Page 12 of 20 FirstFirst ...
2
10
11
12
13
14
... LastLast
  1. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    This is basic history stuff. C'mon.
    Hey, you should've thought of that before you claimed Islamic terrorism had nothing to do with terrorism. Your main problem is you believe geopolitics is somehow a completely separate factor from religion, and you made that mistake twice just now. The very fact that the majority of terrorism comes from Islam should invite researchers to ask whether it has a mediator/moderator relationship with terrorism and 'geopolitics' and 'conflict'. In some cases it's the inspiration, even absent any 'conflict' or 'poverty' or local geopolitics.

    If you can't find a satisfactory result of analysis, should you just rush to say, "well, it looks kind of close enough if I ignore a bunch of other questions, sure!". Or should you admit that your source doesn't really say what you want it to? This is just being epistemically humble.

    If you really want to use simple correlations and proportionality, you can turn your own quote on its head and say that the vast majority of countries with terrorism occurred in countries with Islam. Let's break this down for you and you can see for yourself:

    "Conflict remains the primary driver of terrorism in most countries throughout the world.
    This is unsupported. "Driver" requires a predictive analysis of some kind.
    The ten countries with the highest impact of terrorism are all engaged in at least one conflict.
    We could also say that the countries with the highest impact of terrorism are "engaged" in Islam.
    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.
    Huh, I wonder what kind of 'political terror' this is, and the bolded don't have anything to do with carrying out Islamic laws do they? Couldn't be. It's not like those terrorists are trying to push their religion onto others in very specific ways to that religion.

    None of your references work for what you're arguing.

  2. #222
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,898
    Quote Originally Posted by Raybourne View Post
    Hey, you should've thought of that before you claimed Islamic terrorism had nothing to do with terrorism.
    That's not something I've ever said.

    I'd really appreciate if you folks didn't make shit up and pretend it's what I've said. Makes it pretty hard to think you're even remotely interested in honest discussion.


  3. #223
    Quote Originally Posted by Raybourne View Post
    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?
    I've never said any kind of negative criticism is equal to racism, nor would any of those articles. Would all criticism of Islam be racist? Obviously not. I've seen this said before and I'll paraphrase it here: criticism provides a convenient cover of acceptability for racists. There's undeniable discrimination against African, Middle Eastern, and South Asian Muslims as well. Hopefully that clears things up.

  4. #224
    Quote Originally Posted by Razzako View Post
    Let me just directly quote it and cut to the chase.
    Let me just quote myself: "Islam is a religion, not a race." No amount of wiki articles can change what racism means.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by horbindr View Post
    is there even a word specifically referring to discrimination based on religion? (let alone a word in common usage?)

    seems to me that the meaning of the word racism nowadays just includes more then just race.
    Religious discrimination?

    Racism is discrimination based on race. Religion does not equal race. Races are not tied directly to a religion because of their race.

  5. #225
    Quote Originally Posted by solvexx View Post
    Let me just quote myself: "Islam is a religion, not a race." No amount of wiki articles can change what racism means.
    Sigh.

    I guess it's too hard to understand broad definitions change all the time.

  6. #226
    The Unstoppable Force Lorgar Aurelian's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Land of moose and goose.
    Posts
    24,551
    Quote Originally Posted by Raybourne View Post
    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.
    I wonder if you think religion it self is the main driver of conflict how would you explain the millions of Muslims who don’t take part in said conflict? Even in terrorist heavy country’s there are a metric ton of Muslims who are not terrorist.

  7. #227
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    But IRA didn't kill thousands during the troubles, even if thousands died during the troubles.
    The mosque shooter did not kill thousands either, yet he has been unequivocally declared a terrorist for committing a terror attack.

  8. #228
    Quote Originally Posted by Razzako View Post
    Sigh.

    I guess it's too hard to understand broad definitions change all the time.
    It's a really weird thing to get hung up on. I don't understand people like that. All forms of xenophobia have been put under the umbrella term racism for my entire life. It's not even a new development.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  9. #229
    Quote Originally Posted by Razzako View Post
    Sigh.

    I guess it's too hard to understand broad definitions change all the time.
    Racism is not a broad definition. It has a very clearly, succinct definition. Discrimination based on race. You are not allowed to change the definition of clearly defined words to suit your narrative.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    It's a really weird thing to get hung up on. I don't understand people like that. All forms of xenophobia have been put under the umbrella term racism for my entire life. It's not even a new development.
    No it isn't. If the definition of the word does not suit what your narrative is trying to portray, you do not get to just change the English language. This isn't a social thought shift, it is a leftist agenda trying to change definitions of words to suit narratives. People who dislike religion, are not racists.

  10. #230
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    It's a really weird thing to get hung up on. I don't understand people like that. All forms of xenophobia have been put under the umbrella term racism for my entire life. It's not even a new development.
    I agree, I don't perceive it as a new thing either... I guess some could make the case for post 9/11 at most? Either way, it's weird and it's pedantic, yet at the same time it is not as uncommon as one may come to think.

  11. #231
    Quote Originally Posted by Daemos daemonium View Post
    I wonder if you think religion it self is the main driver of conflict how would you explain the millions of Muslims who don’t take part in said conflict? Even in terrorist heavy country’s there are a metric ton of Muslims who are not terrorist.
    That's pretty easy to answer.

    They're not all enacting the literal word of their holy book. Where as, some are.

  12. #232
    Quote Originally Posted by solvexx View Post
    Racism is not a broad definition. It has a very clearly, succinct definition. Discrimination based on race. You are not allowed to change the definition of clearly defined words to suit your narrative.
    Listen, I'll welcome you to read the discussion that came after the first reply you just quoted before this one, then we can have a discussion about it. Otherwise it'd pretty much be going through the same thing over again.

  13. #233
    The Lightbringer Minikin's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    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.
    did you read the article you quoted about conquest of mecca? about the part how a peace treaty was broken, muslims killed in a place of non combat. THEN an army assembled as a response and all except 1 column had a fight? from the article itself "The entry was peaceful and bloodless entry on three sectors except for that of Khalid's column. The hardened anti-Muslims like Ikrimah and Sufwan gathered a band of Quraysh fighters and faced Khalid's column."

    but hey you can paint this as, "oh man these muslims, they went out of their way to attack and propogate! and brought their army to back it up!"

    3 wars happened. all three instigated by the Quraysh in Mecca, AFTER the exile of muslims to medina.

    its ironic given how you start with historic literacy yet fail to conduct research properly.
    Blood Elves were based on a STRONG request from a poll of Asian players where many remarked on the Horde side that they and their girlfriends wanted a non-creepy femme race to play (Source)

  14. #234
    Quote Originally Posted by Flarelaine View Post
    The mosque shooter did not kill thousands either, yet he has been unequivocally declared a terrorist for committing a terror attack.
    Yes, of course.

    You seem to be under incorrect impression that I deny that IRA was/is a terrorist organization (well, technically split into several groups sharing the name) - or that I don't think they killed a thousand. Nothing is further from the truth.

    I'm merely stating that to get to thousands of victims you need to include everyone killed during the troubles - not only by IRA but also by the British, the loyalist, and the ones killed by their own.

  15. #235
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    Yes, of course.

    You seem to be under incorrect impression that I deny that IRA was/is a terrorist organization (well, technically split into several groups sharing the name) - or that I don't think they killed a thousand. Nothing is further from the truth.

    I'm merely stating that to get to thousands of victims you need to include everyone killed during the troubles - not only by IRA but also by the British, the loyalist, and the ones killed by their own.
    And I was pointing out that getting a thousand kills is not a requirement to qualify for terrorism. You are right, "thousands" is the total body count for th Troubles. I was not meaning to blame it all on the IRA.
    Last edited by Flarelaine; 2019-03-20 at 07:59 AM.

  16. #236
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Already asked and answered with prior links; the one real predictor of terrorism is existing conflict, not religion.
    Let's analyze that "real predictor":

    The conflict in N. Ireland ("the Troubles") drove IRA's terrorism.
    The conflict in Nigeria ("Boko Haram insurgency") drove Boko Haram to terrorism.

    Everyone sees that calling that a "real predictor" is ludicrous. It doesn't "predict" where terrorism will occur; it only indicates that terrorism often occurs as part of conflicts.

    In reality terrorism can be a precursor to the conflict/insurgency, start together with it, or be part of the escalation. Thus what matters is the predictor of the conflict, and whether all conflicts lead to terrorism - or if there something that predicts which conflicts lead to terrorism.

    That study answers none of that, and instead just offers fuzzy-warm feelings.

  17. #237
    Quote Originally Posted by solvexx View Post
    No it isn't. If the definition of the word does not suit what your narrative is trying to portray, you do not get to just change the English language. This isn't a social thought shift, it is a leftist agenda trying to change definitions of words to suit narratives. People who dislike religion, are not racists.
    Apparently we're all still speaking latin.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  18. #238
    The Lightbringer
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Demacia
    Posts
    3,530
    Yeah and it'll pass through the news as a brief mention while they're still rambling on about how bad it is when a vigilante does it back.
    Paladin Bash has spoken.

  19. #239
    People already turned a post in political rambling

  20. #240
    Quote Originally Posted by solvexx View Post
    Racism is not a broad definition. It has a very clearly, succinct definition. Discrimination based on race. You are not allowed to change the definition of clearly defined words to suit your narrative.
    Considering, there have been verbal and physical attacks not on Muslims, but on people with darker skin, black hair and in general Mediterranean or Middle-Eastern features and even against Sikh, because only Muslims ever wear a turban... it IS in the narrow definition racism. Racial profiling leading to assumption of religious belief.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •