| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
s4life
Peru1519 Posts
On January 18 2012 08:49 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @zalz I don't think you realize that Osama actually worked for us before.... I believe this was more a cooperation rather than US 'taking advantage' of Bin Laden and I am pretty sure zalz knows about it. Then again, what does that fact -- which happened 30 years ago -- has anything to do with him being an islamic fundamentalist? | ||
|
NtroP
United States174 Posts
On January 18 2012 08:31 zalz wrote: I would actually like a "show of hands" on this statement. Who in this topic actually believes this? He believes in a form of islam where it is justified to murder muslims that aren't devout enough. You seem to confuse what devout means. It simply means he adheres closely to his faith. You seem to have this notion that there is one absolute true version of islam which dictates everything that is and is not true. Osama breaks the simple code of killing muslims. But his particular stream of islam states that only muslims that strictly adhere to the quran are muslims so it's oke to kill those that aren't as serious about islam as you want them to be because they aren't "real" muslims. Within his own sect of islam he was perfectly in line. What you are doing is like blaming a catholic for not living like a protestant. Different sect, different rules. Not sure what you base him being a poor student of islam on or the idea that he wasn't active with his religion I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that Osama simply uses fear to create zealots much like the people in power in this country do. Religion is simply a tool to him. Much like it is used as a tool for our politicians. Much like any ideal can be twisted towards nefarious agendas. Islam *might* be a more effective tool than other religions, but that doesn't make the tool wrong, just those who wield it. | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
@Zalz, do you believe that America's presence in the middle east has greater benefits in preventing terrorism than cosnequences in terms of recruitment? In short, would support a draw-down, maintenance or increase in US military presence in the middle east? | ||
|
s4life
Peru1519 Posts
On January 18 2012 08:09 Jibba wrote: http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Islam-Rising-Muslim-Extremism/dp/0742536416/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1 Wiktorowicz is on Obama's national security council and he specializes in social movements and terrorism. It's his work that debunked the stereotypes about religious terrorists and found that religiosity is usually not a primary factor, and may actually be a detriment to joining a terrorist movement . There are very few works dealing with actual terrorists and potential terrorists as comprehensive as Wiktorowicz's. The research done by Jurgensmeyers and other majors is fairly in line with that. This isn't a Huntington-esque essay based on conjecture and inklings. It's thorough qualitative data that shows this. Blurb from an NPR article about him I see. Of course I haven't read the book yet, but I think it would be extremely hard to argue that in fact, it is religion what stops these very religious muslims from becoming terrorists -- which is what you are claiming. Other attributes, such as high spirituality for example, might exist that could explain away this apparent resistant to being violent. All in all, this seems to be a classic correlation vs causation type of argument. This comes back to the point though that Hitchens always used to say in his debates. It does take religion, for a perfectly normal, regular person -- not particularly spiritual or devote -- to commit the most hyenous acts. | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
I don't agree with this at all. It simple takes that person to feel strongly enough about something. Take the shootings at Columbine or the JFK murder. There are reasons people do bad stuff that has nothing to do with religion so blaming religion for all the bad stuff is stupid. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On January 18 2012 09:26 s4life wrote: I see. Of course I haven't read the book yet, but I think it would be extremely hard to argue that in fact, it is religion what stops these very religious muslims from becoming terrorists -- which is what you are claiming. Other attributes, such as high spirituality for example, might exist that could explain away this apparent resistant to being violent. All in all, this seems to be a classic correlation vs causation type of argument. This comes back to the point though that Hitchens always used to say in his debates. It does take religion, for a perfectly normal, regular person -- not particularly spiritual or devote -- to commit the most hyenous acts. Actually this whole comment doesn't make sense. You are saying that you find it hard to believe that people who are extremely religious are less likely to commit acts of terrorism? Think about it carefully, ultra religious people are committed to following the requirements of their faith. Islam is not an inherently violent religion. It's core concepts are subservience and maintenance of the five pillars (there is no god but allah, daily prayer, alms giving, fasting during ramadan and a pilgrimage to mecca). Blowing up US citizens has nothing to do that. Ultra religious people have already made up their mind. Of course they are less likely to be swayed. It is those people who see a way out of their situation through terrorism that will be more susceptible. Thus religion can be a motivating factor, it can even be THE factor for someone joining but that person is unlikely to already be ultra religious. | ||
|
s4life
Peru1519 Posts
On January 18 2012 09:25 Probulous wrote: I don't support Zalz's position but the way people are arguing against him is terrible. Zalz has clearly read up on the topic so degrading his opinons because you don't agree with him just makes you look silly. @Zalz, do you believe that America's presence in the middle east has greater benefits in preventing terrorism than cosnequences in terms of recruitment? In short, would support a draw-down, maintenance or increase in US military presence in the middle east? I think I will answer that if I may. Of all the countries which have or might have nuclear power in the next few decades, only one has publicly admitted that they will use it against us and our allies, Iran. If we don't stop them right now, shit will happen, I mean nuclear shit will happen. it's as simple as that. There is no amount of diplomacy and appeasement that will convince Iran and other muslim countries that we in fact, are not their enemies. Islamists are in the middle ages of christianity, we have to realize that. Now, the question is, how do we go about it? it's costly to maintain armies around the world and the US is in economic decline. America's presence in the middle east without a clear goal may actually be more detrimental to our interests from an economic and strategical point of view, but not because recruitment will increase, that is absurd. We are not in Iraq to covert them to christianity, it's in our best interest that Iraq becomes a thriving democracy, like South Korea did when we saved them from the communists. I absolutely don't buy Mr. Galloway's argument, because recruitment is not a problem in a population of a billion muslims, plenty of whom believe that all infidels should be killed, and most of whom live in poor conditions with no access to good education. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
s4life
Peru1519 Posts
On January 18 2012 09:32 Jibba wrote: The people who become terrorists are not particularly religious. That's the claim. It's young, disenfranchised men who might call themselves Muslim but have never studied it a day in their life or practice it on a regular basis. They buy into a small "elite" community, where they're drawn to camaraderie and see themselves as underdogs fighting against the world. Occasionally they have families who are paid or cared for in return. Sometimes they're even quite educated. Rarely is anyone involved there out of pure faith. Nope, people who become terrorists are not particularly VERY religious, that's a minority of people I'd say and makes a big difference in practice. Still, you are not addressing the point about correlation vs causation. Also, the 'elite' comment might be right, and I might add that that's typically how revolutions start, more so when your views are aligned with the written text of a 'divine' book that hundreds or millions have access to. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
s4life
Peru1519 Posts
On January 18 2012 09:32 Probulous wrote: " It does take religion, for a perfectly normal, regular person -- not particularly spiritual or devote -- to commit the most hyenous acts" I don't agree with this at all. It simple takes that person to feel strongly enough about something. Take the shootings at Columbine or the JFK murder. There are reasons people do bad stuff that has nothing to do with religion so blaming religion for all the bad stuff is stupid. Gosh.. it doesn't say, "It does take ONLY religion', and I am not blaming it for ALL the the bad stuff.. please read more carefully. The point still stands though, religion -- or better said, unconditional obedience to a celestial dictator -- is taught in schools in most countries.. a lot more shit goes wrong because of it... heh. | ||
|
s4life
Peru1519 Posts
On January 18 2012 09:57 Jibba wrote: You didn't explain what your causation actually is. That non-violent people tend to become religious, thus they're less likely to become violent terrorists? Nope, that non-violent people may tend to become VERY religious.. the VERY is actually VERY important... don't omit it please. | ||
|
s4life
Peru1519 Posts
On January 18 2012 09:43 Probulous wrote: Actually this whole comment doesn't make sense. You are saying that you find it hard to believe that people who are extremely religious are less likely to commit acts of terrorism? Think about it carefully, ultra religious people are committed to following the requirements of their faith. Islam is not an inherently violent religion. It's core concepts are subservience and maintenance of the five pillars (there is no god but allah, daily prayer, alms giving, fasting during ramadan and a pilgrimage to mecca). Blowing up US citizens has nothing to do that. Ultra religious people have already made up their mind. Of course they are less likely to be swayed. It is those people who see a way out of their situation through terrorism that will be more susceptible. Thus religion can be a motivating factor, it can even be THE factor for someone joining but that person is unlikely to already be ultra religious. You just stated my comment does not make sense and then went on a completely unrelated topic. I think you might have some problems reading or me writing.. most likely a bit of both heh. | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On January 18 2012 09:58 s4life wrote: Gosh.. it doesn't say, "It does take ONLY religion', and I am not blaming it for ALL the the bad stuff.. please read more carefully. The point still stands though, religion -- or better said, unconditional obedience to a celestial dictator -- is taught in schools in most countries.. a lot more shit goes wrong because of it... heh. That sentence as it stands says religion is a prerequisite for a regular person to commit heinous acts. Sure there may be other factors but what you wrote there says religion is required. That is wrong. | ||
|
s4life
Peru1519 Posts
On January 18 2012 10:06 Probulous wrote: That sentence as it stands says religion is a prerequisite for a regular person to commit heinous acts. Sure there may be other factors but what you wrote their says religion is required. That is wrong. No dude, the sentence says that religion is a sufficient condition but not necessary. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On January 18 2012 09:59 s4life wrote: Nope, that non-violent people may tend to become VERY religious.. the VERY is actually VERY important... don't omit it please. Your argument is extremely broken. It only makes sense if you axiomize religion = violence, but if we go outside of the popular Western New Atheist rhetoric, I don't really find any compelling reason to agree with such a hasty argument. | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On January 18 2012 10:07 s4life wrote: No dude, the sentence says that religion is a sufficient condition but not necessary. Aright I know I am getting into ridiculous detail here but I can't believe my comprehension abilities are that bad. When you say "It does take religion", the word take implies a requirement. At least that is my understanding. It's like saying "it takes flour to bake a cake". Am I missing something  | ||
|
s4life
Peru1519 Posts
On January 18 2012 10:07 koreasilver wrote: Your argument is extremely broken. It only makes sense if you axiomize religion = violence, but if we go outside of the popular Western New Atheist rhetoric, I don't really find any compelling reason to agree with such a hasty argument. I am saying nothing about religion in that statement -- and as much as he tries, Jibba is saying nothing about religion in his either -- but certainly, religion is violence, as is many other things. Feel free to disagree though. | ||
|
s4life
Peru1519 Posts
On January 18 2012 10:13 Probulous wrote: Aright I know I am getting into ridiculous detail here but I can't believe my comprehension abilities are that bad. When you say "It does take religion", the word take implies a requirement. At least that is my understanding. It's like saying "it takes flour to bake a cake". Am I missing something Well, your example is a bad analogy because 'doing nasty things' is not really something that you arrive by construction, like a cake would. Thus in the context, 'take' only implies sufficiency. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Stormgate Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
Online Event
BSL Team Wars
Team Hawk vs Team Sziky
Online Event
SC Evo League
Online Event
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
CSO Contender
[BSL 2025] Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
