Poor Paris

[mattiasNYC]

The suicide bombers are victims. I was talking about the masterpuppets.

Well, I wasn't addressing you, but fair enough, I'm not agreeing 100%.

In order for your view to be true I think you need to show how they have been indoctrinated in a way and to a point where they are unable to think critically. If that's the case I could possibly buy that they're victims. Of course we could then apply the same process with any person guilty of a crime.

 

[mattiasNYC]

They are promised with heaven. And this is where the tragedy is.

Sure it's tragic, but it makes it about religion whether you like it or not.

Many muslim scholars will argue that in contrary with what they have done they are guaranteed the hell as because of the  simple fact that the civilians, particularly the women and children are not legitimate targets in Islam. I don't do religion but even I know that simple fact. But ignorance is a terrible thing.

What makes these religions suck is that they say different things at different times in scripture, and depict very different things.  Sure some scholars will agree with you, but some will not. Exactly the same thing as in Judaism and Christianity. But it only leads back to the point I made earlier: Regardless of the interpretation, for the most part, it seems the message is to do god's will. Subjecting yourself to that ultimate authority is the fundamental problem, not the interpretation.

Abbey has also touched upon an important point which I was hesitating to do so. Their masters are also puppets.  The simple fact of terror is that you can never ever know the real parties behind it as anybody with vested interest will chip in to support it.  And one things is sure that they will not be living in a cave with a rackety Kalashnikov.

That could of course be true.

There is a saying " if you do not know who the sucker is around a poker table, it's you".  And these suckers think they are running a holy war. They are not.

But in practice they are running a holy war. It doesn't really matter if their masters have some other motive. I'm curious though; what would that other motive be? It's a good question to ask, because this interpretation of religion is so heinous that one has to wonder just how the masters could fit into a large region governed by it if they're not religious themselves. I mean, just imagine that you just want power, and you create this huge monster, and now you're stuck, as an Atheist, in a large region where even believing in the wrong branch of Islam will see you killed....

 

[mattiasNYC]

Even simple Logic defeats their theology.

You can conclude this whether you believe in God or not, because of the evidence in the world around us.

A rudimentary study of genetics reveals that the maximum shuffling happens when DNA/RNA reproduction takes place.  The resulting logic? Diversity is the name of the game.  In the natural world, every ecological niche is filled by one species or another, further support for diversity.  If for the sake of argument, you admit there is a creator, why would he design diversity  into his creation but insist on  a strictly held narrow exclusive religion in his believers, it does not make sense, because nature abhors a clone.

If you similarly admit that God is a father figure and Man is made in his image, where do you get the justification from to decide which of your "brothers and sisters" (His children) lives and who dies?

If anything is likely to make "God" angry, then it not going to be Yazedis, Alawites, Sunnis, Shia, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc, etc. It is someone thinking they have the right to destroy his creation and children  and to compound this by saying they are doing it in His Name.

No, I don't think these cowards are on the fast track to heaven, I think they may well find themselves in the outer darkness and the place of gnashing of teeth.

DaveP

I completely agree.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

But in practice they are running a holy war. It doesn't really matter if their masters have some other motive. I'm curious though; what would that other motive be?

Always the same: power. In order to get power, they need to indoctrinate recruits, and so far there haven't been many levers: class struggle, race and religion, the latter being the one with the less objective content, so the easiest to "demonstrate".
ISIS can't use class struggle because they are trying to seduce oil moguls as well as goat herders, they can't use either race because their recruits are black, white and tan.

 

[mattiasNYC]

But in practice they are running a holy war. It doesn't really matter if their masters have some other motive. I'm curious though; what would that other motive be?

Always the same: power. In order to get power, they need to indoctrinate recruits, and so far there haven't been many levers: class struggle, race and religion, the latter being the one with the less objective content, so the easiest to "demonstrate".
ISIS can't use class struggle because they are trying to seduce oil moguls as well as goat herders, they can't use either race because their recruits are black, white and tan.

I'm not 100% convinced the leaders aren't adherents of the same religion. Sure, they're not idiots, but non-believers?  They're playing with fire.

 

[sahib]

But in practice they are running a holy war. It doesn't really matter if their masters have some other motive. I'm curious though; what would that other motive be?

Always the same: power. In order to get power, they need to indoctrinate recruits, and so far there haven't been many levers: class struggle, race and religion, the latter being the one with the less objective content, so the easiest to "demonstrate".
ISIS can't use class struggle because they are trying to seduce oil moguls as well as goat herders, they can't use either race because their recruits are black, white and tan.

I'm not 100% convinced the leaders aren't adherents of the same religion. Sure, they're not idiots, but non-believers?  They're playing with fire.

Abbey is not leaving me much to write but  he is not suggesting that the leaders are not adherent to the same religion, they are but from their on political point of view.

The whole thing is nothing but about politics and gaining power in that region.  And the vehicle for that is the religion. The people who sign up for that are the utopics. Let's put it that way. There are 1.5 billion muslims in the world and if all of them believed in that utopia they would all have been in Syria by now.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Abbey is not leaving me much to write but  he is not suggesting that the leaders are not adherent to the same religion, they are but from their on political point of view.

The whole thing is nothing but about politics and gaining power in that region.  And the vehicle for that is the religion. The people who sign up for that are the utopics. Let's put it that way. There are 1.5 billion muslims in the world and if all of them believed in that utopia they would all have been in Syria by now.

Of course the leaders want power, I totally agree with that. But it sounds a bit like you (plural) are writing off the problems with religion. Because we see that "vehicle" used over and over for various purposes, and for its own fulfillment, and considering what it is I think it should be questioned.

And I maintain that one way to kill this fire is to strangle the supply of fuel. So one needs to go after those who can be converted. And if those people are being duped using religion then we actually should talk about religion. If we don't, then how do we breach that vehicle to reach the issue of power?

 

[abbey road d enfer]

And I maintain that one way to kill this fire is to strangle the supply of fuel. So one needs to go after those who can be converted. And if those people are being duped using religion then we actually should talk about religion.

How?
Can we be convincing at saying that our religions are undoubtedly better than theirs?
Which one would we use to oppose extremist Islam?
Catholicism, with its story of Inquisition, paedophilia and whatnot, baptism with its silly notion that we have all inherited an original sin, evangelicalism, with all its discording variations, judaism with its abusive fundamentalisms?
IMO, only a pragmatic approach can work, constituted of rationalism against indoctrination; after all, the young recruits all have in common disenchantment with their unmotivated lives. I bet they wouldn't have been tempted by jihad if they had been successful at music, art, sports or anything that has inherent satisfaction.
Studies have shown that recruits are equally constituted of people who have not been brought in religion and people who have been brought in religion but without proper historic view of it.
The former are interested in Islam because they believe there's a plot, society is trying to hide some wonderful secret; the latter are already impregnated in an environment of blind obedience and thus a fertile ground for fundamentalist Islam.
Unfortunately, history of religions is not taught anymore at school, too controversial and not sexy. I bet if the recruits had known about the order of assassins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassins
they may have thought twice before engaging in this stupid adventure.
At the end of the day, it's all a matter of education...

 

[DaveP]

I think Abbey is on the right track here, it turns out that most of these killers were former misfits, drug users, petty criminals and losers.  Joining Daesh has given structure and meaning to their sad little lives.  They are out of the same mould as killers on university campuses, it is their chance to be famous/notorious for 5 minutes a la Andy Warhol.

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

And I maintain that one way to kill this fire is to strangle the supply of fuel. So one needs to go after those who can be converted. And if those people are being duped using religion then we actually should talk about religion.

How?
Can we be convincing at saying that our religions are undoubtedly better than theirs?

Probably not. I'm saying Atheism is the reasonable option, not substituting one Abrahamic religion with another. As I already pointed out there are serious flaws with that line of reasoning (which you pointed out I think).

 

[mattiasNYC]

I think Abbey is on the right track here, it turns out that most of these killers were former misfits, drug users, petty criminals and losers.  Joining Daesh has given structure and meaning to their sad little lives.  They are out of the same mould as killers on university campuses, it is their chance to be famous/notorious for 5 minutes a la Andy Warhol.

DaveP

Suicide bombers don't really benefit from fame, they "benefit" from their belief that they go to heaven when they sacrifice themselves.

I'm also not entirely sure the community is as packed with "misfits" as you imply. I'm open to seeing stats on that though.

 

[JohnRoberts]

It is very difficult to understand what suicide bombers are thinking. Clear that the leadership is not leading by example.  ;D

I feel like I must remark how odd it is for a socialist French leader to be more hawkish than the American president... I hope he can pull together an effective coalition to snuff out this current desert infestation. It would be historic if he can get the US and Russia on the same page, at least for this one project.

Bombing the oil trucks finally was an about friggin time (the trucks were off limits for fear of injuring civilian drivers?)  The outlaw oil trade is responsible for something like $1M a day of revenue... in the classic follow the money, this will have more impact on their caliphate building then vaporizing a few neighborhoods from the air.

While some claim the "no-go" zones don't exist, it looks like the French security forces decided to go into one last night?  A gun battle and another suicide bomber was engaged. 

Europe has a serious challenge demographically and if these significant immigrant populations don't embrace French or western culture, that culture is at risk over time, because the French are not making enough babies, but there are more pressing short term security problems than that.

JR

 

[sahib]

And I maintain that one way to kill this fire is to strangle the supply of fuel. So one needs to go after those who can be converted. And if those people are being duped using religion then we actually should talk about religion. If we don't, then how do we breach that vehicle to reach the issue of power?

Abbey got the word out of my mouth again with his reply to this question.

My first response will be to say "good luck".

However, beside so many other impracticalities,  what happens to the human rights of those who observe their religion (Islam)  but are perfectly well reconciled with living under secular law. How are you going to handle that? What are you going to do, arrest people because they are fasting? You are assuming that all muslims are of  Middle Eastern origin. They are not.

If somebody is prepared to fight for a regional power (such as in Middle East) he will recruit youth using porn if necessary,  if religion is not available.  Therefore on this subject you are barking up the wrong tree I am afraid.

 

[sahib]

Europe has a serious challenge demographically and if these significant immigrant populations don't embrace French or western culture, that culture is at risk over time, because the French are not making enough babies, but there are more pressing short term security problems than that.

JR

+1

Simple fact.

In fact every single time I am back in Istanbul I argue over the same issue with my "secular" friends who complain about the current political faction in power. You got one child he got seven children. You got one vote he got seven. What do you expect?

 

[Andy Peters]

You got one child he got seven children. You got one vote he got seven.

This, by the way, is the thesis behind "Idiocracy," which, as we all well know, is a true future history.

-a

 

[mattiasNYC]

Europe has a serious challenge demographically and if these significant immigrant populations don't embrace French or western culture, that culture is at risk over time, because the French are not making enough babies, but there are more pressing short term security problems than that.

JR

It's a bit.... "uncomfortable", to read that changing demographics lead to security problems (that's what it looked like you were saying).

Further more, child birth tends to go down in advanced societies (i.e. the industrialized west), and it's no different for immigrants. It just takes a few generations and then they have fewer kids as well.

 

[mattiasNYC]

And I maintain that one way to kill this fire is to strangle the supply of fuel. So one needs to go after those who can be converted. And if those people are being duped using religion then we actually should talk about religion. If we don't, then how do we breach that vehicle to reach the issue of power?

Abbey got the word out of my mouth again with his reply to this question.

My first response will be to say "good luck".

Thanks

However, beside so many other impracticalities,  what happens to the human rights of those who observe their religion (Islam)  but are perfectly well reconciled with living under secular law. How are you going to handle that? What are you going to do, arrest people because they are fasting? You are assuming that all muslims are of  Middle Eastern origin. They are not.

No, I'm not assuming that all Muslims are of one origin. If you think about what I said my stance would actually apply to anyone with a similarly nonsensical belief system. Of course I don't endorse "thought crimes", even if you read what I wrote that way, I'm just saying that when we in the west the same bad fundamental tenet it's a problem.

If somebody is prepared to fight for a regional power (such as in Middle East) he will recruit youth using porn if necessary,  if religion is not available.  Therefore on this subject you are barking up the wrong tree I am afraid.

That's just sticking your head in the sand. You wouldn't recruit anyone "using porn", because it's not the same thing. It's sort of like saying that we shouldn't "fight" anti-semitism in the same sense I propose, simply because an anti-semite would just find a different reason to hate Jews (specifically).

You got one child he got seven children. You got one vote he got seven.

This, by the way, is the thesis behind "Idiocracy," which, as we all well know, is a true future history.

-a

Actually, the premise of Idiocracy is that stupid people breed, while smart people don't.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Europe has a serious challenge demographically and if these significant immigrant populations don't embrace French or western culture, that culture is at risk over time, because the French are not making enough babies, but there are more pressing short term security problems than that.

JR

It's a bit.... "uncomfortable", to read that changing demographics lead to security problems (that's what it looked like you were saying).

Do we need a safe space?

In case I wasn't clear, having a significant (growing), immigrant population that not only rejects your culture but thinks it's OK to kill you, is a security problem.  There are immigrant enclaves in several european nations that refuse to assimilate into their new nation's culture.

The USA is a nation of immigrants, a melting pot where the new Americans shrug off their former identity to embrace the American culture of individual freedoms and opportunity.

Further more, child birth tends to go down in advanced societies (i.e. the industrialized west), and it's no different for immigrants. It just takes a few generations and then they have fewer kids as well.

It's no different for assimilated immigrants who enjoy increased standard of living. 

An interesting outlier is Israel with an average 3 children per woman, well above replacement and normal developed world birth rates. I wonder if this is in response to Arafat's old claim that "the womb of the arab woman is his strongest weapon" .  Maybe they heard him.

JR

PS: Yes Andy, Idiocracy is not only funny but a warning for us all. Kind of like a political science fiction documentary. 

 

[Andy Peters]

You got one child he got seven children. You got one vote he got seven.

This, by the way, is the thesis behind "Idiocracy," which, as we all well know, is a true future history.

Actually, the premise of Idiocracy is that stupid people breed, while smart people don't.

Right, and a direct consequence of stupid people breeding is that stupid people get more votes.

But it's got electrolytes.

-a

 

[Script]

In case I wasn't clear, having a significant (growing), immigrant population that not only rejects your culture but thinks it's OK to kill you, is a security problem.  There are immigrant enclaves in several european nations that refuse to assimilate into their new nation's culture.

Security problem, yes. And probably unlike in the US, for Europe, that's also the outcome of decades of botched-up integration policy. Traditionally, in Europe, it*s conservative parties that have a hard time with immigrants (tendency to keep culture/society/etc closed to outsiders), while left-leaners have always called for integration as assimilation with difference. It*s a different paradigm.