|
steinrokkan posted:I disagree - existentialist phenomenology is exciting because it dictates that human cognition chooses sovereignly how we feel about a material phenomenon, not the other way around (cognitive functions merely responding to an external factor). I suppose my time in studying animal behavior has made the idea of cognition as a supreme entity that allows us to transcend our material world a bit silly. More often than not, animals will behave in accordance with their material environment even if those responses differ in some way, humans being no exception to this. But that's from my own perspective, and it's obvious we agree on very little here. My Imaginary GF posted:If you are disenfranchised within your community, or see a need within your community, organize an appropriate organization in order to address the social maladies you see. As always, your opinions are incredibly relevant and useful, MIGF. steinrokkan posted:Absolutely! In absence of Islamism, the Western fighters would revert to common expressions of dissatisfaction! Therefore we need to focus on the ideology that shapes their response in addition to trying to address the condition that made their response possible. I suppose this is where we differ. In my mind, the primary concern is addressing the conditions that lead to the response and addressing the ideology in addition to that, or if both are not possible then simply the former. But purely addressing ideology will get us nowhere. Aves Maria! fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Mar 27, 2016 |
# ? Mar 27, 2016 23:30 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 09:46 |
|
corn in the bible posted:can anyone explain why the ira's claim to catholicism less valid than anyone else corn in the bible posted:can anyone explain why slave-owners claim to protestantism less valid than anyone else You want to find a tu quoque, look for terrorists who are motivated by their Christianity, not for terrorists who just happen to be from a Christian culture. You know, you can. They actually exist (abortion clinic bombers for example). GaussianCopula posted:Given that it took Islam not even 50 years for their first major civil war, which arguably is still waged today in Syria and Iraq, I have a hard time agreeing with that statement. It took Christianity about 1000 years for the first major schism. Also, long-forgotten stuff like Arianism existed. Arkane posted:There exists inequality in large swaths of the world, including areas dominated by other religions. There has no doubt been terrorism and violence as a result of this inequality. Volkerball posted:It's not really a matter of ISIS having an opinion on the matter, and others having an opinion on the matter, and since it's all opinion, no one is "right." When you get into that area, ISIS' justifications for things are more like excuses to justify something they were going to do anyways, rather than an interpretation that they think forces them to do it. Islam is a tool for them in that way. Some things they can't even find justifications for, so they just lie about it. For example, the treatment of Muslims in their court systems. People are extorted, ransomed, tortured, and executed and they generally just deny that type of thing as western propaganda. My favorite story was where they were going to execute a man as "kuffar" because he didn't pay ransom, and they offered him a last meal. He refused it because he was fasting. They executed him anyways. A person in prison at the time said he heard guards talking about how they believed the man had really been an ideologically correct Muslim and they were kind of laughing about it. That's why it's always a struggle to get a grasp on ISIS' ideology. At some point, there's a line where Islam ends and the cartel begins, and that's a blurry area. Hypocrisy is the fundamental building block of any empire. corn in the bible posted:well we could have avoided invading a stable country to deliberately destabilize it on the basis of lies created by warmongers who wanted to make money from military spending Invading Iraq was the stupidest decision of the 21st century, but claiming the country was stable is giving Saddam a lot of credit. It'd have probably collapsed on its own eventually (see Arab Spring), which only makes the decision to invade it even more stupid.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2016 23:36 |
|
Lotka Volterra posted:I suppose this is where we differ. In my mind, the primary concern is addressing the conditions that lead to the response and addressing the ideology in addition to that, or if both are not possible then simply the former. But purely addressing ideology will get us nowhere. Changing the material world is more often than not virtually impossible; challenging the way in which we order its reality, on the other hand, is.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2016 23:40 |
|
corn in the bible posted:mass shootings don't count as terrorism targeting civilians because ...there's no stated or implicit political motive, which is part of the definition of terrorism, and no larger organization celebrating the attacks and demanding more. Note that Anders Breivik, the shooters targeting Sikhs a couple of years back, and a few others do qualify as terrorism, but they are the rare exception and dwarfed in number and scale by attacks committed in the name of political Islam. Also, as horrible as they may be, white nationalist and other right wing fringe organizations whose ideology inspires these attacks do -not- claim credit, praise the attackers or publicly encourage more attacks on social media. This puts Islamic terrorism in another category above and beyond other forms of right-wing terrorism.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 00:09 |
|
Liberal_L33t posted:...there's no stated or implicit political motive, which is part of the definition of terrorism, and no larger organization celebrating the attacks and demanding more. Yes let's ignore the hundreds of thousands left dead in iraq in the name of democracy, shock and awe sure is a cooler name for terrorism tho Fados fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Mar 28, 2016 |
# ? Mar 28, 2016 00:13 |
|
Fados posted:Yes let's ignore the hundreds of thousands left dead in iraq in the name of democracy, shock and awe sure is a cooler name for terrorism tho Are you saying there's no difference between state and private violence? Or that the Republican resistance to Franco in Spain was wrong because it failed?
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 00:18 |
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Given that there is no religious hierarchy in islam, no. Looks more Catholic to me!
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 00:36 |
|
Fados posted:Yes let's ignore the hundreds of thousands left dead in iraq in the name of democracy, shock and awe sure is a cooler name for terrorism tho Look up who actually caused the majority of those deaths. The US invasion of Iraq kickstarted a civil war between Sunni & Shia Arabs.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 00:41 |
|
SedanChair posted:
To be fair, i's kind of tough to say what, exactly, Alawites are.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 00:42 |
|
Right now it's pretty hard to argue that Assad is worse than any other alternative. Thank you, American intervention!
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 00:44 |
|
steinrokkan posted:Are you saying there's no difference between state and private violence? Or that the Republican resistance to Franco in Spain was wrong because it failed? not to the target of the violence, no
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 00:54 |
|
corn in the bible posted:not to the target of the violence, no Let us have a little think. When we say terrorism... Who is terrorized? The people killed in the act? ALso are you really saying the Republican intervention against Franco was wrong? Because yes, that's what you posted.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 00:57 |
|
Lotka Volterra posted:I suppose this is where we differ. In my mind, the primary concern is addressing the conditions that lead to the response and addressing the ideology in addition to that, or if both are not possible then simply the former. But purely addressing ideology will get us nowhere.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 01:35 |
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Sure it can. If we purely address the ideology in question, and wipe it out, then instead of suicide bombs and gun massacres the same people will just steal cars, sell drugs, and fall into a normal criminal lifestyle. That's a big step forward in my opinion from Jihadism. Shooting other people: famous for being something only done by Muslims.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 01:38 |
|
If I've learned anything, it's that gang violence and drug trafficking result in a lot less death than terrorism.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 01:39 |
|
The Larch posted:Shooting other people: famous for being something only done by Muslims.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 01:40 |
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:You seemed to have failed to grasp the concept I was presenting of Jihadism vs. "normal criminal behavior." Killing simply to kill vs. killing to gain money, power, drugs. I'm sure you can see the difference. One results in one or more dead people and the other results in one or more dead people?
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 01:44 |
|
The Larch posted:One results in one or more dead people and the other results in one or more dead people?
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 01:47 |
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:One results in a global suicide cult centered around maximizing a body count and inspiring others to copy the attacks and the other results in crime that doesn't leave city limits. I think you'll find that this is entirely factually incorrect.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 01:50 |
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:One results in a global suicide cult centered around maximizing a body count and inspiring others to copy the attacks and the other results in crime that doesn't leave city limits. Drug cartels and gangs: famous for sticking to a single city.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 01:50 |
|
You guys are being willful idiots now. Terrorism is supremely more threatening to bonds of society than any other form of organized crime. If terrorism claimed lives on a scale similar to drug cartels and did it in the same regularity, then it would cause total mayhem in any country and paralyze it completely. Look at this photo: This was taken on the busiest shopping street of Istanbul that is considered the social and cultural heart of the city. It normally looks like this. Why is it empty on a saturday afternoon? Because a bomb exploded there on that morning, just days after a suicide bomb attack in another Turkish city. This is the effect that you can't understand by comparing the body count.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 02:13 |
|
Ae people actually comparing gangs and Islamic terrorists? At least with gangs and drug cartels the motivations are grounded in reality. I don't have stuff so I'm going to take as much stuff from other people as I can get away with. It's material things and the feeling of power over others. But none of that applies once you're dead, so there is at least that constraint to how far gang bangers and drug runners are willing to go to get what they want. Can't enjoy being rich if you're dead! Islamic fundamentalism doesn't have that constraint, which makes it so much more terrifying.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 02:18 |
|
Present posted:Ae people actually comparing gangs and Islamic terrorists? Not to mention gangs almost never indiscriminately kill people. The worst an ordinary person have to fear from a gang member is mugging, or robbery, or something like that. The same does not apply to terrorists. And this is actually an important difference.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 02:38 |
|
fspades posted:Not to mention gangs almost never indiscriminately kill people. The worst an ordinary person have to fear from a gang member is mugging, or robbery, or something like that. The same does not apply to terrorists. And this is actually an important difference. Honest question: Have you ever actually paid attention to what happens south of the US?
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 02:47 |
|
The cartels usually kill people for money reasons.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 02:51 |
|
Lotka Volterra posted:Honest question: Have you ever actually paid attention to what happens south of the US? Even so, they still kill people for specific reasons, even if those reasons are trivial or "you saw something because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time." Even the worst drug cartels won't just kill people for the sole purpose of killing them.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 02:53 |
|
PT6A posted:Even so, they still kill people for specific reasons, even if those reasons are trivial or "you saw something because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time." Even the worst drug cartels won't just kill people for the sole purpose of killing them. Cartels absolutely kill people to send a message. But man this discussion has really poo poo the bed.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 02:59 |
|
Lotka Volterra posted:Honest question: Have you ever actually paid attention to what happens south of the US? I do. Even there most of the murders are happening between gang members and the Mexican society knows it. There is the general expectation that you won't be killed unless you mix with the wrong sort of people or stick your head out too much. Even if this belief is not true in all cases, ordinary life can go on. Violence is compartmentalized to a subset of society. Wikipedia says that the drug war claimed 164.000 lives since 2006. Now imagine if Islamists killed hundreds of thousands in France with indiscriminate attacks. What do you think would happen?
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 03:09 |
|
SedanChair posted:
If he were seeking papal recognition and were facing an islamist uprising because he were attempting to develop an appropriate religious institution in Syria, then yes, Assad would look catholic. Tbqh I think Assad would jump the gun at converting were it to be his political survival on the line if he refused. He's an empty-suit opportunist; nothing more, nothing less. Maybe an optomitrist. Maybe. fspades posted:I do. Even there most of the murders are happening between gang members and the Mexican society knows it. There is the general expectation that you won't be killed unless you mix with the wrong sort of people or stick your head out too much. Even if this belief is not true in all cases, ordinary life can go on. Violence is compartmentalized to a subset of society. 2:1 odds you'd say the same about life under ISIL.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 03:13 |
|
Volkerball posted:Cartels absolutely kill people to send a message. But man this discussion has really poo poo the bed. isis kills people to send a message. problem is, shitload of posters on this forum have a hard time empathizing with isil's victims and processing their message as the victims would.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 03:16 |
|
Volkerball posted:Cartels absolutely kill people to send a message. But man this discussion has really poo poo the bed. They don't kill random people just to send a message though. Their victims no more deserve their fate, of course, but they aren't just blowing up airports and metros and poo poo to kill and maim random people.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 03:32 |
|
steinrokkan posted:Let us have a little think. no, i am not saying that. what i meant is that i don't think the iraqi people are happy that the violent dictator was deposed in favor of non-state violence
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 03:38 |
|
My Imaginary GF posted:
Yes, I would. How do you think they managed to hold off to their captive population for so long? Frankly, every report I've seen coming from there portrays a situation where ordinary people are more worried about airstrikes. Guess what airstrikes have in common with terrorism.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 03:39 |
|
Liberal_L33t posted:...there's no stated or implicit political motive, which is part of the definition of terrorism, and no larger organization celebrating the attacks and demanding more. Yes and why is that? Oh yeah, the untold billions in oil money, fuckton of weapons and financial support our countries gave to build Wahhabist militancy from the ground up and continue to support it today. If White Nationalists were bankrolled by China (or I don't know what would be the best analogy for Chinese financing their own moral enemy) they would be doing a lot more damage. Those motivated enough still do, but since they are not given military training in camps supported by us or bought weapons and bombs for with our money, they have to spend years obsessively planning and preparing their attacks educating themselves and acquiring weapons and materiel. Or in US they can just buy a gun... By the way by your logic American white males are a very dangerous people, considering the historical baggage (brutal apartheid state for most of its history, women not having the vote)and the fact that white males today commit almost all the mass shootings in US. And race is so not divorced from culture or thinking in US. What is it about American culture that radicalizes so many Christian white males? PT6A posted:They don't kill random people just to send a message though. Their victims no more deserve their fate, of course, but they aren't just blowing up airports and metros and poo poo to kill and maim random people. DarkCrawler posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_San_Fernando_massacre Mexican cartels are every bit as hosed up as ISIS. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Mar 28, 2016 |
# ? Mar 28, 2016 05:13 |
|
Liberal_L33t posted:...there's no stated or implicit political motive, which is part of the definition of terrorism, and no larger organization celebrating the attacks and demanding more. That's ridiculous. Few people would deny that Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, yet he was not attached to a larger organization. The same is true of Ted Kaczynski. Also, mass shooters like Dylann Roof had a stated political motive, ie: killing off black people for the (supposed) safety of white people, particularly white women. quote:Note that Anders Breivik, the shooters targeting Sikhs a couple of years back, and a few others do qualify as terrorism, but they are the rare exception and dwarfed in number and scale by attacks committed in the name of political Islam. Show us the data behind these stats, please.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 08:31 |
|
fspades posted:Yes, I would. How do you think they managed to hold off to their captive population for so long? Frankly, every report I've seen coming from there portrays a situation where ordinary people are more worried about airstrikes. Guess what airstrikes have in common with terrorism. When people are living in close proximity to death cultists who will kill you if you so much as look at them funny and would respond to adverse reports with a pogrom, respondents to those surveys may not be being entirely honest about their main worries.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 08:43 |
|
kapparomeo posted:When people are living in close proximity to death cultists who will kill you if you so much as look at them funny and would respond to adverse reports with a pogrom, respondents to those surveys may not be being entirely honest about their main worries. But enough about the american deep south
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 08:46 |
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Given that there is no religious hierarchy in islam, no. Holy poo poo, you're doing your 'Pope in the Middle East' gig again? Be still, my heart.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 09:26 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 09:46 |
R.I.P to all those who died
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2016 10:31 |