Paris (And Now Mali)(And Now Orlando)

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Subby

Here's how you assimilate - pay your taxes and follow the law. Not hard.

Except the fine young ladies and gentlemen in France and Belgium didn't check those boxes (apparently) on the immigration form.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Ugh... this is absolutely the wrong way to go about this. Stunningly wrong. To say that ISIS is Islam and parts of the Islamic faith are horrible, but Christians and Jews have gotten past their troublesome passages (asserting that Christian terrorism can be said not to be part of 'their faith') will only anger moderate Muslims. My parents are moderate Muslims - you know what resonates with them? The folks who say ISIS are not Muslims. When you start saying ISIS is really Islam and the moderates need to take it from them, you will get pushback from them, and they will not engage in meaningful dialogue with you, because you are implicitly insulting their entire religion.

Well Sam Harris (and myself) pretty much feel this way about all organized religion but in this case his point is that these Jihadists are clearly being influenced by a very dark and violent text and while Christians certainly had some terrible atrocities in the past in the name of religion it is the Islamic Fundamentalists that are the problem right now.

Again his career is spent discussing the ill's of all religion. So while this article deals with Islam he also has a big problem with fundamentalists from other religions. His response to your parents would be that moderate just means that they choose to ignore the violent passages of the Koran but those jihadists are actually interpreting the text the way it is written.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by panerd

Well Sam Harris (and myself) pretty much feel this way about all organized religion

Well yes. Harris is a fundamentalist atheist. Him and Dawkins are of a pair.

His response to your parents would be that moderate just means that they choose to ignore the violent passages of the Koran but those jihadists are actually interpreting the text the way it is written.

And he'd say that my parents aren't being "good Muslims" while jihadists are. But he'd praise them for being bad Muslims and basically cause my parents to tell him to fuck off and never speak to them again.

Ie, his shit doesn't work. It just pushes the moderates towards the fundamentalists if anything else (this also applies to Christians who are told by atheists they are 'cherry picking' and the fundamentalists are the ones who are really reading the Bible as it is).

[panerd]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well yes. Harris is a fundamentalist atheist. Him and Dawkins are of a pair.



And he'd say that my parents aren't being "good Muslims" while jihadists are. But he'd praise them for being bad Muslims and basically cause my parents to tell him to fuck off and never speak to them again.

Ie, his shit doesn't work. It just pushes the moderates towards the fundamentalists if anything else (this also applies to Christians who are told by atheists they are 'cherry picking' and the fundamentalists are the ones who are really reading the Bible as it is).

Yes I believe you are correct. To me the "good Christians" believe in caring about other people and that there is a higher power than just what is happening here on Earth. They don't believe in a lot of the Noah's Ark sort of stuff and often not even in the idea Jesus rose into the heavens. If that is the case are they really Christians? Same would go for Islam which I admittedly know less about the specifics but the moderate ones don't believe in a lot of the "death to infidels" part which makes them similar to the Christians who also don't believe in a lot of the Old Testament. So I am unclear on where Harris is wrong?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by panerd

Yes I believe you are correct. To me the "good Christians" believe in caring about other people and that there is a higher power than just what is happening here on Earth. They don't believe in a lot of the Noah's Ark sort of stuff and often not even in the idea Jesus rose into the heavens. If that is the case are they really Christians? Same would go for Islam which I admittedly know less about the specifics but the moderate ones don't believe in a lot of the "death to infidels" part which makes them similar to the Christians who also don't believe in a lot of the Old Testament. So I am unclear on where Harris is wrong?

It demonstrates a lack of knowledge of what religious faith actually is. This is the modernist fallacy that all things must conform to rational inquiry and there is an objective way of looking at all things - applied to faith, it means you must affirm all or none. That has rarely been the case when it applies to Scripture and now, in a post-modern world, the criticism makes even less sense.

Christians who don't believe in Noah's Ark can be, if not are more, faithful than those who affirm everything literally. The folks that don't know if Jesus was physically resurrected can be, if not are more, faithful than those who affirm everything literally (though I strongly disagree with them on this).

Faith isn't the same thing as doctrine. That is a grievous error that Harris makes and compounds, over and over again. As the great 20th Century theologian, Karl Barth said: I take the Bible too seriously to read it literally.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It demonstrates a lack of knowledge of what religious faith actually is. This is the modernist fallacy that all things must conform to rational inquiry and there is an objective way of looking at all things - applied to faith, it means you must affirm all or none. That has rarely been the case when it applies to Scripture and now, in a post-modern world, the criticism makes even less sense.

Not meaning to threadjack, but does this fallacy have a specific name?

[ISiddiqui]

It's a product of the philosophical movement of modernism, so... Modernist fallacy works, I think.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It demonstrates a lack of knowledge of what religious faith actually is. This is the modernist fallacy that all things must conform to rational inquiry and there is an objective way of looking at all things - applied to faith, it means you must affirm all or none. That has rarely been the case when it applies to Scripture and now, in a post-modern world, the criticism makes even less sense.

Christians who don't believe in Noah's Ark can be, if not are more, faithful than those who affirm everything literally. The folks that don't know if Jesus was physically resurrected can be, if not are more, faithful than those who affirm everything literally (though I strongly disagree with them on this).

Faith isn't the same thing as doctrine. That is a grievous error that Harris makes and compounds, over and over again. As the great 20th Century theologian, Karl Barth said: I take the Bible too seriously to read it literally.

Well Harris is concerned that people are crashing planes into buildings, bombing subways systems, and shooting up concert venues quoting one of those doctrines. Seems like a valid concern.

As for the other point why label yourself as a Christian or Muslim then? Sounds like they have a faith in something bigger than us but in turn are labeling themselves with the same name as groups that process faith in doctrines. Why call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in most or all of it's Holy book?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by panerd

Well Harris is concerned that people are crashing planes into buildings, bombing subways systems, and shooting up concert venues quoting one of those doctrines. Seems like a valid concern.

By doing what, exactly? Attacking the moderates of those faiths for the sins of their extremes? I mean would it work as well to attack atheists for the atrocities of the Communist countries? Would that have been a valid concern during the Cold War?

As for the other point why label yourself as a Christian or Muslim then? Sounds like they have a faith in something bigger than us but in turn are labeling themselves with the same name as groups that process faith in doctrines. Why call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in most or all of it's Holy book?

Once again, I believe this displays a stunning lack of understanding of faith. I do believe in most of Scripture. I believe it writers were divinely inspired by God. I believe that they were also human and subject to their own biases due to era and context. We've moved past that, through the continual work of the Holy Spirit. In addition, we've always read Scripture as to what the stories say about God, not about what it literally is saying (that is missing the forest for the trees big time). We, who may not believe in Noah's Arc or the physical resurrection (though I do believe in the later and I think the former may have been a localized flood story), believe in something bigger than us, yes... we believe in God the Father as revealed through the Scriptures and in Jesus Christ, Our Lord (although some may hold forth to the Arian heresy and think He was just some dude).

That makes us no less Christian. In fact, it may make us more Christian. For, in the end, what did Jesus write? But what did Jesus command? The Church is what He left to us along with the Holy Spirit.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It just pushes the moderates towards the fundamentalists if anything else

I don't claim to know the answer to this one, but I've definitely wondered over the last few days if--at this point--the greater threat to American lives is from radicals entering from outside, or from creating an environment that radicalizes those already here.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Dutch

We should negotiate with ISIS so they will surrender peacefully.

No.

But at the same time, kicking the shit out of the Middle East again can't really be an answer. Unless you plan on going there and spending generations brain washing these people into thinking the same way we do. Which, I'm not sure the Russians would allow anyway.

I really don't know the answer here? Whatever road we decide to go down, it won't be a quick and easy fix.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That makes us no less Christian. In fact, it may make us more Christian. For, in the end, what did Jesus write? But what did Jesus command? The Church is what He left to us along with the Holy Spirit.

Amen.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I don't claim to know the answer to this one, but I've definitely wondered over the last few days if--at this point--the greater threat to American lives is from radicals entering from outside, or from creating an environment that radicalizes those already here.

Just the numbers would point towards the latter by a far margin.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

By doing what, exactly? Attacking the moderates of those faiths for the sins of their extremes? I mean would it work as well to attack atheists for the atrocities of the Communist countries? Would that have been a valid concern during the Cold War?

It's pretty clear these terror attacks are religious in nature. I have never seen anything that said the Soviets committed their crimes due to a non-belief. That doesn't really even make any sense. If you showed me an attack where atheism was the person's cause I would condemn them for the belief. (technically non belief)

I agree with you 100% that if a random Muslim guy murders his wife because she cheated on him, or a Jewish guy robs a liquor store for money, or a Christian guy rapes a woman that their religious faith has no bearing on their crimes. These Paris attackers were yelling "Allahu akbar" while gunning down their victims that is clearly different.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I don't claim to know the answer to this one, but I've definitely wondered over the last few days if--at this point--the greater threat to American lives is from radicals entering from outside, or from creating an environment that radicalizes those already here.

The latter is a big fear. If you make a group feel marginalized, the messages from those trying to exploit that sound much, much better. An example, back to my parents - they are as much anti-Al Queda as anyone. They consider them to be anti-Muslim and a destructive force that should be taken out. They supported the war in Afghanistan. However, they believe (and still do) that the war in Iraq was conducted to "kill Muslims", because of all of the hate around that time, and the unnecessary-ness of that war. That sort of thing, if it snowballs, can easily create a more radical attitude, not in them per se, but what if they were younger and their kids (me and my brother) were growing up with that mentality that the US went to war to kill Muslims not that long ago?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by panerd

It's pretty clear these terror attacks are religious in nature. I have never seen anything that said the Soviets committed their crimes due to a non-belief. That doesn't really even make any sense. If you showed me an attack where atheism was the person's cause I would condemn them for the belief. (technically non belief)

I agree with you 100% that if a random Muslim guy murders his wife because she cheated on him, or a Jewish guy robs a liquor store for money, or a Christian guy rapes a woman that their religious faith has no bearing on their crimes. These Paris attackers were yelling "Allahu akbar" while gunning down their victims that is clearly different.

The Soviet Union and the PRC have definitely conducted attacks on religious places of worship. The PRC obviously has done so (ask Falun Gong). But, we don't condemn atheism for that. We don't condemn atheism for the massacres of the French Revolution (which was strongly anti-clerical). We understand. So it makes sense for us not to condemn an entire religion with a billion adherents when someone uses religion for their violent attacks.

If it was Islam that is the problem, we'd have a much, much worse time of it, because... as I mentioned, there are over a billion Muslims. If following the faith meant acting like ISIS... well, we wouldn't be sitting here on our computers, we'd have already been drafted into the World War.

[JPhillips]

I've seen pictures of bombs with Scripture numbers written on them that were then used to bomb areas known to include non-combatants. Does that condemn all Christians?

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I've seen pictures of bombs with Scripture numbers written on them that were then used to bomb areas known to include non-combatants. Does that condemn all Christians?

My facebook wall seems to think so.

Edit: My favorite one from yesterday was that all religions are evil, but that Christianity is more like a misdemeanor and Islam is more like a felony.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I've seen pictures of bombs with Scripture numbers written on them that were then used to bomb areas known to include non-combatants. Does that condemn all Christians?

I assume I should answer this question since it was me and ISiddiqui on opposite sides on the issue. I think the article I linked pretty much addresses your question. I don't expect people to have time during the day (Or even want to) to read every link but if you are truly looking for an answer read the Harris link.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I've seen pictures of bombs with Scripture numbers written on them that were then used to bomb areas known to include non-combatants. Does that condemn all Christians?

Sick fucks are simply sick fucks. They would find a way to do despicable things even if religion wasn't in the equation. Hell, Jared is blaming his pedophilia on Subway sandwiches.

[ISiddiqui]

That's ridiculous! I mean there is no way he has a foot-long and if he did, he wouldn't be charging just $5 for it

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I don't claim to know the answer to this one, but I've definitely wondered over the last few days if--at this point--the greater threat to American lives is from radicals entering from outside, or from creating an environment that radicalizes those already here.

You eliminate the latter issue by removing -- or at the very least containing -- the ones already here, just as should have been done more than a decade ago.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You eliminate the latter issue by removing -- or at the very least containing -- the ones already here, just as should have been done more than a decade ago.

Yeah, no way in hell THAT would radicalize anybody, punishing people who have been here for several generations because of what someone else who hijacked their holy book did.

https://www.facebook.com/georgehtake...type=3&fref=nf

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by cartman

Yeah, no way in hell THAT would radicalize anybody, punishing people who have been here for several generations because of what someone else who hijacked their holy book did.

No shit. We seem to be our own worst enemy where the Middle East is concerned.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

This is the modernist fallacy that all things must conform to rational inquiry and there is an objective way of looking at all things - applied to faith, it means you must affirm all or none. That has rarely been the case when it applies to Scripture and now, in a post-modern world, the criticism makes even less sense.

i think a large part of the issue is the word rational. Is the opposite irrational? ie, most of history Scripture has been interpreted irrationally?

I'm not disagreeing with you, I just see that word as being problematic.

[nol]

The issue of rounding up minority citizens was yet another one where Ronald Reagan proved to be too much of a softie to be a true modern conservative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_...es_Act_of_1988

The act granted each surviving internee about US$20,000 in compensation, with payments beginning in 1990. The legislation stated that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership" as opposed to legitimate security reasons.

[ISiddiqui]

The 'opposite' of rationalist/objectivist reading, if you will, is allegorical, metaphorical, mythopoetic, emotional-based etc. Not as a modern history book or journalism, but as poetry, letters, moralist-history.

I think too many in our society in general ascribe to the religion of hyper-rationalism. Where emotion has no place in decision making and the 'truth' can only come from empirical facts.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Sick fucks are simply sick fucks. They would find a way to do despicable things even if religion wasn't in the equation. Hell, Jared is blaming his pedophilia on Subway sandwiches.

Yes. But these particular despicable people have found that Salafism completely supports their ideas and there's a popular religious ideology they can use to recruit others.

Polling indicates that about 4% of Arabs feel positively toward ISIS and another 7% somewhat positively. This includes Syrian refugees.

http://english.dohainstitute.org/fil...8-7c8a077e522e

Further, within the study, those in areas where ISIS is more popular are more likely to say that ISIS wasn't created by foreign intervention - that it's a product of local society. That's more consistent with an ideology.

The 15% figure is absurd. But with more than one billion Muslims, you could be at half of 1% and that's enough to create a huge problem. You can still have a huge problem and have the overwhelming number of faithful Muslims believe that this interpretation is wrong.

I can't say whether ISIS's use of scripture is valid or not - it's right there in the Koran, but I'm skeptical of any religious scholar who tries to argue that one interpretation of scripture is more valid than any other. It's there, and it's being used in that manner by tens of thousands of people.

They're painting a picture of a "pure" society where women are property and you get to take over the world and are rewarded with a wonderful afterlife. To die, through violence, in the creation of this society is considered a primary qualification for that reward.

Contrast this with the overwhelming Judeo-Christian sentiment that to die in a state when you're committing a sin is a disqualification for reward. It's hard to recruit people to this cause. What ideology are you giving them?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If it was Islam that is the problem, we'd have a much, much worse time of it, because... as I mentioned, there are over a billion Muslims. If following the faith meant acting like ISIS... well, we wouldn't be sitting here on our computers, we'd have already been drafted into the World War.

No one is saying every Muslim is a terrorist or the religion will turn everyone into one. But Islam accounts for the vast majority of terrorist attacks around the globe. Islamic countries are almost all near the bottom of the Human Rights Index.

Now this is either an incredible coincidence or something within that religion is attributing to violence and lack of human rights.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No one is saying every Muslim is a terrorist or the religion will turn everyone into one. But Islam accounts for the vast majority of terrorist attacks around the globe. Islamic countries are almost all near the bottom of the Human Rights Index.

Now this is either an incredible coincidence or something within that religion is attributing to violence and lack of human rights.

Jon strongly intimates this viewpoint.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No one is saying every Muslim is a terrorist or the religion will turn everyone into one. But Islam accounts for the vast majority of terrorist attacks around the globe. Islamic countries are almost all near the bottom of the Human Rights Index.

Now this is either an incredible coincidence or something within that religion is attributing to violence and lack of human rights.

How many terrorist attacks have happened in Indonesia since the election of President Obama? You may ask what does Indonesia have to do with anything, but Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim county (by quite a bit). Perhaps knowing this may indeed help with answering your question.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

How many terrorist attacks have happened in Indonesia since the election of President Obama? You may ask what does Indonesia have to do with anything, but Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim county (by quite a bit). Perhaps knowing this may indeed help with answering your question.

17 July 2009 — The JW Marriott and Ritz-Carlton Hotels in Jakarta, were hit by separate suicide bombings five minutes apart. Three of the seven victims who were killed were Australians, two from the Netherlands, and one each from New Zealand and Indonesia. More than 50 people were injured in the blasts.[18]
2010s[edit]
15 March 2011 — a package of explosive device hidden in a book was delivered to Ulil Abhsar Abdalla, an activist of Jaringan Islam Liberal (Islamic Liberal Network) in Komunitas Utan Kayu complex near 68h Radio station, Utan Kayu, East Jakarta. The note enclosed with the book requested Abdalla to write a foreword for the upcoming book to be published. The Institut Studi Arus Informasi (ISAI) receptionist suspected the package and call for Gegana (anti-bomb squad) help. There was no casualties in this attack, however before the Gegana squad arrived, the bomb exploded severing one of the police's arm trying to defuse the device.[19]
15 April 2011 — a suicide bomber detonated an explosive device in a mosque in a police compound in the city of Cirebon, in West Java, during Friday prayer. The bomber was killed and at least 28 people were injured.[20][21]
25 September 2011 — a suicide bomb exploded in Bethel Injil Church in Sepenuh, Solo, Central Java. The blast killed the bomber and injured 14 people.[22]
8 April 2012 — Trigana Air PK-YRF airplane were shot by unidentified gunmen during landing approach on Mulia airstrip, Puncak Jaya, Papua on 08.21 AM. A Papua Pos journalist, Kogoya (35), were killed in this shooting.[23]
17 August 2012 — two policemen guarding a Lebaran (Eid ul Fitr) traffic post in Solo, Central Java, were shot by gunmen on motorcycle. The shooting was happened after midnight on 01.10 AM Friday, 17 August 2012, and the two policemen were injured.[24]
16 October 2012 — Police discovered two corpses of murdered policemen that has been missing three days earlier in Tamanjeka village, Poso Regency, Central Sulawesi. The victims are head of Police Unit Intelligence of Poso Pesisir sector, Brigadir Sudirman, and Poso Police Resort Assault Unit, Brigadir Satu Andi Sapa. They were missing during investigation mission on suspected terrorist's training ground in a forest at Poso Regency.[25]
27 November 2012 — Three policemen stationed in remote Pirime police post, Jayawijaya, Papua, were killed in an attack by a group of unidentified men. Police suspected the Papua separatist movement were behind the attack.[26]

[RainMaker]

I mean Indonesia is better than most Muslim countries in terms of terrorism but Bali was hit with some pretty big ones over a decade ago.

It's still one country. Most of the terrorist attacks occur in just 5 countries, all predominately Muslim. The top 8 terror groups in the world in terms of killing all adhere to Islam. The data on this is readily available. Like I said, maybe it's a gigantic coincidence but there is a huge correlation between terrorism today and Islam.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The top 8 terror groups in the world in terms of killing all adhere to Islam.

Do they truly adhere to Islam or use it as an excuse to do what they're doing?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

Jon strongly intimates this viewpoint.

Terrorist or future terrorist or tacit supporter of terrorism.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No one is saying every Muslim is a terrorist or the religion will turn everyone into one. But Islam accounts for the vast majority of terrorist attacks around the globe. Islamic countries are almost all near the bottom of the Human Rights Index.

Now this is either an incredible coincidence or something within that religion is attributing to violence and lack of human rights.

I think this comes down to whether radical Islam is a cause or symptom.

Godfather said it best:
Michael Corleone: I saw a strange thing today. Some rebels were being arrested. One of them pulled the pin on a grenade. He took himself and the captain of the command with him. Now, soldiers are paid to fight; the rebels aren't.

Hyman Roth: What does that tell you?

Michael Corleone: They could win.

The economic and political desperation of Europe in the 20's created a fascism that is not too different from isis.

If there was no Islam would there still be jihadist of a different color?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by panerd

17 July 2009 — The JW Marriott and Ritz-Carlton Hotels in Jakarta, were hit by separate suicide bombings five minutes apart. Three of the seven victims who were killed were Australians, two from the Netherlands, and one each from New Zealand and Indonesia. More than 50 people were injured in the blasts.[18]
2010s[edit]
15 March 2011 — a package of explosive device hidden in a book was delivered to Ulil Abhsar Abdalla, an activist of Jaringan Islam Liberal (Islamic Liberal Network) in Komunitas Utan Kayu complex near 68h Radio station, Utan Kayu, East Jakarta. The note enclosed with the book requested Abdalla to write a foreword for the upcoming book to be published. The Institut Studi Arus Informasi (ISAI) receptionist suspected the package and call for Gegana (anti-bomb squad) help. There was no casualties in this attack, however before the Gegana squad arrived, the bomb exploded severing one of the police's arm trying to defuse the device.[19]
15 April 2011 — a suicide bomber detonated an explosive device in a mosque in a police compound in the city of Cirebon, in West Java, during Friday prayer. The bomber was killed and at least 28 people were injured.[20][21]
25 September 2011 — a suicide bomb exploded in Bethel Injil Church in Sepenuh, Solo, Central Java. The blast killed the bomber and injured 14 people.[22]
8 April 2012 — Trigana Air PK-YRF airplane were shot by unidentified gunmen during landing approach on Mulia airstrip, Puncak Jaya, Papua on 08.21 AM. A Papua Pos journalist, Kogoya (35), were killed in this shooting.[23]
17 August 2012 — two policemen guarding a Lebaran (Eid ul Fitr) traffic post in Solo, Central Java, were shot by gunmen on motorcycle. The shooting was happened after midnight on 01.10 AM Friday, 17 August 2012, and the two policemen were injured.[24]
16 October 2012 — Police discovered two corpses of murdered policemen that has been missing three days earlier in Tamanjeka village, Poso Regency, Central Sulawesi. The victims are head of Police Unit Intelligence of Poso Pesisir sector, Brigadir Sudirman, and Poso Police Resort Assault Unit, Brigadir Satu Andi Sapa. They were missing during investigation mission on suspected terrorist's training ground in a forest at Poso Regency.[25]
27 November 2012 — Three policemen stationed in remote Pirime police post, Jayawijaya, Papua, were killed in an attack by a group of unidentified men. Police suspected the Papua separatist movement were behind the attack.[26]

The wiki list tells you very little about the individual attacks. Though, for example, the one in November 2012... the Papua separatist movement is something very different. As is killing of policemen.

Why is Indonesia different when it has so many Muslims if Islam is the problem? Maybe the simple answer isn't the correct one here?

Btw, there has been a higher amount of terrorist attacks in the US over the same period.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's still one country. Most of the terrorist attacks occur in just 5 countries, all predominately Muslim. The top 8 terror groups in the world in terms of killing all adhere to Islam. The data on this is readily available. Like I said, maybe it's a gigantic coincidence but there is a huge correlation between terrorism today and Islam.

Which 5 countries? Where are they geographically located? Does is account for attacks against another terrorist group? For example ISIS's Lebanon attack last week was done to cripple Hezbollah. Is that more akin to gang violence as opposed to something religious based - what are the religious differences between ISIS and Hezbollah that make you believe it is Islam that is the core of the violence?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Do they truly adhere to Islam or use it as an excuse to do what they're doing?

Does it matter whether a committee of experts in theology validates them?

They say they're trying to set up a Caliphate representative of the time of Muhammad. This is a consistent theme among all of these terrorist groups.

It represents a small percentage of Islam, so someone in an ivory tower could argue that Salafism is invalid. Even within Salafism, most people reject the call to violence (though suicide bombers are often coerced).

I disagree that any Muslim could be converted. But it's not a movement based in poverty or desperation. These are groups of people with a specific ideology based on religious text. There is a specific promise of heavenly reward.

And it's not a poor movement by any means. Saudi Arabia is actually one of the most heavily Salafist nations in the world, with very rich men sending quite a bit of money to support these terrorist groups.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Which 5 countries? Where are they geographically located? Does is account for attacks against another terrorist group? For example ISIS's Lebanon attack last week was done to cripple Hezbollah. Is that more akin to gang violence as opposed to something religious based - what are the religious differences between ISIS and Hezbollah that make you believe it is Islam that is the core of the violence?

Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Syria, and Pakistan.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Syria, and Pakistan.

Iraq and Afghanistan is somewhat self-explanatory, as is Syria. Pakistan is, of course, a run over from Afghanistan. Geographically linked as it were - Afghanistan and Pakistan & Iraq and Syria - with Iran right in the middle (though both terror groups, Al Queda and ISIS, are hostile to Iran and its proxies).

Nigeria is the one outlier (Boko Haram). Interestingly enough, I notice that Boko Haram was formed in 2002, but wasn't designated a terrorist organization until 2013. It seems before 2013, it was mostly targeting police forces and politicians - more of a rebel group, but since then has turned into a terrorist group (after getting support from Al Queda and now ISIS). On a side now, Central Africa tends to be a hotspot for religious extremism - Uganda, as we all know, is where Christians passed a bill to execute homosexuals, which was struck down by the Supreme Court of Uganda.

[bhlloy]

What I don't understand is how we can (rightly) condemn Salafism and continue to sponsor the state that exports and funds most of it to the tune of billions of dollars in weapon sales and subsidies.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

what are the religious differences between ISIS and Hezbollah that make you believe it is Islam that is the core of the violence?

Hezbollah is a Shi'a Islamist militant group. According to the article from the Atlantic:

"Being a Shiite, as most Iraqi Arabs are, meets the standard as well, because the Islamic State regards Shiism as innovation, and to innovate on the Koran is to deny its initial perfection. (The Islamic State claims that common Shiite practices, such as worship at the graves of imams and public self-flagellation, have no basis in the Koran or in the example of the Prophet.) That means roughly 200 million Shia are marked for death. So too are the heads of state of every Muslim country, who have elevated man-made law above Sharia by running for office or enforcing laws not made by God."

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

What I don't understand is how we can (rightly) condemn Salafism and continue to sponsor the state that exports and funds most of it to the tune of billions of dollars in weapon sales and subsidies.

Yep... that's the elephant in the room, no doubt.

No solution to this mess comes without getting Saudi Arabia to crack down on those who fund violent Salafist groups. Easier said than done.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Except the fine young ladies and gentlemen in France and Belgium didn't check those boxes (apparently) on the immigration form.

Originally Posted by Subby

Here's how you assimilate - pay your taxes and follow the law. Not hard.

I do think there's an argument here about how globalization has changed assimilation. You see it with the Boston brothers, you see it with the Paris attackers - in the past disaffected, angry young men like this couldn't find a ton of videos giving them a cause to latch onto, supporting their darker fantasies, and they certainly couldn't easily travel to the Caucasus or the Levant to link up with militants and receive some training along with additional indoctrination.

I do think there's also a huge problem with ghetto-izing refugees/immigrants and basically keeping them in separate, substandard enclaves, and from what I've heard that's been a serious problem in France/Belgium (and to a slightly lesser extent Germany/England) from both sides. Somewhat locally, I've seen this play out a little bit around Portland, Maine with a large Somali refugee influx - New England city recruiting Somalis as cops (not supporting that website, but that article gives a pretty decent summary).

I'm in a weird place where I'm not biased against refugees on principle or safety concerns, but I'd prefer we allow many more educated immigrants from any country who will settle in a wide variety of places over refugees from specific ones and effectively setting up communities that delay "assimilation". But pretending that it's as simple as follow the law/pay taxes and the 2nd generation will be Americanized doesn't help the discussion either.

Originally Posted by Dutch

The Nazis didnt kill any Americans in the USA and half our country was of German decent. Perhaps a vast majority of the radicalized Germans were in...Germany?

Well, we did still inter plenty of German-Americans as well as innocent people of Japanese descent, and seriously discussed detaining all of them on the East Coast before deciding the numbers would be unmanageable.

But I'm glad you pointed out a time when we feared sleeper attacks from (much larger) populations from countries we actually were at war with where we can look back in retrospect and realize the fear was massively overblown.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Hezbollah is a Shi'a Islamist militant group. According to the article from the Atlantic:

"Being a Shiite, as most Iraqi Arabs are, meets the standard as well, because the Islamic State regards Shiism as innovation, and to innovate on the Koran is to deny its initial perfection. (The Islamic State claims that common Shiite practices, such as worship at the graves of imams and public self-flagellation, have no basis in the Koran or in the example of the Prophet.) That means roughly 200 million Shia are marked for death. So too are the heads of state of every Muslim country, who have elevated man-made law above Sharia by running for office or enforcing laws not made by God."

Indeed. The point being that treating it all as it is the fault of the religion, as if the religion itself can only lead to one real outcome (and that outcome being extremist fundamentalist violence) ignores the fact that these groups are fighting amongst themselves for actual religious differences. And that maybe the entire religion and what it may demand are a bit more complicated that simply blaming Islam for all of it.

We can separate Christianity for violence done in the Church's name, realizing that a lot of religious violence had separate bases (such as the 30 Years War was far more than just two groups that had different views of following God). Why can't we do the same for Islam?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Well, we did still inter plenty of German-Americans as well as innocent people of Japanese descent, and seriously discussed detaining all of them on the East Coast before deciding the numbers would be unmanageable.

But I'm glad you pointed out a time when we feared sleeper attacks from (much larger) populations from countries we actually were at war with where we can look back in retrospect and realize the fear was massively overblown.

Interestingly enough that reminds me of a story of my Lutheran Congregation. It was started in the 1860s as a German congregation and services were done in German until 1940. Some of the older folks in the congregation remembered hearing stories from some of their predecessors on how the congregation was treated during World War 1. Basically, people (non-members) waited outside of the church on Sundays and as soon as people left service started pelting them with food and rocks and yelled racial slurs against them as well as telling them to "go home".

So our overblown hatred of foreign races based on massively overblown fear is definitely something very apparent to me.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by panerd

17 July 2009 — The JW Marriott and Ritz-Carlton Hotels in Jakarta, were hit by separate suicide bombings five minutes apart. Three of the seven victims who were killed were Australians, two from the Netherlands, and one each from New Zealand and Indonesia. More than 50 people were injured in the blasts.[18]
2010s[edit]
15 March 2011 — a package of explosive device hidden in a book was delivered to Ulil Abhsar Abdalla, an activist of Jaringan Islam Liberal (Islamic Liberal Network) in Komunitas Utan Kayu complex near 68h Radio station, Utan Kayu, East Jakarta. The note enclosed with the book requested Abdalla to write a foreword for the upcoming book to be published. The Institut Studi Arus Informasi (ISAI) receptionist suspected the package and call for Gegana (anti-bomb squad) help. There was no casualties in this attack, however before the Gegana squad arrived, the bomb exploded severing one of the police's arm trying to defuse the device.[19]
15 April 2011 — a suicide bomber detonated an explosive device in a mosque in a police compound in the city of Cirebon, in West Java, during Friday prayer. The bomber was killed and at least 28 people were injured.[20][21]
25 September 2011 — a suicide bomb exploded in Bethel Injil Church in Sepenuh, Solo, Central Java. The blast killed the bomber and injured 14 people.[22]
8 April 2012 — Trigana Air PK-YRF airplane were shot by unidentified gunmen during landing approach on Mulia airstrip, Puncak Jaya, Papua on 08.21 AM. A Papua Pos journalist, Kogoya (35), were killed in this shooting.[23]
17 August 2012 — two policemen guarding a Lebaran (Eid ul Fitr) traffic post in Solo, Central Java, were shot by gunmen on motorcycle. The shooting was happened after midnight on 01.10 AM Friday, 17 August 2012, and the two policemen were injured.[24]
16 October 2012 — Police discovered two corpses of murdered policemen that has been missing three days earlier in Tamanjeka village, Poso Regency, Central Sulawesi. The victims are head of Police Unit Intelligence of Poso Pesisir sector, Brigadir Sudirman, and Poso Police Resort Assault Unit, Brigadir Satu Andi Sapa. They were missing during investigation mission on suspected terrorist's training ground in a forest at Poso Regency.[25]
27 November 2012 — Three policemen stationed in remote Pirime police post, Jayawijaya, Papua, were killed in an attack by a group of unidentified men. Police suspected the Papua separatist movement were behind the attack.[26]

As Siddiqui pointed out, even parts of what's on your list is based in separatist movements. Here's another terrorist, separatist group from the same region - List of attacks attributed to the LTTE, 2000s - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Or do they not count since they were predominantly Christian? (Fwiw for those saying military force can never be the answer vs terrorist semi-states, they were also militarily defeated and conceded defeat.)

But even for the incidents on your list that are tied in to Jemaah Islamayih, guess where they get their funding from? Saudis Quietly Promote Strict Islam in Indonesia - NYTimes.com (note the date on that article)

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No one is saying every Muslim is a terrorist or the religion will turn everyone into one. But Islam accounts for the vast majority of terrorist attacks around the globe. Islamic countries are almost all near the bottom of the Human Rights Index.

Now this is either an incredible coincidence or something within that religion is attributing to violence and lack of human rights.

Nah, it's Bedouin and tribal culture, although that Saudi money is helping spread more militant interpretations of Islam even in places where the predominant culture took a relaxed view of what it means to be a Muslim. You can look at Pakistan, and terrorism isn't a problem in Lahore or other populated areas, but instead concentrated on one tribal border region. Lebanon/Syria/Iraq, the metropolitan areas like Beirut/Damascus/Baghdad aren't the places these movements grow in, it's sparsely populated regions dominated by very "traditional" power structures (and then you appeal to angry, disaffected youngsters from everywhere). Christians and Jews living under Muslim rule were treated much better than the opposite a few hundred years ago, you just haven't seen the same cultural progress in the Middle East or North Africa you have in Europe. There isn't anything inherent to a book that is 2/3 the exact same as Christianity's book, or 1/3 the same as Judaism's book that hasn't show up in their history too. Dig in to why those virulent strains are better funded than their Christian/Jewish counterparts, dig into why people are attracted to violent fringe groups when they hear about them, and there are some very uncomfortable answers, but don't tell me it can all be traced back to a book that has thousands of different interpretations, the vast majority of them peaceful.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No one is saying every Muslim is a terrorist

Well, not exactly "no one."

Man calls all Muslims terrorists during Va. meeting

[molson]

Donald Trump Says He's Open to Requiring American Muslims to Carry Special IDs | Mother Jones

And he's still the front-runner. This message is resonating with people. And I don't even think it's how he really feels, but it's like shooting a fish in a barrel.

For the more moderate voices on this stuff, it's not just about figuring out how to minimize Islamic fundamentalism and its impacts in ways short of all-out-war, they also have to figure out how to deal with this growing segment of the population that feels that way. It's easy just to write them all off as bigots, but when that group gets bigger and bigger and can potentially swing elections, their voices matter, and that has to be dealt with too.