Terrorist Attack in Netherlands

[Razzako]

I believe you are unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works.

"Several scholars" is a code-word for saying that the view is only held by a few - and not the generally agreed definition.

That can also be reformulated as: "Few consider Islamophobia to be a form of xenophobia or racism."

If you read the article instead of just selectively quote-linking you would also find that Islamophobia doesn't even have generally agreed upon meaning.

I believe you're unfamiliar with how sourcing works.

1. The Multicultural State We’re In: Muslims,
   ‘Multiculture’ and the ‘Civic Re-balancing’
   of British Multiculturalismpost_745 473..497
2. Refutations of racism in the 'Muslim question
3. The resistible rise of Islamophobia: Anti-Muslim racism in the UK and Australia before 11 September 2001
4. Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire by Deepa Kumar; Terrifying Muslims: Race and Labor in the South Asian Diaspora by Junaid
5. Fascism fears: John Denham speaks out over clashes

List could literally go on.

Cultural racism is a thing... Such pointless stubbornness on a technicality that's not even right anymore in modern times.

[Forogil]

http://visionofhumanity.org/indexes/terrorism-index/

From the report itself;

"Conflict remains the primary driver of terrorism in most countries throughout the world. The ten countries with the highest impact of terrorism are all engaged in at least one conflict.

Terrorism is part of conflicts; viewing it as an effect of the conflict is over-simplifying it.

Consider N. Ireland:

To claim that the Troubles drove IRA to terrorism would be an odd statement - and there are reports that the British used torture - in a misguided effort to handle the terrorism.

Or consider "Boko Haram". Is their terrorism caused by the conflict, normally named "Boko Haram insurgency"?

- - - Updated - - -

I believe you're unfamiliar with how sourcing works.

No. I'm just familiar with how the world works, and the meaning of terms such as "several scholars".

Just because a few persons want to change the definition of a word for political aims doesn't change it.

- - - Updated - - -

Only racists would redefine racism to not look like the giant twats they are.

Islamophobia is racism. Grow up, Get Educated or Find your Manhood.

I have grown up, and have a good education - and have no problem finding my body.

That allows me to see when someone is twisting words for a political agenda, and using insult instead of arguments.

PS: And yes both the IRA and, at a time (and some still), White Christian Organizations in the south of the USA are terrorists groups.

I'm not disputing that IRA is a terrorist organization.

Merely stating that the Islamic State, despite their decline, have so far killed substantially more this month than IRA on average killed per year when it was active.

[Flarelaine]

...and poverty, always poverty. Nearly every piece of human ugliness there is in this world is somehow related to poverty.

So what's the link between poverty and the NZ mosque attack?

- - - Updated - - -

Obviously not.
But none of IRA ("Real", "Provisional", etc) are killing people at the moment.

Al Qaeda variants have so far in 2019 likely killed 97 persons (the listed attacks had 6 5 2 12 10 1 2 4 2 5 2 3 2 6 1 18 9 7 victims), additionally 27 by pro-al Qaeda groups. Note that the numbers exclude al-Qaeda members. The Islamic State is already above 100 for the current month.


Obviously, but indiscriminate targeting of civilians matter to most people - especially civilians. And I notice how you switch between IRA and "the troubles".

I specified the Troubles because that's when IRA killed the most people. Just because they do not kill as much now does not make their past go away.

[Razzako]

No. I'm just familiar with how the world works, and the meaning of terms such as "several scholars".

Just because a few persons want to change the definition of a word for political aims doesn't change it.

You're just being willfully ignorant is all. Nevertheless I could care less about what you may think, as if changes of definitions even more so of broad terms were uncommon nowadays. You keep doing you, I'll do me, end of story.

[Forogil]

I specified the Troubles because that's when IRA killed the most people. Just because they do not kill as much now does not make their past go away.

But IRA didn't kill thousands during the troubles, even if thousands died during the troubles.

- - - Updated - - -

Nevertheless I could care less about what you may think

So, why do you reply?

And do you normally say "wilfully ignorant" when you don't care, in that case I don't want to hear what language you use when you care.

[Najnaj]

So what's the link between poverty and the NZ mosque attack?

Possibly none but but it is statistically probable that he comes from a troubled childhood of some sort and that very often means poverty. Ignoring white collar economic crime, convicts boils down to 5% bat shit crazy and 95% poverty and social alienation.

[Razzako]

So, why do you reply?

And do you normally say "wilfully ignorant" when you don't care, in that case I don't want to hear what language you use when you care.

Sure, sure. You probably don't.

[Rhaide]

You've got this backwards.

I'm not saying you can't take issue with someone being a member or supporter of ISIS.

I'm saying you can't rationally take issue with someone being Muslim.

Equating those two, that is the false equivalence being made, here. It's particularly silly when there have been active terrorist groups within other faith groups, which you're ignoring.

The point is that unfortunately, the majority of organized terrorist groups in the world right now are Muslim. Sure, there's a bunch of far right nutbag Christians in the US, but nothing compared to the size and organization of various groups in the middle east who happen to be Muslim. That's the point I'm making.

To clarify again though, nothing wrong with Islam as a modern religion.

[Kraenen]

http://visionofhumanity.org/indexes/terrorism-index/

From the report itself;

"Conflict remains the primary driver of terrorism in most countries throughout the world. The ten countries with the highest impact of terrorism are all engaged in at least one conflict. These ten countries accounted for 84 per cent of all deaths from terrorism in 2017. When combined with countries with high levels of political terror the number jumps to over 99 per cent. Political terror involves extra-judicial killings, torture and imprisonment without trial. "

Religion largely does not drive terrorism. It's conflict and geopolitics. Almost exclusively.

Did you ever think that religion drove the conflict and geopolitics and it keeps going in a downward spiral? Your quote really does nothing to disentangle the chicken-egg question.

- - - Updated - - -

Let me just directly quote it and cut to the chase.

I love how it's "several". Oh okay, nothing weasel-wordy about that!

[The One Percent]

Let me just directly quote it and cut to the chase.

Is the scholar group known as "Several" similar to the hacker group known as "4chan"?

[Endus]

Did you ever think that religion drove the conflict and geopolitics and it keeps going in a downward spiral? Your quote really does nothing to disentangle the chicken-egg question.

No real reason to think so, particularly when it isn't a constant among Muslim-majority nations to begin with today, let alone historically.

[Spectral]

No real reason to think so, particularly when it isn't a constant among Muslim-majority nations to begin with today, let alone historically.

Indeed, the history of Muslim majority nations is that there's relatively little in the way of internal conflict - it's a dominating force that generally ensures submission from religious minorities through extreme violence. Typically, it has been vulnerable nations at the borders of Islamist nations that have typically had to worry about violence from Islam throughout history. Woe be to an unprepared neighbor of a caliphate! Being in a position of weakness, where attacks are primarily against vulnerable citizens is a relatively new development for a religion that has historically done a very good job of spreading through force.

[Endus]

Indeed, the history of Muslim majority nations is that there's relatively little in the way of internal conflict - it's a dominating force that generally ensures submission from religious minorities through extreme violence. Typically, it has been vulnerable nations at the borders of Islamist nations that have typically had to worry about violence from Islam throughout history. Woe be to an unprepared neighbor of a caliphate! Being in a position of weakness, where attacks are primarily against vulnerable citizens is a relatively new development for a religion that has historically done a very good job of spreading through force.

I feel if I rolled my eyes the appropriate amount at this hatemongering bullshittery, I'd do permanent damage to myself.

[Razzako]

I love how it's "several". Oh okay, nothing weasel-wordy about that!

How about you keep reading the discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

Is the scholar group known as "Several" similar to the hacker group known as "4chan"?

Whatever you say bro.

[Spectral]

I feel if I rolled my eyes the appropriate amount at this hatemongering bullshittery, I'd do permanent damage to myself.

No worries! I've rolled my eyes at your bizarre affinity for Islam enough over the years to cover both of us.

[Kraenen]

No real reason to think so, particularly when it isn't a constant among Muslim-majority nations to begin with today, let alone historically.

It doesn't need to be constant - the claim I'd look into is whether religion was a significant predictor of terrorism which isn't really assessed (at least in your quote). Otherwise you don't have the stat to support the claim that religion was simply a post-hoc justification.

[Endus]

No worries! I've rolled my eyes at your bizarre affinity for Islam enough over the years to cover both of us.

There's no such "affinity", I just don't endorse fact-averse prejudiced hate speech, which is all you posted.

It doesn't need to be constant - the claim I'd look into is whether religion was a significant predictor of terrorism which isn't really assessed (at least in your quote). Otherwise you don't have the stat to support the claim that religion was simply a post-hoc justification.

Already asked and answered with prior links; the one real predictor of terrorism is existing conflict, not religion.

[Spectral]

It doesn't need to be constant - the claim I'd look into is whether religion was a significant predictor of terrorism which isn't really assessed (at least in your quote). Otherwise you don't have the stat to support the claim that religion was simply a post-hoc justification.

Surely you'd have to be an historical illiterate to think that a war was ever started as a result of Islam! It's not like Muhammad (peace be upon his name) ever picked a few dozen dozen wars and have a holy city that's based on conquest and violence. In fact, suggesting as much is basically Islamophobia.

[Kraenen]

I believe you're unfamiliar with how sourcing works.

1. The Multicultural State We’re In: Muslims,
   ‘Multiculture’ and the ‘Civic Re-balancing’
   of British Multiculturalismpost_745 473..497
2. Refutations of racism in the 'Muslim question
3. The resistible rise of Islamophobia: Anti-Muslim racism in the UK and Australia before 11 September 2001
4. Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire by Deepa Kumar; Terrifying Muslims: Race and Labor in the South Asian Diaspora by Junaid
5. Fascism fears: John Denham speaks out over clashes

List could literally go on.

Cultural racism is a thing... Such pointless stubbornness on a technicality that's not even right anymore in modern times.

I know this is asking for a bit much, but after scanning some of those articles and finding very little, can you give a referenced summation of each article's argument that providing negative criticism of Islam is the same as racism?

- - - Updated - - -

Already asked and answered with prior links; the one real predictor of terrorism is existing conflict, not religion.

I scanned the last several pages, can't find your references to a substantial predictive analysis.

Slight tangent: do you believe the European wars of religion were just caused by and only caused by 'geopolitics' and 'conflict' and didn't have anything to do with religion? I mean it's possible we just didn't translate Martin Luther's message correctly and everyone was really complaining about some estranged abstraction of "geopolitics".

[Endus]

I scanned the last several pages, can't find your references to a substantial predictive analysis.

http://visionofhumanity.org/app/uplo...dex-2018-1.pdf

And before you quibble about it not being "substantial" enough, or that it's observational rather than predictive, I'll just note that nobody's provided any comprehensive data source to back the anti-Islamic propaganda bullshit that's being tossed around.

Slight tangent: do you believe the European wars of religion were just caused by and only caused by 'geopolitics' and 'conflict' and didn't have anything to do with religion? I mean it's possible we just didn't translate Martin Luther's message correctly and everyone was really complaining about some estranged abstraction of "geopolitics".

You really can't extricate the medieval-era Christian Church from geopolitics; it WAS a geopolitical entity during that era. And yes; many of the Crusades were for geopolitical reasons; Kings who needed a war to keep their aristocracy busy, or to give them cause to pillage to fill their coffers, etc. Others were nakedly about land conquest. Perhaps the only one truly motivated just from faith was the Children's Crusade, which was both completely nonviolent and a colossal and unremitting failure of an endeavour.

This is basic history stuff. C'mon.