Fighting Islamic Jihad or Islamophobia? A Matter of Perspective....

[modrecoil]

Careful. This is a line of thinking antis use to justify gun control.It is no less false here.

I'm sorry but that's a false comparison. Antis ignore facts and obfuscate evidence that contradicts their point of view. Reasonable people concerned about an ideology that increasingly spawns death cults shouldn't be lumped in with cretins. 1.8 billion Muslims and growing faster than any other religion. Here are some relevant facts "moderate Muslims" should be concerned with:

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/0...ull-report.pdf
Edit: the above graph may be a little misleading - the percentage is applicable to the population of Muslims who want Sharia law, not ALL Muslims in the country. The relevant graph is below. Obviously, still a horrifyingly large number.


Edit 2: Doing some quick math on Iraq population (36.42 mil, percentage of Muslims 85%, percentage of Sharia fans 91%, percentage of death penalty for leaving Islam fans 42%) and assuming sample size is adequate to be representative (which it is), that's over 11 mil (rounding down) people who want the state to kill you for adopting a different religion. And Iraq is far from the worst on the list. Should we be concerned?

[RJ]

Unlikely- We'd just have different kinds of terrorism.

Funny how 35 people got shot last weekend in Chicago and no one here is debating the motivations of criminal subculture- even though that's a threat much more likely to impact us as Americans.

True. But. Possibly this is because next week money bet says another 35 get gunned down in Chicago? (Not trying to downplay the importance of the issue of shootings in major cities.). I guess I'm saying it's fundamentally a problem 'middle America' can ignore by 'not being in Chicago'.

Anyway.

This terrorist shit makes you wonder about local stuff.

Yesterday, I passed a 25 year old going out of Costco here in Sparks NV with a backpack.

It occurred to me, not least because of this Manchester bombing, why would a young guy be in Costco in Northern Nevada mid-morning with a backpack? Nothing happened of course, but my SA radar went off big time.

Personally all I think I can do is be more aware of my surroundings, be a harder target (including: get fitter, carry a non-lethal, have a IFAK to hand, and avoid large crowds).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Chuteur]

True. But. Possibly this is because next week money bet says another 35 get gunned down in Chicago? (Not trying to downplay the importance of the issue of shootings in major cities.). I guess I'm saying it's fundamentally a problem 'middle America' can ignore by 'not being in Chicago'.

Anyway.

This terrorist shit makes you wonder about local stuff.

Yesterday, I passed a 25 year old going out of Costco here in Sparks NV with a backpack.

It occurred to me, not least because of this Manchester bombing, why would a young guy be in Costco in Northern Nevada mid-morning with a backpack? Nothing happened of course, but my SA radar went off big time.

Personally all I think I can do is be more aware of my surroundings, be a harder target (including: get fitter, carry a non-lethal, have a IFAK to hand, and avoid large crowds).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

On a light note: Use a backpack for your EDC and IFAK. I do when away from home - a Milspec Monkey adaptpack, it works a treat.


On a serious note for the thread: When the politico's play their PC games and land everyone in the poop it usually quietly reverts to the fullfilment of that quote attributed to George Orwell:

people sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf

[Default.mp3]

I'm sorry but that's a false comparison. Antis ignore facts and obfuscate evidence that contradicts their point of view. Reasonable people concerned about an ideology that increasingly spawns death cults shouldn't be lumped in with cretins. 1.8 billion Muslims and growing faster than any other religion. Here are some relevant facts "moderate Muslims" should be concerned with:

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/0...ull-report.pdf
Edit: the above graph may be a little misleading - the percentage is applicable to the population of Muslims who want Sharia law, not ALL Muslims in the country. The relevant graph is below. Obviously, still a horrifyingly large number.


Edit 2: Doing some quick math on Iraq population (36.42 mil, percentage of Muslims 85%, percentage of Sharia fans 91%, percentage of death penalty for leaving Islam fans 42%) and assuming sample size is adequate to be representative (which it is), that's over 11 mil (rounding down) people who want the state to kill you for adopting a different religion. And Iraq is far from the worst on the list. Should we be concerned?

How many First World states are on that list? How many of those folks actually understand what Sharia law is? What do those numbers look like for Muslims that live in the West?

Not too different in numbers compared to Christians, eh? And then we have to consider the number of immigrants versus the native-born when considering that chart.

And that's my problem with these kind of debates, people simply don't want to account for the fact that the vast majority of Muslims live in conservative shitholes. Their incompatibility with Western ideals is largely a function of poor socioeconomic development, and not an intrinsic trait of Islam.

[TAZ]

I have no idea what you're referring to here, unless it's about the Crusade-era stuff.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. The 2 cultures have been at each other's throats since pretty much forvever. Saying that the ME is riled up due to the last 70 or so years of meddling is silly.

And therein lies the problem. It's not about the West forcing anything on Muslims. It's about the West's interference in the Middle East, which happens to be Muslim majority; we seem to get along quite well with Indonesia, the most populous Muslim state in the world, and the other various SEA states that have large Muslim populations. To me, the issue of Islam is simply an artifact of geopolitics and history, and Islam in itself is nothing more than a common trait, rather than any motivating factor (though obviously there is bleed-through due to religious identity and general resentment of the West). And let's face it, it's not like the Christians in sub-Saharan Africa or SEA are noticeably more Westernized than their Islamic brethren, so again, it's an issue of culture, not religion.

Are you seriously stating that the West and the USA aren't meddling in SEA? My thoughts on the SEA vs ME is that the ME is a more fertile ground for the barbaric %. Maybe they are more "serious" or maybe SEA is far enough removed from the center of Islam to have gained a different perspective. To be fair though even SEA has had a share of barbaric events of late, so they aren't immune either.

What's the difference between say our meddling in Europe, Asia and parts of Africa and the ME. The west meddles everywhere and has done so for generations; yet the barbaric responses seem limited.

Actually, we do force them to abandon aspects of their culture. Which is fine, I'm all for a certain amount of integration, and let's not forget that religion is but a facet of culture; culturally, Muslims are just as diverse as Christians, after all, so it's not useful to conflate religion with culture. As for being unaccepting (which I already noted is not the term I should have used), I think it's quite obvious Islamophobia has risen in the post-9/11 period, and particularly with how Trump played on the fears of the electorate during his campaign. I have many Muslims friends who have corroborated this observation in their day-to-day life. Sure, it's nothing overt for the most part, and it's still far better to be a Muslim here than a Protestant in most Muslim majority states, but it's definitely noticeable, and a step back.

I'm not in tune with this aspect, so am honesty asking for some details on how we force Muslims to abandon aspects of their culture/religion when they come here? Also have no experience with treating Muslims differently since 911. Maybe I just live in a more tolerant area, but nobody I know threats the Muslim employees, friends and neighbors differently. This is a genuine question, as I'm not too keen on the whole lump every Muslim into the barbarian category. I've done everything possible to exclude decent folks from broad brushes. Hence terminology like radical Muslim vs just Muslim or small percentage who are barbaric instead of they are all barbarians...

Seriously, guys, enough with the Nationalist Socialist/Hitler comparisons. As I noted earlier, the USA was perfectly happy to sit around and provide only matériel until the Japanese bombed us, and then the Germans declared war on us. We were quite happy to ignore atrocities that occur if they weren't committed by someone who wasn't our enemy at the time...

So you see no parallels between the US being attacked by Japan and Germany declaring war on us and various Muslim factions and nation states (IMO ISIS is pretty much a nation state with the amount of real estate they dominate) declaring Jihad against the west and killing 3000+ innocent people sitting at work?? Really.

Even if you fail to see that parallel then how about just the simple concept that the USA, England and others spent years appeasing a group of barbaric assholes to no avail. The end result was an entire continent embroiled in war and millions of people loosing their lives. The only way the barbaric assholes were shut down was by the rest of the world standing up to them and crushing them. Unfortunately, the delay in dropping a set of testicles gave the barbaric asshats a chance to build strength. Had we stood up to him and crushed him early in the game we could have saved millions of lives.

Today we are doing the same to another group of barbaric assholes. Except this time we are doing it AFTERS they have bloodied our collective noses multiple times. We are trying to appease them with kindness when in fact they do not understand that and view it as a sign of weakness, just like the previous barbaric asshat we tried to appease.

Anyway, like I stated earlier, I'm fine with integration, and rejection of those that do not share our common values. The problem is, there are many Muslims that do share these values, and yet are often binned into the same category as the radical Islamists whose views and actions are anathema to the moderates. It's not hard to find many examples on this forum alone in which sweeping negative generalizations are applied to Muslims as a whole, let alone on the Facebook, Twitter, etc.

I tend to agree with you on this. I don't want to toss out the baby with the bath water so to speak. However, I don't believe that we owe anyone anything. The job of the US government is to protect the nation, its interests and citizens first and foremost. As such I have ZERO problems with any non citizen having to show they aren't a threat before being allowed entry into the country. Don't care if said person is from Pakistan or Switzerland. Maybe if folks feel that travel bans from nations with questionable security services and high threat areas are just too much profiling, then maybe it's time to go back to a discretionary visa program for the planet.

As for the current threat from Islamic terror and terror in general, the solution is to identify those groups as quickly as possible and kill them jiffy quick. This IMO is where those moderate Muslims can step up to the plate and help instead of being the silent majority. They need to kick those few barbarians out into the open so they can be dealt with.

[Totem Polar]

Personally all I think I can do is be more aware of my surroundings, be a harder target (including: get fitter, carry a non-lethal, have a IFAK to hand, and avoid large crowds).

That, and vote local. Keep your med training up to date, stay aware of current opposition tactics (secondary explosions, etc.)

It's hard to say what life experiences have led an artsy fart like myself to be the motley sort to spend most of his discretionary online time on a forum like this one... certainly, having a dad that is a life-long shooter is a big part of it, as is growing up in the rural, libertarian PacNW. But this preparedness/awareness thing? Probably the fact that I lived OCONUS in Jordan/Israel as a kid. The whole stinkeye-the-backpack deal was already a central way of life over there. The idea of calling in any bag left unattended was as basic and fundamental to mideastern daily life as, say, the food pyramid or schoolhouse rock was over here. I'm no left of bang force recon guy, and never will be, but this concept of noticing things that stick out has been a part of me since I was 8, 9 and 10 years old.

A large chunk of the US is just arriving to the point that the rest of the world was at generations ago. Not better/worse, just different (well, ok, better in my opinion, but I digress). Who knows, In 2 generations, maybe many second/third world countries will be starting to think about the dangers of texting and driving, having finally solved basic heat and eat issues. Those that aren't glass parking lots for the remaining others, at least.

[Default.mp3]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. The 2 cultures have been at each other's throats since pretty much forvever. Saying that the ME is riled up due to the last 70 or so years of meddling is silly.

And exactly what was happening between the last of the Crusades and the fall of the Ottoman Empire? I simply don't buy into the whole culture war thing, not beyond it being just a facet of the overarching geopolitical situation.

Are you seriously stating that the West and the USA aren't meddling in SEA? My thoughts on the SEA vs ME is that the ME is a more fertile ground for the barbaric %. Maybe they are more "serious" or maybe SEA is far enough removed from the center of Islam to have gained a different perspective. To be fair though even SEA has had a share of barbaric events of late, so they aren't immune either.

What's the difference between say our meddling in Europe, Asia and parts of Africa and the ME. The west meddles everywhere and has done so for generations; yet the barbaric responses seem limited.

IMO, the Western interventions are far less overt in the other areas, and the Middle East has the unique ability to fund terrorism due to the wide availability of petrodollars, along with some other geopolitical artifacts (e.g., the Soviet-Afghan War, KSA's export of wahhabism and radicals in an effort to allow the royal family to retain legitimacy, the 9/11 black swan event, etc.).

I'm not in tune with this aspect, so am honesty asking for some details on how we force Muslims to abandon aspects of their culture/religion when they come here? Also have no experience with treating Muslims differently since 911. Maybe I just live in a more tolerant area, but nobody I know threats the Muslim employees, friends and neighbors differently. This is a genuine question, as I'm not too keen on the whole lump every Muslim into the barbarian category. I've done everything possible to exclude decent folks from broad brushes. Hence terminology like radical Muslim vs just Muslim or small percentage who are barbaric instead of they are all barbarians...

The most obvious issues are things like FGM, forced marriages, virginity testing, etc. All of which aren't unique to Islamic cultures, and all of which I have no trouble banning. As for treating Muslim employees, friends, and neighbors differently, that's the thing, they're folks you know already. You see them as individuals, not just an archetype. The difference lies in interactions with strangers; when you're brown and have a name like Mohammed or Khan or whatever, it isn't hard for people to figure out your probable religion (even if it isn't your actual faith).

So you see no parallels between the US being attacked by Japan and Germany declaring war on us and various Muslim factions and nation states (IMO ISIS is pretty much a nation state with the amount of real estate they dominate) declaring Jihad against the west and killing 3000+ innocent people sitting at work?? Really.

Even if you fail to see that parallel then how about just the simple concept that the USA, England and others spent years appeasing a group of barbaric assholes to no avail. The end result was an entire continent embroiled in war and millions of people loosing their lives. The only way the barbaric assholes were shut down was by the rest of the world standing up to them and crushing them. Unfortunately, the delay in dropping a set of testicles gave the barbaric asshats a chance to build strength. Had we stood up to him and crushed him early in the game we could have saved millions of lives.

Today we are doing the same to another group of barbaric assholes. Except this time we are doing it AFTERS they have bloodied our collective noses multiple times. We are trying to appease them with kindness when in fact they do not understand that and view it as a sign of weakness, just like the previous barbaric asshat we tried to appease.

So, who exactly have we appeased right now? AQ? IS? It's not like we're fighting some unified nation-state here; these are disparate groups with some overlapping ideologies that would be content to kill each other if we didn't exist as a much sweeter target. If you're talking about the whole PC and cultural acceptance/tolerance issue, that's not appeasement at all, not in any meaningful way; nor has our foreign affairs changed much, we're still killing people with drones, airstrikes, and DA hits (none of which I am against, I am merely boggled that others here think that these actions can be done without generating resentment).

[modrecoil]

How many First World states are on that list? How many of those folks actually understand what Sharia law is? What do those numbers look like for Muslims that live in the West?

Not too different in numbers compared to Christians, eh? And then we have to consider the number of immigrants versus the native-born when considering that chart.

And that's my problem with these kind of debates, people simply don't want to account for the fact that the vast majority of Muslims live in conservative shitholes. Their incompatibility with Western ideals is largely a function of poor socioeconomic development, and not an intrinsic trait of Islam.

Yes, it is VERY different compared to Christians. There are many non-Muslim developing countries out there. None of them advocate for death penalties for conversions or anything remotely as extreme as Muslim societies. The socioeconomic argument alone doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny. Why is it so hard to ask if this particular "motherlode of bad ideas", as Sam Harris says, plays a disproportionate role in feeding antisocial behavior? For the record, I have no dog in this fight as I have no use for any religion, including Christianity.

[Default.mp3]

Yes, it is VERY different compared to Christians. There are many non-Muslim developing countries out there. None of them advocate for death penalties for conversions or anything remotely as extreme as Muslim societies. The socioeconomic argument alone doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny. Why is it so hard to ask if this particular "motherlode of bad ideas", as Sam Harris says, plays a disproportionate role in feeding antisocial behavior? For the record, I have no dog in this fight as I have no use for any religion, including Christianity.

Early Islamic thought felt that apostasy was punishable by death. That belief has persisted inordinately long, but it's hardly a basic tenet, and even it were so, that does not mean Muslims will continue to hold on to that tenet. How many Western Muslims believe that apostasy should be punishable by death? Religion does feed back to the culture that holds it, but is largely a reflection of the society that adopts it; I mean, you still have Christians killing LGBT folks in sub-Saharan Africa, and Buddhists inciting ethnic violence in Sri Lanka. Religion is flexible to fit the needs of its practicing society.

Islam does have more cultural baggage attach to it, that's for sure, but that does not mean by any stretch that it is fundamentally incompatible with Western values, as the hundreds of millions of integrated Muslims have shown us.

[Kukuforguns]

Opinion pieces don't have to written like a rant.

I do not see a difference between promoting tolerance of Islam and promoting the well-being of the citizenry. Are there Muslims within the UK that seek to attack the West via acts of terrorism? Indisputably so. Is there a significant number? That's where it becomes a question of semantics. ~4.4% of the population of the UK were categorized as Muslim in the 2011 census, which was ~2.78 million people; that number is suspected to be over well 3.1 million today for Great Britain (not that North Ireland has a large Muslim population, comparatively speaking). What number becomes "significant"? To me, the statement "most contemporary terrorists attacking Western targets are Muslim" does not mean that there is any real meaningful reason to look at being Muslim in itself as a valid criterion for suspicion and/or anger, given that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the UK do not harbor extreme anti-Western sentiments.

Here's a link to a Wikipedia article that includes links to numerous polls of Muslims. One of the polls found that:

In a 2007 Pew Research poll in response to a question on whether suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified,[31] in Europe:
(36 vs 64) 64% of Muslims in France believed it could never be justified, 19% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.
(30 vs 70) 70% of Muslims in Britain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 12% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.

Think about that. 30% of British Muslims felt that violence against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified. I do not find that to be an overwhelming majority.

This leaves the problem of what to do. Let us assume that x% of Muslims living in Western countries are willing to accept the primacy of the rule of civil law. That leaves y% who do not accept the primacy of the rule of civil law. Should Western nations penalize (e.g., prohibit immigration) 100% of Muslims to keep the y% out? Since I believe that individual rights and responsibility are central to "Western" philosophy, I believe that penalizing 100% of Muslims (because y% are incompatible with Western culture) is a betrayal of Western philosophy.

I also believe that Western nations need to identify Muslim countries that are outliers in their y% production and encourage/reward those with low y% production and discourage/penalize those with high y% production.