about eight times where it should be, if Islam was a random factor. One page down, on page 45, are the list of arrests. Out of 933 arrests for a specified cause, 687 were Jihadis. That's almost 3/4 of all terror arrests coming from 2% of population - almost 40 times where it should be.

Remember when I said police is better at preventing predictable attacks? There's your reason. The low number of attacks by Jihadis is a testament of good police work, not benevolence of Islam. Not that the number of attacks is actually low, since it's still about several times of what it should be, if Islam was a non-causative factor. Remember when I said that Islam accounts for an approximately 100-fold increase in terror risk, but police work reduces it to about 10-fold? Interpol numbers confirm both numbers ... before we dive in death tolls, where Islam easily beats all other sources of terrorism combined.

So yeah, I do feel confident citing that source, given that what you consider a good source essentially confirms it.

Just so you know, above is a proven correlation between Islam and terrorism. There is also a very compelling set of mechanisms that explain that relation, namely Islamic holy texts and often historical examples, I quoted one such example in this thread. Islamic terrorists themselves further explicitly state this is why they're conducing attacks. What do you offer against that again?

If you want to ignore what Muslims actually believe and prefer to stick to your own personal interpretation instead, you go right ahead and don't let me stop you.

If every single Muslim in the world believed Islam compelled them into receptive homosexual relations with pigs it wouldn't change the fact the Islamic scriptures say no combination of that is permissible. Please acknowledge that already.

You know, if I'm the one being told to back off my opinions on a message board or I risk being put in a gas chamber when the inevitable genocide against Muslims comes, maybe it's not my ideology that's the problem here.

You don't risk being put in a gas chamber because of your opinions, where did you get that idea from anyway? You risk being put in a gas chamber because you (appear to) follow a religion whose greatest achievement in the past several centuries is 1001 ways to make innocent everyday objects into tools to commit mass murder, and whose followers (including you) spare no effort to defend the religion and keep it as it is while making essentially no effort to fix the glaring problems with the religion.

My comments about gas chambers are exactly as much a threat as a climatologist warning about the disastrous climate change is a threat. I actually want to spare you from that fate, but you're listening about as much as a rich oil magnate is to the climatologist. This was explained to you before. Why do you keep misrepresenting my points?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Really? Not a Fundamentalist, anti-intellectual wing of Islam, but Islam itself?

Yes, Islam itself. I'll explain below.

I have several Muslim colleagues (most Sunni, and a few Shia). I can think of one whose actions often worry me - but only because they involve him trying to commit us to technologically risky projects for customers or wants us to give him very short timescales with no slack for mistakes.

The others? I am no more worried by them than I am by the small group of devout Christians at work (they have had joint Bible/Koran studies before now, not my thing, but I am aware of it).

You're making the classical mistake of conflating Muslims with Islam. Muslims come in all shapes and sizes, and the majority are no more likely to commit terrorist attacks than anyone else. This is not due to effects of Islam, but rather the effects of factors other than Islam - be it human nature, culture, education or what have you. You can't judge Islam by the best of Muslims, you need to take a wider view.

This wider view must necessarily take in mind the overall successes of the Islamic civilization (generally abysmal, with a few notable but not lasting exceptions), Islamic holy texts (much of that is outright horrible), best Muslims (nothing particularly outstanding there), average Muslims (not horrible, but not great) and worst Muslims (I won't delve into describing those).

The overall score is that Islam scores poorly on many fronts and disastrously on others. There are occasional green shots, like the Islamic golden age, there are very occasional notable individuals who are Muslim and still contribute much to the society (e.g. Mohammad Abdus Salam), but these are exceptions. The norm is that Islam retards development of human civilization and humanist principles. As such it is Islam that is the problem. The only thing these examples of upstanding Muslims show us - few and very far between as they are - is that the problem of Islam is not always insurmountable. If that's the best thing you can say about an ideology then any honest judgement of the said ideology will have a strong negative slant to it.

That's how you approach judging an ideology in an organized, consistent and honest way. If it's any consolation I don't consider Islam to be the worst ideology in human history. It's in the top 10 of the list, probably also in the top 3, but I really can't say it's the worst.

You're correct in noting that some wings of Islam are worse than others. This is true for any ideology.

McHrozni

 

[marplots]

(much snipped)
This wider view must necessarily take in mind the overall successes of the Islamic civilization (generally abysmal, with a few notable but not lasting exceptions), Islamic holy texts (much of that is outright horrible), best Muslims (nothing particularly outstanding there), average Muslims (not horrible, but not great) and worst Muslims (I won't delve into describing those).

I disagree in that your criteria are misplaced. If we look instead at Islam on an individual basis, the ideology fares much better, and certainly no worse than Christianity.

It may be that Islam is not a good doctrine for running a country, but so what? On an individual basis, it is quite good at resolving existential angst, providing a "life path" and building a strong family and community. It is a misapplication of western values to decry the principles embodied in Islam as primitive or against human values as if those values were set objectively. Shouldn't we rather accept that Muslims find value and purpose in it, and that is sufficient?

One only has to ask what happens when a Muslim immigrates to the west. Do they abandon their religion in the face of some objective evidence that it is shallow and misinformed? Hardly. They may modify it to fit the circumstances, but I doubt the faithful are leaving their Korans at the customs booth.

 

[McHrozni]

I disagree in that your criteria are misplaced. If we look instead at Islam on an individual basis, the ideology fares much better, and certainly no worse than Christianity.

If you discount the possibility of becoming a human bomb, I take it?

It may be that Islam is not a good doctrine for running a country, but so what? On an individual basis, it is quite good at resolving existential angst, providing a "life path" and building a strong family and community. It is a misapplication of western values to decry the principles embodied in Islam as primitive or against human values as if those values were set objectively.

I daresay resolving personal angst comes secondary to living a life worth living to begin with. In fact, the latter is a major contributor to having the said angst in the first place.

Furthermore, I fail to see how Islam is so good at resolving angst, when there are way more Muslims who devote their lives to killing others for a chance at paradise than there are in other religions. I'm sure some make it, but given the bad results on the other side I wouldn't call Islam to be particularly good at this.

Islam is objectively against human values, if you define them as:
civility, respect, consideration; honesty, fairness, loyalty, sharing, solidarity; openness, listening, welcoming, acceptance, recognition, appreciation; brotherhood, friendship, empathy, compassion, love, and furthermore request these are met without preconditions. You see, Islam has a precondition: you need to be a Muslim male for the human values to apply to you. If you're an infidel or a female then screw you. Literately in some cases.

Ayat al-Baqarah 2:223: Your women are your tilth (to cultivate), so come into your tillage how you choose; (...)

Needless to say, criticizing this is no misappropriation of Western values. Equality for all, regardless of their religion or gender or anything else you are unable to change about yourself is the overreaching human value. Yes, it started in the West, and it is one of the greatest achievements of Western civilization, but so is the very idea of human value.

One only has to ask what happens when a Muslim immigrates to the west. Do they abandon their religion in the face of some objective evidence that it is shallow and misinformed? Hardly. They may modify it to fit the circumstances, but I doubt the faithful are leaving their Korans at the customs booth.

Most people don't take religion very seriously and this applies to Muslims as well. I struggle to see how the fact not all Muslims take Islam seriously absolves Islam of guilt it has for, among other things, inciting violence.

McHrozni

 

[smartcooky]

You're making the classical mistake of conflating Muslims with Islam. Muslims come in all shapes and sizes, and the majority are no more likely to commit terrorist attacks than anyone else. This is not due to effects of Islam, but rather the effects of factors other than Islam - be it human nature, culture, education or what have you. You can't judge Islam by the best of Muslims, you need to take a wider view.

Yes.

Judging Islam by the best of Muslims is rather like judging Christianity by the Salvation Army, or the whole of Catholicism by St Vincent De Paul!

 

[McHrozni]

Judging Islam by the best of Muslims is rather like judging Christianity by the Salvation Army, or the whole of Catholicism by St Vincent De Paul!

Yup. I wouldn't recommend that either. Comparison between Islam and Christianity invariably comes to comparing the best of Islam with the worst of Christianity. Islam comes marginally ahead in that case.

Comparing the Salvation Army to Boko Haram yields results that are a bit more one-sided, but the logic is only as flawed as when comparing Islam during the Islamic golden age to the Inquisition. The former is widely agreed to be absurd, the latter standard practice.

An average westerner has a far better opinion about Islam than it ever deserved.

McHrozni

 

[Belgian thought]

Judging from various threads there seems to be common theme.

1.) If you are not from religion x, y or z or are not a believer of religion x, y or z you cannot criticise it because you do not know enough about religion x, y or z.

2.) If you are a believer of religion x, y or z but you do not know enough about religion x, y or z - you blow people up.

Good stuff this religion.

 

[smartcooky]

Judging from various threads there seems to be common theme.

1.) If you are not from religion x, y or z or are not a believer of religion x, y or z you cannot criticise it because you do not know enough about religion x, y or z.

2.) If you are a believer of religion x, y or z but you do not know enough about religion x, y or z - you blow people up.

Good stuff this religion.

Harsh, but fair!