New Zealand shootings.

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Neil Basu, warned those circulating the footage made by the attacker of the killings could be subject to criminal prosecution.

“Sharing terrorist propaganda serves only to cause harm and is seized upon by extremists seeking to divide communities. Furthermore dissemination of such material may result in a criminal investigation,” he said.

“Mainstream media companies should also consider very carefully whether it is truly in the public interest to host anything that might inspire hate crime.”

I guess that includes forums such as this.

A dangerous game he's playing. You could very easily class all the Abrahamic religious texts as encouraging hate.

Not really no.

That's the kind of thing someone who wanted to discriminate against muslims would do.

That's not you, is it?

You are such an incredibly dishonest actor. I read through the pages of discussion here and, sure enough, it wasn't long before you popped up calling people bigots. Of course, whenever anyone challenges you to actually provide any evidence someone is a bigot or racist, you tend to disappear or change the topic.

With regard to Abrahamic religious texts, you absolutely could classify parts of them as promoting hate. Have you ever actually read any of them? The easy way to avoid it would be recognise hate speech as free speech, like in the USA.

I'm not convinced that the US approach is any better than ours. I don't see the extremists being called out any more than here, nor does letting them have their say in the open appear to reduce the number of extremist incidents. It also appears somewhat partial: I can't imagine the likes of Anjem Choudray would get very far with a free speech defence.

For sure there are passages in religious texts that in isolation seem at odds with modern values, but to pick out just those passages and ignore the rest is something no mainstream religion sanctions. Equally, followers of religions renowned for their absolute prohibition of killing anything still manage to attack and murder non-believers in the name of their faith. The same applies to political ideology. This suggests that the decision to use terrorism for whatever aim comes first and the justification of that act with selective quoting from whatever religious or political text comes second. If you are trying to recruit like minded individuals to a cause then having a shared religious or political background makes it easier. "See, we already agree on all these things. Don't you also agree with this?" This also explains why you see a lot of converts from one form of extremism to another.

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What you really ought to ask is what makes someone susceptible to radicalisation in the first place.

Blame the factors that lead to radicalisation but don't look at the ideology? That's trying to solve half a problem. Especially as there isn't one determining factor.

There is enough evidence that terrorism occurs in pretty much in the name of any ideology.

Ideology is not a differentiating factor.

Nobody is suggesting that Islamic terrorism is the only form of terrorism. However, for example, do you think all IRA terrorists were destined to be terrorists even if they had grown up somewhere else?

I thought you were suggesting that there was something innate in islamic text that makes terrorism more likely?

I think what we can say is that castigating groups of people based on their faith or ideology *does* often create the intellectual argument for people to do things like genocides, some war crimes etc etc.

There is a plausible interpretation of Islam that encourages terrorism. It also pits Muslims against non-Muslims. If people are going to say that criticising a faith encourages attacks against followers of that faith, then they also have to accept that that faith can encourage attacks against non-followers of that faith.

I think I would agree that the prevalence of the particular interpretation of a given religious or political ideology (is religion just politics + God) is one of the factors encouraging extremism. There are others: for example it's no surprise that political parties at the extremes do better when times are hard.

nickice

rjsterry wrote:

I'm not convinced that the US approach is any better than ours. I don't see the extremists being called out any more than here, nor does letting them have their say in the open appear to reduce the number of extremist incidents. It also appears somewhat partial: I can't imagine the likes of Anjem Choudray would get very far with a free speech defence.

For sure there are passages in religious texts that in isolation seem at odds with modern values, but to pick out just those passages and ignore the rest is something no mainstream religion sanctions. Equally, followers of religions renowned for their absolute prohibition of killing anything still manage to attack and murder non-believers in the name of their faith. The same applies to political ideology. This suggests that the decision to use terrorism for whatever aim comes first and the justification of that act with selective quoting from whatever religious or political text comes second. If you are trying to recruit like minded individuals to a cause then having a shared religious or political background makes it easier. "See, we already agree on all these things. Don't you also agree with this?" This also explains why you see a lot of converts from one form of extremism to another.

I disagree. The US Supreme Court supported a Nazi march through a town with many holocaust survivors in the name of free speech. They recognise the unintended consequences of banning hate speech in general (see the Count Dankula case as an example of this) and are very wary of letting the government and parliament decide what constitutes hate. As I stated above, if we were really going to apply hate speech laws equally, you'd see several ministers and imams before the courts. Of course, I don't support that as context is key. The problem is that context was also key in the Count Dankula case but it was ignored.

Then you have the case of the Charlie Hebdo massacre when politicians came out in support of free speech but then prosecuted Dieudonné. It reeks of double standards and gives some credence to the claims of Islamists to ban depictions of Mohammed.

Pre-Nazi Germany had hate-speech laws. It just gave them publicity.

As to your comments about religion. It's difficult to know what the correct interpretation of a religious text is. I don't, however, believe that ISIS are just taking a few passages in isolation. Therein lies the problem.

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I'm not convinced that the US approach is any better than ours. I don't see the extremists being called out any more than here, nor does letting them have their say in the open appear to reduce the number of extremist incidents. It also appears somewhat partial: I can't imagine the likes of Anjem Choudray would get very far with a free speech defence.

For sure there are passages in religious texts that in isolation seem at odds with modern values, but to pick out just those passages and ignore the rest is something no mainstream religion sanctions. Equally, followers of religions renowned for their absolute prohibition of killing anything still manage to attack and murder non-believers in the name of their faith. The same applies to political ideology. This suggests that the decision to use terrorism for whatever aim comes first and the justification of that act with selective quoting from whatever religious or political text comes second. If you are trying to recruit like minded individuals to a cause then having a shared religious or political background makes it easier. "See, we already agree on all these things. Don't you also agree with this?" This also explains why you see a lot of converts from one form of extremism to another.

I disagree. The US Supreme Court supported a Nazi march through a town with many holocaust survivors in the name of free speech. They recognise the unintended consequences of banning hate speech in general (see the Count Dankula case as an example of this) and are very wary of letting the government and parliament decide what constitutes hate. As I stated above, if we were really going to apply hate speech laws equally, you'd see several ministers and imams before the courts. Of course, I don't support that as context is key. The problem is that context was also key in the Count Dankula case but it was ignored.

Then you have the case of the Charlie Hebdo massacre when politicians came out in support of free speech but then prosecuted Dieudonné. It reeks of double standards and gives some credence to the claims of Islamists to ban depictions of Mohammed.

Pre-Nazi Germany had hate-speech laws. It just gave them publicity.

As to your comments about religion. It's difficult to know what the correct interpretation of a religious text is. I don't, however, believe that ISIS are just taking a few passages in isolation. Therein lies the problem.

On free speech, it is certainly a delicate balance and needs to be applied consistently. Free speech is sometimes defended pretty rigorously in the US as in your example. But if whoever is the US equivalent of Anjem Choudary had organised a similar march around the World Trade Centre memorial do you think that would have been allowed? I'm doubtful.

nickice

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I'm not convinced that the US approach is any better than ours. I don't see the extremists being called out any more than here, nor does letting them have their say in the open appear to reduce the number of extremist incidents. It also appears somewhat partial: I can't imagine the likes of Anjem Choudray would get very far with a free speech defence.

For sure there are passages in religious texts that in isolation seem at odds with modern values, but to pick out just those passages and ignore the rest is something no mainstream religion sanctions. Equally, followers of religions renowned for their absolute prohibition of killing anything still manage to attack and murder non-believers in the name of their faith. The same applies to political ideology. This suggests that the decision to use terrorism for whatever aim comes first and the justification of that act with selective quoting from whatever religious or political text comes second. If you are trying to recruit like minded individuals to a cause then having a shared religious or political background makes it easier. "See, we already agree on all these things. Don't you also agree with this?" This also explains why you see a lot of converts from one form of extremism to another.

I disagree. The US Supreme Court supported a Nazi march through a town with many holocaust survivors in the name of free speech. They recognise the unintended consequences of banning hate speech in general (see the Count Dankula case as an example of this) and are very wary of letting the government and parliament decide what constitutes hate. As I stated above, if we were really going to apply hate speech laws equally, you'd see several ministers and imams before the courts. Of course, I don't support that as context is key. The problem is that context was also key in the Count Dankula case but it was ignored.

Then you have the case of the Charlie Hebdo massacre when politicians came out in support of free speech but then prosecuted Dieudonné. It reeks of double standards and gives some credence to the claims of Islamists to ban depictions of Mohammed.

Pre-Nazi Germany had hate-speech laws. It just gave them publicity.

As to your comments about religion. It's difficult to know what the correct interpretation of a religious text is. I don't, however, believe that ISIS are just taking a few passages in isolation. Therein lies the problem.

On free speech, it is certainly a delicate balance and needs to be applied consistently. Free speech is sometimes defended pretty rigorously in the US as in your example. But if whoever is the US equivalent of Anjem Choudary had organised a similar march around the World Trade Centre memorial do you think that would have been allowed? I'm doubtful.

Yes, absolutely.

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Let’s run with your example of private education. What is it you disagree with, the buildings, the focus on sport, methods of teaching?

Without wanting to avoid answering your question it's not really the thread for it so I don't want to get into a debate on that here if at all.

Suffice to say while I recognise there are issues around individual freedom to spend your money how you like when it comes to something as fundamental to equality of opportunity as education my view is that private education as it exists currently at least is a bad thing for our wider society.

I'm not critical of people who choose private education for their kids they are just living in the world as it is and doing the best for their own as they see it - a bit like Denis Healey's response when he was criticised for his wife (another debate around why he should then be criticised) choosing private health for some condition she had.

So in terms of equality of opportunity your problem with private education is the outcome that the vast majority of our business/political leaders come from a handful of schools.

I would agree that in our political system it is laughable how many of our PMs are old Etonians. The ones I see on TV are winkers so I would definitely say that I am bigoted against them. If one joined work I would assume he was a tw@t until he proved otherwise.

drlodge

Referring to earlier posts about the role of ideology in extremism, ideology certainly plays a key part but its not the only factor. I thought it would be useful to post this from Maajid Nawaz as he explains clearly what the 4 factors are:

"The first, is a sense of grievance, whether real or perceived, it could be a perceived grievance, but the first is a sense of grievance, that gives rise to an anger, that begins the the desire to seek out an alternative solution.

"So the first factor to radicalisation is a sense of grievance. The second is an identity crisis that is born from that sense of grievance. So, for example, if the sense of grievance was the Bosnia genocide, as it was for my generation, then the identity crisis born from it, is to question whether one really belongs in this society, whether one is British.

"If Muslims are victims to a genocide in Bosnia, questions began emerging back in the 90s as to whether we had a place in Europe, and from that was born an identity crisis. So that's the second factor.

"The third factor, I'd say, are extremist recruiters, who provide a sense of belonging, where perhaps that sense of grievance, and the identity crisis, led to a vacuum in belonging.

"So the recruiter steps in where family should be stepping in, where a father figure should be stepping in, or mother figure, and provides that sense of belonging. So the third factor, I'd say, are the charismatic recruiters.

"And the fourth, is the ideology. In this case, the Islamist ideology, that then is peddled as the solution to that sense of grievance, the solution to the identity crisis, and the ideal that the charismatic recruiter says that he or she are adhering to themselves, so the fourth factor in radicalisation, is the ideology.

"Now those four factors, a sense of grievance, an identity crisis, recruiters who provide a sense of belonging, and an ideological narrative.

"They can apply whether we're talking about white supremacist far right racism, and radicalisation such as the case of Thomas Mair who killed MP Jo Cox, or they apply in this instance with Jihadist terrorism. But if we understand that these are the four factors that can cause radicalisation, we know how to solve it."

rick_chasey

drlodge wrote:

Referring to earlier posts about the role of ideology in extremism, ideology certainly plays a key part but its not the only factor. I thought it would be useful to post this from Maajid Nawaz as he explains clearly what the 4 factors are:

"The first, is a sense of grievance, whether real or perceived, it could be a perceived grievance, but the first is a sense of grievance, that gives rise to an anger, that begins the the desire to seek out an alternative solution.

"So the first factor to radicalisation is a sense of grievance. The second is an identity crisis that is born from that sense of grievance. So, for example, if the sense of grievance was the Bosnia genocide, as it was for my generation, then the identity crisis born from it, is to question whether one really belongs in this society, whether one is British.

"If Muslims are victims to a genocide in Bosnia, questions began emerging back in the 90s as to whether we had a place in Europe, and from that was born an identity crisis. So that's the second factor.

"The third factor, I'd say, are extremist recruiters, who provide a sense of belonging, where perhaps that sense of grievance, and the identity crisis, led to a vacuum in belonging.

"So the recruiter steps in where family should be stepping in, where a father figure should be stepping in, or mother figure, and provides that sense of belonging. So the third factor, I'd say, are the charismatic recruiters.

"And the fourth, is the ideology. In this case, the Islamist ideology, that then is peddled as the solution to that sense of grievance, the solution to the identity crisis, and the ideal that the charismatic recruiter says that he or she are adhering to themselves, so the fourth factor in radicalisation, is the ideology.

"Now those four factors, a sense of grievance, an identity crisis, recruiters who provide a sense of belonging, and an ideological narrative.

"They can apply whether we're talking about white supremacist far right racism, and radicalisation such as the case of Thomas Mair who killed MP Jo Cox, or they apply in this instance with Jihadist terrorism. But if we understand that these are the four factors that can cause radicalisation, we know how to solve it."

So, in the context of the New Zealand shootings, why did you mention Islam and fundamentally radicalising??!?!

shirley_basso

So what you're saying is that Islam isn't really a cause of radicalisation, but that ideology in general is used as the final nail in the coffin by groups with nefarious means to radicalise and exert control over vulnerable people?

drlodge

You two are sounding just like Cathy Newman on the Channel 4Jordan Peterson interview.

In so far as the cause of radicalisation, and Islamist extremism in particular, the end game is to spread the ideology. The above 4 steps are similar if not the same for Jihadists and for people like the New Zealand terrorist in explaining how someone gets radicalised, however the difference is that there isn't the predominance of people trying to force violent white supremacist ideology like we had with ISIS.

You need to differentiate between the objectives of any particular terrorist group (spread their ideology), and how they achieve that by radicalising people towards their aims (above 4 steps).

mamil314

Good posting drlodge. Those '4 factors' pretty much describe how indoctrination/recruitment, aka brainwashing, works. You, first, identify potential conflicted individuals 'grievers' and then find common ground with them. It does not matter if common ground subject is completely unrelated to recruiters main agenda. Islamic extremists had good teachers from both sides. Soviets happen to be particularly adept at it, and with global reach of social media, this is being weaponised at state level. The positive side of Trump and Brexit happening now is that this phenomenon can no longer be conveniently ignored and will be, hopefully, learned from.

kingstongraham

drlodge wrote:

Referring to earlier posts about the role of ideology in extremism, ideology certainly plays a key part but its not the only factor. I thought it would be useful to post this from Maajid Nawaz as he explains clearly what the 4 factors are:

"The first, is a sense of grievance, whether real or perceived, it could be a perceived grievance, but the first is a sense of grievance, that gives rise to an anger, that begins the the desire to seek out an alternative solution.

"So the first factor to radicalisation is a sense of grievance. The second is an identity crisis that is born from that sense of grievance. So, for example, if the sense of grievance was the Bosnia genocide, as it was for my generation, then the identity crisis born from it, is to question whether one really belongs in this society, whether one is British.

"If Muslims are victims to a genocide in Bosnia, questions began emerging back in the 90s as to whether we had a place in Europe, and from that was born an identity crisis. So that's the second factor.

"The third factor, I'd say, are extremist recruiters, who provide a sense of belonging, where perhaps that sense of grievance, and the identity crisis, led to a vacuum in belonging.

"So the recruiter steps in where family should be stepping in, where a father figure should be stepping in, or mother figure, and provides that sense of belonging. So the third factor, I'd say, are the charismatic recruiters.

"And the fourth, is the ideology. In this case, the Islamist ideology, that then is peddled as the solution to that sense of grievance, the solution to the identity crisis, and the ideal that the charismatic recruiter says that he or she are adhering to themselves, so the fourth factor in radicalisation, is the ideology.

"Now those four factors, a sense of grievance, an identity crisis, recruiters who provide a sense of belonging, and an ideological narrative.

"They can apply whether we're talking about white supremacist far right racism, and radicalisation such as the case of Thomas Mair who killed MP Jo Cox, or they apply in this instance with Jihadist terrorism. But if we understand that these are the four factors that can cause radicalisation, we know how to solve it."

Has this been related to the New Zealand murderer? Particularly the third.

rick_chasey

drlodge wrote:

You two are sounding just like Cathy Newman on the Channel 4Jordan Peterson interview.

In so far as the cause of radicalisation, and Islamist extremism in particular, the end game is to spread the ideology. The above 4 steps are similar if not the same for Jihadists and for people like the New Zealand terrorist in explaining how someone gets radicalised, however the difference is that there isn't the predominance of people trying to force violent white supremacist ideology like we had with ISIS.

You need to differentiate between the objectives of any particular terrorist group (spread their ideology), and how they achieve that by radicalising people towards their aims (above 4 steps).

Answer the actual question.

In the context of a hate crime terrorist attack by a white supremacist against muslims, why are you talking about Islam's role in radicalising?

drlodge

Rick Chasey wrote:

Answer the actual question.

In the context of a hate crime terrorist attack by a white supremacist against muslims, why are you talking about Islam's role in radicalising?

Ooh getting all authoritarian now aren't we. I'll write what I want for my own reasons, we do allow free speech still don't we?

If you care to look back at the first time I mentioned Islam in this thread, it was on page 7 in response to john80 who raised the topic.

Why aren't you asking others why they are talking about Islam's role in this thread?

Again, typical left wing response - don't argue the issue but try to disparage the character of your opponent. There's no reason why I shouldn't talk about it, given the similarities in radicalisation.

shirley_basso

I want to know why are you singling out Islam in this case - Islam is not the fault here, its items 1-3. Islam happens to be a hot topic with ISIS so it's a good one to use.

I wish I could remember the source but I think ISIS is more a movement to control land and people than anything related to Islam - as Rick continually points out, it is a nice ideology to further their cause. It's particularly relevant as the movement is well established through the Taliban (who the west had no problem with when they were fighting Russians, by the way). Until the dawn of mainsteam media, you had to physically war your way through nations to spread your ideology where it was usually stamped out by defensive forces. Those crusades, often sponsored by governments to further influence in foreign regions. Nowadays you can spread misinformation (!?) and hate from the comfort of your own home.

Looks like it's working in some cases.

kingstongraham

I don't see the logic in the response to an attack by an Islamist murderer being "something is rotten in Islam", and then the response to an attack on mosques is "something is rotten in Islam". That starts to look like an unhealthy obsession.

drlodge

KingstonGraham wrote:

...and then the response to an attack on mosques is "something is rotten in Islam". That starts to look like an unhealthy obsession.

Who's saying that? Not me for sure. If you think I have, then quote me.

nickice

Shirley Basso wrote:

I want to know why are you singling out Islam in this case - Islam is not the fault here, its items 1-3. Islam happens to be a hot topic with ISIS so it's a good one to use.

I wish I could remember the source but I think ISIS is more a movement to control land and people than anything related to Islam - as Rick continually points out, it is a nice ideology to further their cause. It's particularly relevant as the movement is well established through the Taliban (who the west had no problem with when they were fighting Russians, by the way). Until the dawn of mainsteam media, you had to physically war your way through nations to spread your ideology where it was usually stamped out by defensive forces. Those crusades, often sponsored by governments to further influence in foreign regions. Nowadays you can spread misinformation (!?) and hate from the comfort of your own home.

Looks like it's working in some cases.

The West didn't have a problem with Osama Bin Laden etc. as he wasn't waging war on the West at that time. Sometimes, unhealthy alliances are made out of necessity. The rights and wrongs of that are certainly debatable. And if ISIS is a movement to control land and people, what exactly do you think religion is? It's unquestionably about controlling people. I've mentioned previously that I have a lot more sympathy for a local Sunni joining ISIS, for protection against vicious shia militias, than I do for a Western Muslim travelling to the ME primarily to take part in a holy war.

kingstongraham

drlodge wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

...and then the response to an attack on mosques is "something is rotten in Islam". That starts to look like an unhealthy obsession.

Who's saying that? Not me for sure. If you think I have, then quote me.

drlodge wrote:

To quote someone - the problem with an Islamic Fundamentalist are the fundamentals of Islam.

drlodge wrote:

That may be so, but it is a matter fact that Islamic terrorism is driven by...Islam. Go back in time and it would be the Christians that were causing mayhem and bloodshed. The behaviours of ISIS can be plausibly explained by the wording of the Quran.

drlodge wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

It's evil people using an religion to justify their actions and then indoctrinating others, not that religion made them do it.

No its not. Its people having a real belief in the scripture of Islam, truly believing in a literal reading of the scripture. You should go read the Dabiq Magazine, which is ISIS's magazine http://www.oswego.edu/~delancey/314_DIR ... ateYou.pdf

1. We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you.

drlodge wrote:

Islam has not gone through a reformation, that's the big difference between it and the other two.

All from the thread about the New Zealand murders.

nickice

drlodge wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

...and then the response to an attack on mosques is "something is rotten in Islam". That starts to look like an unhealthy obsession.

Who's saying that? Not me for sure. If you think I have, then quote me.

Don't you understand the rules here. If it's decided you're a bigot, you're a bigot. That can be for something as simple as discussing Islamic extremism in a thread that was originally about a white supremacist attack. It's not as if all the other threads go way off topic on a regular basis...

nickice

KingstonGraham wrote:

drlodge wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

...and then the response to an attack on mosques is "something is rotten in Islam". That starts to look like an unhealthy obsession.

Who's saying that? Not me for sure. If you think I have, then quote me.

drlodge wrote:

To quote someone - the problem with an Islamic Fundamentalist are the fundamentals of Islam.

drlodge wrote:

That may be so, but it is a matter fact that Islamic terrorism is driven by...Islam. Go back in time and it would be the Christians that were causing mayhem and bloodshed. The behaviours of ISIS can be plausibly explained by the wording of the Quran.

drlodge wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

It's evil people using an religion to justify their actions and then indoctrinating others, not that religion made them do it.

No its not. Its people having a real belief in the scripture of Islam, truly believing in a literal reading of the scripture. You should go read the Dabiq Magazine, which is ISIS's magazine http://www.oswego.edu/~delancey/314_DIR ... ateYou.pdf

1. We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you.

drlodge wrote:

Islam has not gone through a reformation, that's the big difference between it and the other two.

All from the thread about the New Zealand murders.

All those are uncontroversial statements. Well, I'd add the Hadith to the Koran and substitute enlightenment for reformation and maybe give a bit more context on the fundamentalism one. I think it was Sam Harris who said it and i took it to mean that if particular passages weren't in the texts, they could never be used to justify terrorism. I think it could also be said about all forms of religious fundamentalism.

If it had been on page one of the thread, I'd find that surprising (though not bigoted) but the conversation has developed as it's gone on. There's also a broader point to be made about the differences in media reaction to this atrocity and Islamic terrorism.

drlodge

nickice wrote:

drlodge wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

...and then the response to an attack on mosques is "something is rotten in Islam". That starts to look like an unhealthy obsession.

Who's saying that? Not me for sure. If you think I have, then quote me.

Don't you understand the rules here. If it's decided you're a bigot, you're a bigot. That can be for something as simple as discussing Islamic extremism in a thread that was originally about a white supremacist attack. It's not as if all the other threads go way off topic on a regular basis...

Well exactly. There are similarities between the two forms of terrorism, which is why I think its relevant bring up Islamic terrorism. They're both terrorism for a start and radicalisation for each is also very similar.

What I didn't say, and which KG's post implied, is that "something is rotten with Islam" is in any way directly connected to the NZ incident, is a cause of it, or excuses it. Some people will always offer the least generous interpretation of what some else says. Something is rotten with Islam, its a mother lode of bad ideas. Something is rotten with white supremacy too, its despicable.

kingstongraham

drlodge wrote:

Something is rotten with white supremacy too, its despicable.

What do you think should be done about this?

nickice

drlodge wrote:

nickice wrote:

drlodge wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

...and then the response to an attack on mosques is "something is rotten in Islam". That starts to look like an unhealthy obsession.

Who's saying that? Not me for sure. If you think I have, then quote me.

Don't you understand the rules here. If it's decided you're a bigot, you're a bigot. That can be for something as simple as discussing Islamic extremism in a thread that was originally about a white supremacist attack. It's not as if all the other threads go way off topic on a regular basis...

Well exactly. There are similarities between the two forms of terrorism, which is why I think its relevant bring up Islamic terrorism. They're both terrorism for a start and radicalisation for each is also very similar.

What I didn't say, and which KG's post implied, is that "something is rotten with Islam" is in any way directly connected to the NZ incident, is a cause of it, or excuses it. Some people will always offer the least generous interpretation of what some else says. Something is rotten with Islam, its a mother lode of bad ideas. Something is rotten with white supremacy too, its despicable.

You won't win with these people. And accusing you of bigotry because you're talking about it on the NZ massacre thread is just opportunism on their part. They'd be saying exactly the same thing if it was a thread on an Islamic terror attack.

Well, there is no harm in saying that Islam is a bad idea but I don't think it's all a bad idea. There are obviously good parts to it or nobody would ever become a Muslim. Speaking of least generous interpretations, I think Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are both guilty of that (about all religion)s but so are ISIS so I can understand his point.

kingstongraham

I've just been saying that it feels inappropriate to only focus on that one topic, but going to leave it there. I've realised that this thread is all relevant to the New Zealand shootings.

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

drlodge wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

...and then the response to an attack on mosques is "something is rotten in Islam". That starts to look like an unhealthy obsession.

Who's saying that? Not me for sure. If you think I have, then quote me.

drlodge wrote:

To quote someone - the problem with an Islamic Fundamentalist are the fundamentals of Islam.

drlodge wrote:

That may be so, but it is a matter fact that Islamic terrorism is driven by...Islam. Go back in time and it would be the Christians that were causing mayhem and bloodshed. The behaviours of ISIS can be plausibly explained by the wording of the Quran.

drlodge wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

It's evil people using an religion to justify their actions and then indoctrinating others, not that religion made them do it.

No its not. Its people having a real belief in the scripture of Islam, truly believing in a literal reading of the scripture. You should go read the Dabiq Magazine, which is ISIS's magazine http://www.oswego.edu/~delancey/314_DIR ... ateYou.pdf

1. We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you.

drlodge wrote:

Islam has not gone through a reformation, that's the big difference between it and the other two.

All from the thread about the New Zealand murders.

All those are uncontroversial statements. Well, I'd add the Hadith to the Koran and substitute enlightenment for reformation and maybe give a bit more context on the fundamentalism one. I think it was Sam Harris who said it and i took it to mean that if particular passages weren't in the texts, they could never be used to justify terrorism. I think it could also be said about all forms of religious fundamentalism.

If it had been on page one of the thread, I'd find that surprising (though not bigoted) but the conversation has developed as it's gone on. There's also a broader point to be made about the differences in media reaction to this atrocity and Islamic terrorism.

That's hardly a trivial distinction. They are two completely different things. The Reformation was when Protestantism split from Catholicism. It's got nothing to do with the Enlightenment.

tangled_metal

Well I don't think you are bigots (can't be sure because I don't know you, so I can't yet form an opinion on that) . What I do think about some people on here is that they've spent too long discussing Islam and similarities between extremism types. I think that is misguided personally. Perhaps it could lead to the idea that you are obsessed with Islamic terrorism then on to the bigot opinion. Not my view but I think I'll be edging to that view if there's a lot more of this type of discussion on Islamic extremism.

My personal view is that we should focus more on the specifics of the NZ mosque attacker's form of extremism. Understand how he got into his extremist views. Without giving too much emphasis on them of course.

There's similarities between extremism but can't we move to his form of extremism and his origins. What was his background? How can we identify the next version of him? Where should the authorities be looking? Do we know similar people? Should we in the white community be reporting such people? How do we identify people at risk of this white supremacy form of terrorism.

I'm sorry but these sorts of questions that have more relevance to the NZ mosque killings. Can you please move on to that?

nickice

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

drlodge wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

...and then the response to an attack on mosques is "something is rotten in Islam". That starts to look like an unhealthy obsession.

Who's saying that? Not me for sure. If you think I have, then quote me.

drlodge wrote:

To quote someone - the problem with an Islamic Fundamentalist are the fundamentals of Islam.

drlodge wrote:

That may be so, but it is a matter fact that Islamic terrorism is driven by...Islam. Go back in time and it would be the Christians that were causing mayhem and bloodshed. The behaviours of ISIS can be plausibly explained by the wording of the Quran.

drlodge wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

It's evil people using an religion to justify their actions and then indoctrinating others, not that religion made them do it.

No its not. Its people having a real belief in the scripture of Islam, truly believing in a literal reading of the scripture. You should go read the Dabiq Magazine, which is ISIS's magazine http://www.oswego.edu/~delancey/314_DIR ... ateYou.pdf

1. We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you.

drlodge wrote:

Islam has not gone through a reformation, that's the big difference between it and the other two.

All from the thread about the New Zealand murders.

All those are uncontroversial statements. Well, I'd add the Hadith to the Koran and substitute enlightenment for reformation and maybe give a bit more context on the fundamentalism one. I think it was Sam Harris who said it and i took it to mean that if particular passages weren't in the texts, they could never be used to justify terrorism. I think it could also be said about all forms of religious fundamentalism.

If it had been on page one of the thread, I'd find that surprising (though not bigoted) but the conversation has developed as it's gone on. There's also a broader point to be made about the differences in media reaction to this atrocity and Islamic terrorism.

That's hardly a trivial distinction. They are two completely different things. The Reformation was when Protestantism split from Catholicism. It's got nothing to do with the Enlightenment.

I know. That's why I changed it. Though you could argue that the reformation went some way to starting the decline in the power of the Catholic Church.

drlodge

For those wishing to more actively support counter extremism, in all its forms, I might recommend you support Quilliam https://www.quilliaminternational.com/circle/

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

I know. That's why I changed it. Though you could argue that the reformation went some way to starting the decline in the power of the Catholic Church.

Sorry, meant to respond to drlodge directly. I realised you were picking up on it.

Although Islam has its denominations, there's not really an equivalent of The Church as a quasi-governmental supranational priesthood.