Manhattan explosion

[Giz]

Which means that the problem isn't those things in and of themselves, but with the interpretation of those things held by the terrorists.

No. Logically it could be:

- a problem with those things

And/or

- a problem with those people


(and the answer may vary between different types of terrorism)

 

[A'isha]

Strawman.

US Domestic terrorists do not go to [_{insert name of foreign country here]} and blow up school buses, or behead people.

Generally not, but that doesn't stop them from still being terrorists or make the threat posed by them vanish in a puff of moon-logic.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Strawman.

US Domestic terrorists do not go to [_{insert name of foreign country here]} and blow up school buses, or behead people.

How is that relevant?

Isn't the relevant phenomenon hear the terrorist attacks themselves?

 

[CosCos]

Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.

Yes, we were at war with the Axis powers in WWII, and then a Cold War with the Soviets in the half century thereafter. However, to simply conclude that we were at war with those countries or their governments is a gross misunderstanding of those conflicts. In each case we were at war with an ideology. In WWII it was nationalism/fascism, in the Cold War it was socialism/communism. We didn't simply defeat the Nazis or Germany in WWII and certainly not just the Soviet Union. In each case we had to defeat the underlying ideologies. Same thing with this conflict, the more simplistic among us see it as a war with ISIS or Al Qaeda or what have you. This kind of thinking is deluded and dangerous. It's putting politics ahead of lives.

 

[Giz]

In each case we had to defeat the underlying ideologies. Same thing with this conflict, the more simplistic among us see it as a war with ISIS or Al Qaeda or what have you. This kind of thinking is deluded and dangerous. It's putting politics ahead of lives.

Indeed. Tactical responses are like putting a band aid over a festering wound - doesn't address the underlying issue.

 

[smartcooky]

Here is the point: point.

And here you are: you.

They are NOT condemning the attacks. They are condemning any condemnation of the attacks through their defense of their religion. In fact, the defense of the religion comes first and foremost. It's very similar to Obama's mindset (and your's presumably). The important thing after an Islamic terrorist attack is for everyone to remember that this is not Islam, we shouldn't retaliate against muslims, yada yada blah.

What do I want them to do? How about start creating an atmosphere where this **** isn't tolerated? How about start speaking up against the injustices that are perpetrated in the name of their religion instead of at best, silently condoning it by remaining quiet, or at worst actively condoning it. How about stop apologizing and pretending that the tenets of Islam are not at odds with western liberal societies? How about raising as loud an outcry about say, the carnage in Nice instead of the outcry about the burkini ban? How about stop pretending that Israel is the great satan and realize there is a very rotten satan in their very midst? If it came down to either the total annihilation of ISIS or the total annihilation of Israel, do you know how many moderate muslims would make the right choice? That right there should tell you who's on the right side of history.

There is a lot moderate muslims can do to start creating an atmosphere that is hostile to the more extreme proponents of their religion. But all we see is a circling of the wagons and a knee-jerk defense of their filthy ideology thereby enabling more of the same.

Btw, I see you trotting out polling data and statistics about attitudes in the arab world and elsewhere. Having lived in that society I can tell you those are as worthless as the pages of the Qoran.

Hammer drives nail firmly home!

When the next Islamic Terrorist atrocity happens, how about Islamic leaders and spokespeople just condemn the attack unconditionally, with no inane pleading that "this is not the way of Islam" and other irrelevant crap. Nobody cares whether this is Islam's way or not; these conditional messages damage Islams credibility anyway!

 

[mijopaalmc]

Hammer drives nail firmly home!

When the next Islamic Terrorist atrocity happens, how about Islamic leaders and spokespeople just condemn the attack unconditionally, with no inane pleading that "this is not the way of Islam" and other irrelevant crap. Nobody cares whether this is Islam's way or not; these conditional messages damage Islams credibility anyway!

Because mentioning that not all Muslims believe the same thing is not a condition of the condemnation.

 

[A'isha]

Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.

Yes, we were at war with the Axis powers in WWII, and then a Cold War with the Soviets in the half century thereafter. However, to simply conclude that we were at war with those countries or their governments is a gross misunderstanding of those conflicts. In each case we were at war with an ideology.

Not really, as seen by the fact that we utterly defeated the nationalist/fascist Nazi Germany but openly allied with the nationalist/fascist Spain, even embracing them as a member of NATO.

 

[smartcooky]

Generally not, but that doesn't stop them from still being terrorists or make the threat posed by them vanish in a puff of moon-logic.

You are still missing the point I see.

The chances of anyone outside of the US or a US territory being caught up in a US domestic terrorist attack is NIL

The chances of anyone anywhere in the world being caught up in an Islamic terrorist attack is higher than zero.

Islamic terrorism is a global threat. That is what is being discussed here, so yes, separatist and US domestic terrorism does "vanish in a puff of logic" because it is irrelevant!

 

[mijopaalmc]

You are still missing the point I see.

The chances of anyone outside of the US or a US territory being caught up in a US domestic terrorist attack is NIL

The chances of anyone anywhere in the world being caught up in an Islamic terrorist attack is higher than zero.

Islamic terrorism is a global threat. That is what is being discussed here, so yes, separatist and US domestic terrorism does "vanish in a puff of logic" because it is irrelevant!

I'd say that it is you who is missing the point. The issue is terrorism and not the motivator of terrorism because people who share the alleged motivator don't all engage in terrorism.

 

[A'isha]

When the next Islamic Terrorist atrocity happens, how about Islamic leaders and spokespeople just condemn the attack unconditionally, with no inane pleading that "this is not the way of Islam" and other irrelevant crap. Nobody cares whether this is Islam's way or not; these conditional messages damage Islams credibility anyway!

When people get blamed over and over for things they not only didn't do but don't even support, they tend to try and defend themselves against the repeated accusations.

 

[marplots]

Indeed. Tactical responses are like putting a band aid over a festering wound - doesn't address the underlying issue.

What is the underlying issue and how should we address it?

 

[A'isha]

The chances of anyone outside of the US or a US territory being caught up in a US domestic terrorist attack is NIL

Which is kind of meaningless for the people inside the US or in a US territory.

The chances of anyone anywhere in the world being caught up in an Islamic terrorist attack is higher than zero.

As are the chances of them being caught up in other kinds of terrorism. In most places (and certainly in the US and Europe), the chances of you being caught up in one of those other kinds of terrorism are actually far greater than your chances of being caught up in an Islamic terrorist attack.

 

[Crazy Eddie Point]

Hats off to McHrozni for persevering in the face of the dogmatic stances taken by the head-in-sand apologists. It boggles the mind how western liberals will keep defending a religion that is so at odds with the ideals they hold so dear. Especially on an atheist forum! All in the name of political correctness, or more accurately because they can't be seen to be agreeing with the True Enemy (conservatives).

I grew up as a christian in egypt and have seen first hand what peaceful, loving Islam does to people, and I had it easy back in the 80s and 90s. Now we have an ethnic cleansing being perpetrated all over against anyone who doesn't think the right way, but the Aichas of the world will pervert all the statistics in the world to "prove" that there is no Islamic threat.

The best is when I check my facebook feed after yet another terrorist attack. 90% of my facebook friends are the moderate muslims Aicha holds up as paragons of virtue and "moderate Islam." These are upper middle class people who went to a very expensive, very exclusive private school under the british IGCSE education system. However, they are muslims first, and everything else after that. For every condemnation of the brutality being perpetrated, there are 10 diatribes of how "this is not Islam" and then 50 examples of people saying mean things about Islam, as if THAT'S the problem and not the killings that just happened. The point is that in my sampling of the "moderate muslims" that people like Aicha pretend are representative of true Islam, they do NOT see Islamic terrorism as that big of a deal. They see western attitudes against Islam as a a real problem and not the real acts of terrorism. This attitude is encouraged and bolstered by western "enlightened" liberals and the results are what's happening in the world today.

McHrozni is absolutely correct. Islam IS the problem and no amount of dishonest statistic twisting and rhetoric will fix it. Until "moderate muslims" and the collective West unite to first, honestly identify the problem, and second, eradicate this cancer, the situation will only get worse. And that'll happen when pigs fly because we're asking people to go against their hard-wired religious beliefs.

Wow, well said.
I'm afraid it mostly falls on deaf ears to the left-leaning politically correct in here who inexplicably seem to try to prop up an archaic brutal practice.

 

[smartcooky]

I'd say that it is you who is missing the point. The issue is terrorism and not the motivator of terrorism because people who share the alleged motivator don't all engage in terrorism.

Your clearly have not been following the debate between A'isha and McHrozni.

McHrozni has been saying (correctly) that Islamic terrorists use the teachings of Islam as "the motivator of terrorism", and since those terrorists take their fight to anyone who disagrees with their motivation, i.e. everyone on the planet who doesn't follow their interpretations of the teachings, that makes Islamic terrorists a global threat.

Aisha disagrees, and thinks that there is nothing special about Islamic terrorists, and that ALL terrorists are a global threat. She is clearly wrong on this, and uses fudged reports and cherry-picked statistics to bolster her failed assertions!

 

[mijopaalmc]

Your clearly have not been following the debate between A'isha and McHrozni.

McHrozni has been saying (correctly) that Islamic terrorists use the teachings of Islam as "the motivator of terrorism", and since those terrorists take their fight to anyone who disagrees with their motivation, i.e. everyone on the planet who doesn't follow their interpretations of the teachings, that makes Islamic terrorists a global threat.

Aisha disagrees, and thinks that there is nothing special about Islamic terrorists, and that ALL terrorists are a global threat. She is clearly wrong on this, and uses fudged reports and cherry-picked statistics to bolster her failed assertions!

No, I'm quite familiar with the debates A'isha has had with people who seek to condemn all of Islam for the acts of Islamic terrorists. The essence of her Point, as far as I can figure out, is that not all from the sea their religion has a motivator for terrorism, so one cannot use the fact that Islam is used as a motivator for terrorism to condemn the entire religion.

 

[A'isha]

Aisha disagrees, and thinks that there is nothing special about Islamic terrorists, and that ALL terrorists are a global threat. She is clearly wrong on this, and uses fudged reports and cherry-picked statistics to bolster her failed assertions!

I'm not the one trying to ignore vast swaths of terrorist attacks and pretend they don't count for the sole reason that their existence is inconvenient to my worldview.

 

[smartcooky]

Which is kind of meaningless for the people inside the US or in a US territory.

As are the chances of them being caught up in other kinds of terrorism. In most places (and certainly in the US and Europe), the chances of you being caught up in one of those other kinds of terrorism are actually far greater than your chances of being caught up in an Islamic terrorist attack.

I'm not the one trying to ignore vast swaths of terrorist attacks and pretend they don't count for the sole reason that their existence is inconvenient to my worldview.

And you are still missing/ignoring the point.

Nobody can be that ignorant, so I have to believe that you are either doing this deliberately to provoke, or that you are so thoroughly brainwashed by your own religious dogma that you really can't see the huge extent of your own cognitive dissonance.

 

[tyr_13]

Strawman.

US Domestic terrorists do not go to [_{insert name of foreign country here]} and blow up school buses, or behead people.

Oklahoma city.

Duh.

Now kindly move those goalposts again!

 

[A'isha]

Oklahoma city.

Duh.

Now kindly move those goalposts again!

His argument is not that US domestic terrorists don't do those things therefore they don't count as a terror threat, but that they only do those things in the US, therefore they don't count as a terror threat.