Je Suis Charlie - The Bear and Badger

bad_hair_day

GooberTheHat

I don't think there is any question that the conduct of the American military was disgusting, and you could argue that they did commit acts of terrorism without to much difficulty I would imagine. But that doesn't mean that the massacre at Hue, or the Dak Son massacre were not also acts of terrorism.

But that's all besides the point. I was trying to suggest that just because a terrorist organisation/movement stems from a particular region/culture/ideology, that doesn't mean that that religion/culture/ideology is responsible for terrorism.

Yossarian

bad_hair_day wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

That genuinely made me lol, which was slightly embarrassing as I was walking down the street. Come on then, what are these 'spectacularly dishonest intellectual gymnastics' of which you speak? Edit: or spectacular intellectually dishonest whatevs.

I enjoy a laff too, s'why I come in here :o) 'Hey bruv, been thinking about topping myself, you up for it? Good, don't tell Allah though.'

Eh? Is that supposed to be a response? If so, these intellectual gymnastics may simply have been you misunderstanding my post.

I don't think I've misunderstood it, but read it three times just to be sure. I exercised a little brevity to your post, but still on point I thought.

Whatever the point is, it's lost on me.

Facewon

You're not alone, Yoss, I don't know what that 'spectacularly dishonest intellectual gymnastics' stuff means either. FYI.

nick_md

GooberTheHat wrote:

I don't think there is any question that the conduct of the American military was disgusting, and you could argue that they did commit acts of terrorism without to much difficulty I would imagine. But that doesn't mean that the massacre at Hue, or the Dak Son massacre were not also acts of terrorism. But that's all besides the point. I was trying to suggest that just because a terrorist organisation/movement stems from a particular region/culture/ideology, that doesn't mean that that religion/culture/ideology is responsible for terrorism.

Aye, no worries, was just genuinely interested to hear some details. That's my reading set for the weekend

As for American terrorism, yes you don't need to try very hard at all to point to examples of it, right up to the present day.

GooberTheHat

nick_md wrote:

GooberTheHat wrote:

It wouldn't be a stretch to describe the viet cong in the same way we would describe IS/ISIL as terrorists.

Really? I mean, I don't have any details to back myself up really so I welcome an educating, but that's far from the picture I had of them. Happy to admit I'm wrong if I am.

Taken directly from Wikipedia, so further investigation is advisable before taking at face value, but:

Pike has also described the Dak Son Massacre, in which the Vietcong used flamethrowers against civilians in Dak Son, killing 252, as a terrorist act.[53] In May 1967, Dr. Tran Van-Luy reported to the World Health Organization "that over the previous 10 years Communist terrorists had destroyed 174 dispensaries, maternity homes and hospitals."[54] Ami Pedahzur has written that "the overall volume and lethality of Vietcong terrorism rivals or exceeds all but a handful (e.g. Algeria, Sri Lanka) of terrorist campaigns waged over the last third of the twentieth century,"[55] and that the VC used suicide terrorism as a form of propaganda of the deed.[56] Arthur J. Dommen has written that the majority of those killed due to VC terrorism were civilians, caught in ambushes as they traveled on buses, and that the group burnt down villages and forcibly conscripted members.[57]

acemuzzy

I went to Hue and may a "hip hip Hue" joke. It was very funny.

nick_md

Again, fair enough and plenty of interesting reading. I can easily point to Me Lai (sp?) massacre though too - is that classed as terrorism? Probably not, just some boys going a bit too heavy.

I hate how the majority of my links are chomsky articles, and I've almost certainly posted this before, but it's a good one on American terrorism: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20141103.htm

That doesn't excuse any act by any other nation of course, it's not a case of 'but look, they did it too!', it's simply illustrating that what we deem 'terrorism' is incredibly arbitrary.

Kow

I fell of a bicycle in Hue. Vietnamese bastards.

IanHamlett

Yossarian wrote:

Amazing. The 6th paragraph completely torpedoes Ian's argument.

Not quite. If you limit the the areas you're looking at to USA (0.6% muslim) and Europe (6% muslim) and count all terrorism, not just religious terrorism, then it looks like I'm way off.

These are from the last month.

France 17 killed
Nigeria 200 killed maybe 2000 more
Cameroon 30 killed
Somalia 9 killed
Iraq 33 killed
Iraq 150 killed
Nigeria 30 killed
France 0 killed (tried running people over)
Syria 230 killed
Nigeria 32 killed 175 kids missing
Yemen 26 killed
Pakistan 140 killed
Australia 2 killed

You might not think that these attacks have anything to do with islam, but the people doing them are under that impression. If you can find another religion with a list like that in the last 31 days, then I'm sorry and I'm wrong.

Diluted Dante

It's not the last 31 days, but:

bad_hair_day

Facewon wrote:

You're not alone, Yoss, I don't know what that 'spectacularly dishonest intellectual gymnastics' stuff means either. FYI.

It means to jump through hoops or bend the shape of the original argument only to try and score points but in reality you're deceiving yourself. Or something.

Diluted Dante

Yeah, they meant what were those hoops?

hunk

It's interesting to observe that when one compares the OT and the Qu'ran there are many striking similarities in themes.
Corporeal punishment, genocide, a vengeful God, hell, heaven, death to unbelievers, people marrying 12yo girls etc, etc.

It's strange then that Jews and Christians seldomly fall back to literal interpretation of such texts (thankgod).
Muslims on the other hand are more prone to interpret such texts word for word by the letter.
Why is that?

Imo, it's partly due to the hierarchy of the religion of islam and how it is structured. Islam is less structured than say Christianity. Anyone (read: any loon) can become an Imam and start preaching their version of Islam. And in the end the people who shout loudest are the people who gain traction....And if the shouty, preachy people also have an arsenal of guns and a fast internet connection, that's when things get icky.

Outlaw

Christianity used to be a lot more literal though, didn't it?

Yossarian

hunk wrote:

Why is that? Imo, it's partly due to the hierarchy of the religion of islam and how it is structured.

Plus, popularity in poor countries with poorly evacuated populouses.

IanHamlett

I've always thought the lack of structure was a problem. I think there would be less radical preachers if islam had a pope. There might still be wacky offshoots.

Yossarian

IanHamlett wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

Amazing. The 6th paragraph completely torpedoes Ian's argument.

Not quite. If you limit the the areas you're looking at to USA (0.6% muslim) and Europe (6% muslim) and count all terrorism, not just religious terrorism, then it looks like I'm way off. These are from the last month. France 17 killed Nigeria 200 killed maybe 2000 more Cameroon 30 killed Somalia 9 killed Iraq 33 killed Iraq 150 killed Nigeria 30 killed France 0 killed (tried running people over) Syria 230 killed Nigeria 32 killed 175 kids missing Yemen 26 killed Pakistan 140 killed Australia 2 killed You might not think that these attacks have anything to do with islam, but the people doing them are under that impression. If you can find another religion with a list like that in the last 31 days, then I'm sorry and I'm wrong.

I forgot I'd let this go past.

The reason that that statistic torpedoes your argument is that you were saying that adherents of Islam are more likely to do shitty things than others. If 6% of the population of Europe is Islamic, but only 2% of the terrorist attacks, then surely that proves that Muslims are less likely to commit terror attacks than the average rather than more. No?

[Deleted User]

g.man wrote:

I think that the fear of being shot in the fucking head by people who will actually come and shoot you in the fucking head is a pretty legitimate concern.

I think it's fairly safe to say that the fraction of people who are actually shot in the head divided by the fraction of people who fear being shot in the head is fairly low. I also think the fear that people have about terrorists/immigrants/youth of today/blah fucking blah does nothing but help the cause of idiots when the stats are properly looked at. And being a journalist should carry some moral weight that is lacking in the press today. I noticed the Guardian and Independent showed the cartoon but the rest were too scared. Pussies.

hunk

I guess in a way western Jihadists have a very naive romantic notion of IS and Al Qaeda, which must be very appealing to them.
Living by the rules of the holy book like the people of old, where everything is black and white. Fighting for the little kids in Syria (apparently they feel the west has abandoned them), fighting Israel for a free Palestine etc, etc...A muslim society that embraces them and where they don't feel like an outcast. Dying in a suicide mission and going to heaven where a gazillion virgins await.

Perfect target fodder for IS and Al Qaeda to reach out to and manipulate over facebook/twitter accounts.
Perfect for use in suicide missions and attacks like the one on Charlie Hebdo.

GooberTheHat

hunk wrote:

I guess in a way (western) Jihadists have a very naive romantic notion of IS and Al Qaeda, which must be very appealing to them.
Living by the rules of the holy book like the people of old, where everything is black and white. Fighting for the little kids in Syria (apparently they feel the west has abandoned them), fighting Israel for a free Palestine etc, etc...A muslim society that embraces them and where they don't feel like an outcast. Dying in a suicide mission and going to heaven where a gazillion virgins await.

Well, some of them. Some are clearly in need of a beheading.

[Deleted User]

Re Fox News and Shia Birmingham,

One Twitter user said: "As someone born and raised in Birmingham, I must admit there was a pressure to read the Kerrang."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30773297

IanHamlett

Yossarian wrote:

IanHamlett wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

Amazing. The 6th paragraph completely torpedoes Ian's argument.

Not quite. If you limit the the areas you're looking at to USA (0.6% muslim) and Europe (6% muslim) and count all terrorism, not just religious terrorism, then it looks like I'm way off. These are from the last month. France 17 killed Nigeria 200 killed maybe 2000 more Cameroon 30 killed Somalia 9 killed Iraq 33 killed Iraq 150 killed Nigeria 30 killed France 0 killed (tried running people over) Syria 230 killed Nigeria 32 killed 175 kids missing Yemen 26 killed Pakistan 140 killed Australia 2 killed You might not think that these attacks have anything to do with islam, but the people doing them are under that impression. If you can find another religion with a list like that in the last 31 days, then I'm sorry and I'm wrong.

I forgot I'd let this go past.

The reason that that statistic torpedoes your argument is that you were saying that adherents of Islam are more likely to do shitty things than others. If 6% of the population of Europe is Islamic, but only 2% of the terrorist attacks, then surely that proves that Muslims are less likely to commit terror attacks than the average rather than more. No?

No. I was saying that all religion is a problem and islam is currently the worst of the crop. There are terrorist groups all over the world, some from other religions and some from other ideologies, but a disproportionate amount of them shout the same phrase when they blow something up.

IanHamlett

SpaceGazelle wrote:

Re Fox News and Shia Birmingham, One Twitter user said: "As someone born and raised in Birmingham, I must admit there was a pressure to read the Kerrang." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30773297

That's fucking tops.

Facewon

SpaceGazelle wrote:

Re Fox News and Shia Birmingham,

One Twitter user said: "As someone born and raised in Birmingham, I must admit there was a pressure to read the Kerrang."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30773297

Awesome

IanHamlett

@yoss
If you want pick a local area and a limited timeframe to prove a point, why not pick Syria in the past 6 months? Too easy? What about UK in the last 10 years?

2013 Lee Rigby
2013 Pavlo Lapshyn stabbed a muslim to death and bombed a mosque
2008 Attempted bombing by islamist that only hurt himself
2007 Glasgow airport thing
2007 Letter bomb campaign
2005 July 7th bombs

That's 4 to islam (one attack per % of the population), 2 to non-islam.

It's easy if you skip out some long-running separatist movements in europe.

mistercrayon

It's easy if you ignore inconvenient facts?!

IanHamlett

Yes, like starting the counter on 12th Sept 2001, just after 3000 deaths, and only counting in places with a tiny muslim population and some other active terrorist groups.

I could say christian terrorism isn't a problem by only counting incidents in iraq and syria. It's really quite a tiny slice of what goes on over there.

Diluted Dante

The seven before that were all IRA.

43 out of the 67 attacks listed on the Wikipedia page of List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain are attributed to Irish terrorists, with a further one suspected to be, but denied by the Provisional IRA.

g.man

SpaceGazelle wrote:

g.man wrote:

I think that the fear of being shot in the fucking head by people who will actually come and shoot you in the fucking head is a pretty legitimate concern.

I think it's fairly safe to say that the fraction of people who are actually shot in the head divided by the fraction of people who fear being shot in the head is fairly low. I also think the fear that people have about terrorists/immigrants/youth of today/blah fucking blah does nothing but help the cause of idiots when the stats are properly looked at. And being a journalist should carry some moral weight that is lacking in the press today. I noticed the Guardian and Independent showed the cartoon but the rest were too scared. Pussies.

You haven't really thought this through have you?
All these newspapers and media organisations have a responsibility to their employees safety that far outweighs sticking it to extremists to please you.
Imagine for instance an organisation like the BBC ran with these cartoons in all their broadcasts. That effectively makes every single bbc employee the world over a justifiable target for death by the sort of extremists who will actually kill these people for that reason.
Who has the right to make the decision to put thousands of employees lives in danger in the name of some bullshit crusade about freedom of speech?

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories