At this point, I tend to avoid participating in these discussions anymore (particularly on larger websites) because of how quickly "discussion" of the issue turns into soapboxing. At this point, it would be hard to effectively argue against the notion that Daesh and, by extension, a large contingent of the Muslim population of the world, is possessed of a worldview that at best views the West unfavorably and at worst believes in its extermination. The problem is, where do we go from here? And that's where the "discussion" always seems to stop. Because there isn't a clear answer and some of the easier potentials to discuss are particularly thorny for a number of reasons. Do we believe our right to bear arms should trump the government's authority to enforce national security policy? If so, then do we assume that death at the hands of violent individuals must simply be an assumed risk of living in our society? And if not, then do we comfortable with the notion of a long-term, extensive effort to curtail gun ownership and trafficking in this country? Or do we instead turn outwards and claim that since this act was perpetrated by a particular belief, should we increase the government's authority to pursue individuals suspected of sympathy to said groups with greater autonomy and fewer legal restrictions? Do we as a society feel comfortable with restricting the rights of those who enter this country from a certain belief system? If not, how do you effectively police and monitor individuals without trampling on their civil liberties? No one I know wants to have those discussions though. Because, odds are, we don't have nearly enough data or experience in security, policy, and socio-political relations to make a truly informed decision that could actually take shape in the form of policy. And yet time after time after time with events like these, like Sandy Hook, like Aurora, etc. etc. etc. the conversation never goes any further than righteous anger and accusations of weakness on the part of the "other team" who are clearly to blame for all of our faults in the world. And so begins the ritual of making the issue 20 parts politics and 1 part supporting the victims of the event and trying to encourage a more supportive, understanding, generally less-assholish way of living. Because those are things that we, as citizens, could more directly affect than something as nebulous as managing the centuries long conflict of Islam with the entirety of the Western world, with all its facets, complications, intricacies and competing interests. At least, it's the conversation I wish I'd see more of. Maybe I'm of a minority opinion on this one.
Its all politics from here on out. A bunch of outside interest will scream about how something should be done. If were lucky nothing will happen, if were unlucky we will loose some more of our freedoms get groped more at airports and pay billions and generally be inconvenienced for the illusion of security. Complicated problems require complex solutions and nobody is interested in that. Muslim population of the world
its kind of unfair to the Shia Muslims. I don't think they were really any recent attacks in the last decade or 2 by the Shia, yet they get lumped in with the rest of the Sunni. Its like Catholics doing the bombings but all Christians getting blamed. I feel like we should at least be making that distinction.
There are Taliban who wouldn't (and haven't) shot up gay clubs. Being gay is a capital offense in parts of Afghanistan and Shia Iran has executed homosexuals as recently as 2014. It's like the Catholics doing all the bombings and all Catholics being painted as IRA suicide bombers: Religion in general, no matter how radical, is not the proximate cause of violence. It may be the justification but at the end of the day, you have to want to kill somebody to kill somebody and there are billions of devoutly religious people in the world of all creeds that have no instinct to murder.
What do we get out of doing that, though? Islam has a history of destroying idols, sequestering women, calcifying culture and otherwise fitting poorly into this modern world... but so does Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism and despite all that, the freedoms and liberties that make the modern world modern arose out of those religions such that we can now point at "islam" as the root cause of all evil because we're so liberated and modern. But radicals have to be radicalized. Anwar al-Awlaki used to go on PBS to explain Islam and provide national perspective prior to being persecuted and subverted by the FBI. Within five years he was calling for jihad from Yemen. France is full of muslims. Nearly all of them have no interest in shooting up Kosher markets. The more of them get blamed for shooting up kosher markets, the more of them start to align with the kill the infidel wing. There's a whole lot of Islam. And yeah - I wouldn't want to open a gay club in Afghanistan, either. But I know muslims from Afghanistan that don't give the first fuck about yours, my, or anyone else's sexual orientation. And every time we say "your religion is to blame" we're driving a wedge between us and the people we're reliant on to make Islam less of of a violent, reactionary influence.
There are a few things giving me pause in replying to you. Mainly that I want to respect the conversation you're having with white2 and not me, and also because white2 is probably capable of speaking for themselves. But your reply is uncharitable and seems counterproductive to you're stated aims. Who doesn't form opinions on incomplete information? When is information complete? When you say that it is? I appreciate you wanting to limit misinformation, or to properly categorize opinion and fact. But there's a discussion going on about the proper response to terrorism. Hell, we might never agree as to what our subject even is, let alone what conclusions we should draw. But, tell me. What facts are here? What are the some valid conclusions you can draw that are "knowledgeable". I don't mean this sarcastically. If you don't have anything to say, that's perfectly ok. But other people do. And instead of listening, cogitating, responding or asking questions, you instead soapbox about something as uncontroversial as "let's all be more rigorous in our thought process." There isn't enough due diligence in the world to form the proper response to mass murder, to gun reform, or to the global clash of cultures. So in the meantime, we get together and try to figure it out, very slowly and painfully. These conversations are hard in the best of times, and aren't better served with a participant with a minority opinion being lambasted on flimsy semantical grounds. Forming opinions on incomplete information is an automatic process. It's so automatic, that the irony of this sentence seems lost on you: You acknowledge your lack of knowledge, form an opinion, and then drew a conclusion. You called it like you saw it. But what bothered me most is that you went to such pain to silence white2, despite your open disinterest in our discussion. If you're "not really interested in this conversation as a whole," then at the very least don't shut others down.Maybe I read to much into what you're saying, but I'm fairly certain you acknowledge forming opinions on incomplete information and that my friend will get you nowhere.
Okay, let's talk about this. For starters, I'm going to reflect back your statements as a summary in order to refine the nature of your argument. If I understand you correctly, your primary arguments are: 1) It's important to acknowledge the radical message coming out of the religious leaders of Islam, which cannot be done without acknowledging the radical nature of Islam. 2) Islam is radical because the Koran is radical, and leaves little room for interpretation. Therefore, the source of radical Islam is Islam itself, and any true interpretation of the Koran will lead to a violent and regressive creed. If this is the basis of your argument let me know. Because then we can begin. If not, correct at will because this is an important discussion.
I wouldn't put it that way. I do feel that there are many aspects of many religions that are fully open to criticism and I think a case could be made that Islam, in general, tends to more violence-prone sects than, say, Judaism. But it's a complex discussion that doesn't lend itself well to bumper sticker talk. I would have welcomed that discussion, and still do, and want you to know that at no point was there the slightest whiff of "this guy has his head up his ass."