Sam Harris on "Islamophobia"

[quadraginta]

Really? (Extreme example) If I nuke your hometown with the extent of killing a terrorist who is hiding there, is that the same as sending special forces team to eliminate him and only him? Or are a lot of innocent people just as dead as if I´d intended to wipe out the town, innocent people and all, for the lulz?

"We had to destroy the village* to save it."


(* Originally, "We had to destroy Bến Tre to save it.". Somewhat larger than a "village'.)

 

[Octavo]

Nuking? Do you recall that your example dragged us into the longest war in US history? How many people are dead or mangled because of his actions and those of his regime? Not just over here either, there are many, many people directly harmed over there.

You seem to be forgetting that Sadam Hussein was a mass-murdering, genocidal maniac. You supported his reign of terror did you? And the taliban destruction of Afghanistan is definitely OK? How are you even comparing these things?

So now you are blathering about Islamic theocracies and nukes, as if nukes are the most credible threat to your well being. That is patently absurd. It's like calling Zeus the threat because of the proliferation of lightening.

Clearly, your fit of self-righteous rage has lead to to read things I didn't actually write. Certain tenets of Islam represent an on-going and serious threat to civil society.

Christians are here, they are messing with the government that has a direct effect on you daily, assuming you are in the US, and a strong indirect effect if you are in Europe or Canada.

Geography isn't among your strong suits either it appears.

Iran? How is Iran credibly going to threaten you? Because they might maybe have nukes? Do they have small ones? Do they have any kind of delivery system at all? Are you personally in a place they are likely to use their nuke that they might have?

So unless it affects me personally, I should shut up about it? Interesting philosophy.

We are not nuking the middle east, but we are killing people there, a lot of people, regularly. We are also seeing attacks on American civil liberties, regularly, and attacks on our educational system. However these problems aren't nukes. So instead of recognizing the very real threats that are actually at hand and capable of harming you, you are going to focus on flashy but highly unlikely threats.

Again, perhaps you haven't been reading this thread, or perhaps you just enjoy writing frothy rants. This particular fallacy is called the excluded middle as well as a straw-man thrown in for fun.

I think it's clear from my posts just in this thread, that I recognize other real threats (e.g. the evangelical right in the US) to society. And if my rather brief participation in one thread on the matter counts as my "focus", then Aisha must be positively obsessed, no?

 

[Craig B]

You seem to be forgetting that Sadam Hussein was a mass-murdering, genocidal maniac. You supported his reign of terror did you?

Are you suggesting that opponents of the Iraq war were supporters of Saddam's reign of terror? Be careful in responding. We were told by Blair that the motive for the war was not the deposition of Saddam. Also, formerly the West helped Saddam against Iran. Terror or no terror. It is great that Saddam has gone, but we were told the war was to remove weapons of mass destruction. There were none. It is not at all reasonable to insult the majority of people who opposed that wretched undertaking by accusing them falsely of defending a tyrant.

 

[Octavo]

Are you suggesting that opponents of the Iraq war were supporters of Saddam's reign of terror? Be careful in responding. We were told by Blair that the motive for the war was not the deposition of Saddam. Also, formerly the West helped Saddam against Iran. Terror or no terror. It is great that Saddam has gone, but we were told the war was to remove weapons of mass destruction. There were none. It is not at all reasonable to insult the majority of people who opposed that wretched undertaking by accusing them falsely of defending a tyrant.

Fair point. I'm sure most people simply didn't care, however IMHO the stated reasons for the war are entirely irrelevant. If the US decided to go in and help Somalia get back on its feet, I would not car if that effort was predicated on magic fairy pixie dust. The outcome would still be a better situation than previously. The war on Iraq may have been sold to the UN under false pretenses, but that doesn't invalidate what was done there to stop a tyrant.

If Pakistan decides to nuke India, does it really matter what their rationale is?

 

[Craig B]

Fair point. I'm sure most people simply didn't care, however IMHO the stated reasons for the war are entirely irrelevant. If the US decided to go in and help Somalia get back on its feet, I would not car if that effort was predicated on magic fairy pixie dust. The outcome would still be a better situation than previously. The war on Iraq may have been sold to the UN under false pretenses, but that doesn't invalidate what was done there to stop a tyrant.

If Pakistan decides to nuke India, does it really matter what their rationale is?

That's a very different thing from opponents of the war being supporters of Saddam's terror; a most unpleasant accusation. Particularly since the countries waging the war had been giving support to that tyrant in the quite recent past, including military support, as I'm sure you know.

 

[ddt]

Fair point. I'm sure most people simply didn't care, however IMHO the stated reasons for the war are entirely irrelevant.

They are relevant, though. There's this thing called "international law" which states what are legitimate reasons for starting a war. That goes back to the Briand Kellog pact of 1928, the Nuremberg trials and the UN charter. Iraq didn't pose a threat to any other state in 2003, let alone invade them. It was a lame duck, due to 10+ years of sanctions. Some claim that ongoing genocide is a valid reason for invading a country, but the oppressiveness of Saddam's regime didn't rise to that level; if that would, about half of the world's regimes would be candidates for military interference. There was no half-way valid reason for invading Iraq in 2003. All the blah-blah about WMDs and yellow cake from Niger etc. were all blatant lies.

If the US decided to go in and help Somalia get back on its feet, I would not car if that effort was predicated on magic fairy pixie dust. The outcome would still be a better situation than previously.

Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_%281993%29

The war on Iraq may have been sold to the UN under false pretenses, but that doesn't invalidate what was done there to stop a tyrant.

We're still not sure about the real motives Bush and his lapdog Blair had in starting the 2003 Iraq war. All we've had for public consumption were lies.

If Pakistan decides to nuke India, does it really matter what their rationale is?

No, but nuking is a clear casus belli. Are you confused between the 2003 Iraq war and the 1991 Gulf war? Because the latter clearly had a casus belli and I doubt you'll find anyone who criticizes Bush Sr. for liberating Kuwait back then.

 

[Octavo]

Some claim that ongoing genocide is a valid reason for invading a country, but the oppressiveness of Saddam's regime didn't rise to that level; if that would, about half of the world's regimes would be candidates for military interference.

It appears that you disagree with this statement? At the risk of provoking Craig B's ire further: So, you think Somalia's just peachy do you?

If the US or the UN decided tomorrow to intervene in NKorea, Congo, Somalia and any other oppressive, failed state regime, I would fully approve.

We have now drifted fairly far from the original topic though

 

[Octavo]

That's a very different thing from opponents of the war being supporters of Saddam's terror; a most unpleasant accusation. Particularly since the countries waging the war had been giving support to that tyrant in the quite recent past, including military support, as I'm sure you know.

Which is why I agreed that you had a fair point. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

 

[Craig B]

It appears that you disagree with this statement? At the risk of provoking Craig B's ire further: So, you think Somalia's just peachy do you?

If the US or the UN decided tomorrow to intervene in NKorea, Congo, Somalia and any other oppressive, failed state regime, I would fully approve.

We have now drifted fairly far from the original topic though

But those who would not follow you into that illegality are not supporters of Saddam's tyranny, the insane regime in N Korea, or the banditry in Somalia. I do not think Somalia's "peachy" and you know I don't. Stop being provocative, or just plain silly.

 

[ddt]

It appears that you disagree with this statement? At the risk of provoking Craig B's ire further: So, you think Somalia's just peachy do you?

What false dichotomy is that? I'm not saying Somalia is all peachy. But you'll have to show that military intervention makes it substantially better before I even would consider it to be morally right. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are good examples to show that it works. And I gave you a link to the result of the last military intervention in Somalia. Did you read it?

I am a proponent of genocide being a valid reason for military intervention. But not to invade every country with a tinpot dictator who locks up or murders his political opponents. And in 2003, Saddam was very much reduced to being a tinpot dictator.

If the US or the UN decided tomorrow to intervene in NKorea, Congo, Somalia and any other oppressive, failed state regime, I would fully approve.

I certainly wouldn't if the US decided that. The UN has the power to sanction military intervention if a resolution is passed under Chapter 7 of the charter, but then, the wording must be unambiguous, unlike in the Iraq case.

The three regimes you mention are quite different and only one, Somalia, qualifies as a "failed state". And I'm not sure why you mention Congo - I presume you mean the DRC?

 

[Octavo]

It appears that you disagree with this statement? At the risk of provoking Craig B's ire further: So, you think Somalia's just peachy do you?

Which is why I agreed that you had a fair point. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

But those who would not follow you into that illegality are not supporters of Saddam's tyranny, the insane regime in N Korea, or the banditry in Somalia. I do not think Somalia's "peachy" and you know I don't. Stop being provocative, or just plain silly.

Once again, I'm shown the folly of attempting to post on these topics. Sorry you missed my initial attempt at acknowledging your point, missed my follow up explanation making my attempted humour even MORE explicit and somehow missed my obviously tongue in cheek Somalia reference.

 

[tsig]

Once again, I'm shown the folly of attempting to post on these topics. Sorry you missed my initial attempt at acknowledging your point, missed my follow up explanation making my attempted humour even MORE explicit and somehow missed my obviously tongue in cheek Somalia reference.

That's why my posts are usually short, if they're gonna miss it they can miss it quick.

 

[Craig B]

Once again, I'm shown the folly of attempting to post on these topics. Sorry you missed my initial attempt at acknowledging your point, missed my follow up explanation making my attempted humour even MORE explicit and somehow missed my obviously tongue in cheek Somalia reference.

Thanks for that; I'm glad you clarified it. What about this; is it a joke too?

If the US or the UN decided tomorrow to intervene in NKorea, Congo, Somalia and any other oppressive, failed state regime, I would fully approve.

 

[Octavo]

That's why my posts are usually short, if they're gonna miss it they can miss it quick.

I've been annoyed by your posting style before, but now I understand. The student will one day become the master.

 

[metacristi]

So he basically admits that it exists, but not always, so it doesn't. Weird.

'Islamophobia' is a word created fraudulently (very recently) specially to blame ALL criticism of islam. One could at most accept that it means irrational fear of islam (not so widespread as some think anyways) but this sense is already well captured by existing words in the dictionary, there is no need to invent 'islamophobia' to account for that. So yes in this sense there is no 'islamophobia'.

Indeed it is evident that Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men's passions, and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination. But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness." - Churchill

- so then even Chruchill was an 'islamophob'. Not so of course, he had actually very good reasons to say that (an honest inquiry in the basic doctrines of these religions could easily confirm that), including encounters with the equivalent of the Talibans of his era (unfortunately islam has always had a sizeable minority of violent radicals)

 

[Roger Ramjets]

this sense is already well captured by existing words in the dictionary, there is no need to invent 'islamophobia'

You are right, there is an existing word in the dictionary that captures it perfectly,

Oxford Dictionaries
Islamophobia
noun
a hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.

Collins English Dictionary
Islamophobia (ˌɪzlɑːməˈfəʊbɪə)
noun
hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture

 

[Craig B]

'Islamophobia' is a word created fraudulently (very recently) specially to blame ALL criticism of islam. One could at most accept that it means irrational fear of islam (not so widespread as some think anyways) but this sense is already well captured by existing words in the dictionary, there is no need to invent 'islamophobia' to account for that. So yes in this sense there is no 'islamophobia'.

That is a matter of semantics. Comparable example: the word antisemitism as described in Enc. Britt.

... hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group. The term anti-Semitism was coined in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm Marr to designate the anti-Jewish campaigns underway in central Europe at that time. Although this term now has wide currency, it is a misnomer, since it implies a discrimination against all Semites.

It is indeed an unsatisfactory and unnecessary word, coined for nefarious ideological reasons. But it came to replace other current expressions; and saying that the word is unsatisfactory, or that its sense was captured in other existing terms, is not to say that the phenomenon it designates is imaginary.

 

[DC]

'Islamophobia' is a word created fraudulently (very recently) specially to blame ALL criticism of islam. One could at most accept that it means irrational fear of islam (not so widespread as some think anyways) but this sense is already well captured by existing words in the dictionary, there is no need to invent 'islamophobia' to account for that. So yes in this sense there is no 'islamophobia'.


- so then even Chruchill was an 'islamophob'. Not so of course, he had actually very good reasons to say that (an honest inquiry in the basic doctrines of these religions could easily confirm that), including encounters with the equivalent of the Talibans of his era (unfortunately islam has always had a sizeable minority of violent radicals)

almost 100 years ago.

 

[metacristi]

almost 100 years ago.

Obviously you wanted to say around 1992 and the term found widespread usage in the 2000s. Mathematics has not changed yet in my universe.

 

[DC]

Obviously you wanted to say around 1992 and the term become to be used widespreadly in the 2000s. Mathematics has not changed yet in my universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia#History_of_the_term