Terror attacks by Islamist groups

[David]

That's some pretty alarmist, far-right rhetoric there, Mugwump. Not really fitting when discussing a society with a 5% Muslim population, let alone 2% like Australia.

[Mugwump]

One thing I'd love to see is the retirement of islamist/islamic from the narrative. As I've said, these people are not moslems; indeed they have no religion at all. The arabic word is Takfiri. The english equivalent is apostate. If anything, that's what these people should be called.

That said, western leaders have consistently failed to label these haters by the one name (ISIS, ISIL, Daesh, IS etc) so I'm not holding my breath.

MM

I'm sympathetic to this view, but I also find it ultimately misleading: if someone thinks they're a Muslim and follows some Islamic precepts, it doesn't really make sense to not call them one, even if many of their beliefs are anathema to the majority of other Muslims. Refusing to call a spade a spade only plays into the hands of people like Trump and "PC gone mad" types, who use it as an example of liberal dishonesty.

What we need to understand is that only a certain proportion of Muslims are Islamists, only a certain proportion of Islamists are jihadists, and only a certain proportion of jihadists are actually involved in terrorism. Sam Harris's mate (and prominent critic of Islam) Maajid Nawaz has written some great, easy-to-understand stuff on these distinctions.

https://www.quilliaminternational.com/w ... its-roots/

Does it strike you as at all odd that you are "sympathetic" to a view that you then go on to explain makes no sense and corrupts language ?

[Mugwump]

Waiting for the ASIO boss and all the half wits who supported him to retract his ridiculous comment about no connection between refugees and terrorism.......

Keep waiting & blame all muslims.

There's no (causative) connection except in the fervent imagination of the extreme right. Even the Lib-Nats support the head of ASIO vs the rabid right wing of Australia (mind you some of that could be self blame). How did Barnaby Joyce frame it? How did Dutton the undertaker frame it? Then again they must be leftists

Let me see, the head of ASIO vs The rabid right & Skids? who to believe on Australia's immigration programme and the causative connection of terrorrism?

So the three most recent attacks in about 10 days, collective total about 30 dead and hundreds maimed, are all committed by the children of refugees and yet there is no causal connection. What would constitute a causal connection in your mind, WPT ? If nothing else, this vast outbreak of Islamic fascism since 9/11 has revealed the ability of political desire to trump evidence.

[Mountains Magpie]

This sort of thing won't help either. Hey America, WTF is wrong with you?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/0 ... ump-239157

MM

[stui magpie]

That's some pretty alarmist, far-right rhetoric there, Mugwump. Not really fitting when discussing a society with a 5% Muslim population, let alone 2% like Australia.

Call it what you want. I tend to agree. Invade and conquer via migration is hardly a new strategy.

[HAL]

Waiting for the ASIO boss and all the half wits who supported him to retract his ridiculous comment about no connection between refugees and terrorism.......

Keep waiting & blame all muslims.

There's no (causative) connection except in the fervent imagination of the extreme right. Even the Lib-Nats support the head of ASIO vs the rabid right wing of Australia (mind you some of that could be self blame). How did Barnaby Joyce frame it? How did Dutton the undertaker frame it? Then again they must be leftists

Let me see, the head of ASIO vs The rabid right & Skids? who to believe on Australia's immigration programme and the causative connection of terrorrism?

So the three most recent attacks in about 10 days, collective total about 30 dead and hundreds maimed, are all committed by the children of refugees and yet there is no causal connection. What would constitute a causal connection in your mind, WPT ? If nothing else, this vast outbreak of Islamic fascism since 9/11 has revealed the ability of political desire to trump evidence.

Carefully.

[Mugwump]

That's some pretty alarmist, far-right rhetoric there, Mugwump. Not really fitting when discussing a society with a 5% Muslim population, let alone 2% like Australia.

Alarmist and far right are just terms used to avoid debate, and I really do not care what labels are applied to those with the highly laudable objective of avoiding the Islamicisation of the free, secular Christian culture which cost our forebears so much pain and difficulty to achieve. Those who will not argue for a way of life because they are afraid of being demonized with labels deserve to lose their freedom.

As always, I advocate absolute tolerance of, and protection for, moderate Muslims in our society today, in line with the traditions of British liberty practised in both Australia and the U.K.

Now, to the facts - Germany let in a million in 15 months. Projections are always flawed, but the conservative projection of the Pew report - before the vast surge in Islamic immigration since 2015 - was that Muslims would be 10% of Europe's population by 2050. After the surge, it is reasonable to expect that to be near 20%. Now consider the problems we have with 5%, and double, or quadruple it, with significant risks to the upside.

Facts are facts, and labels are labels. Should you one day find yourself living ina society dominated by Islamic precepts , then then all you presently care for will very probably be extinguished.

[Mountains Magpie]

Perhaps down the track a clash of civilizations is possible, maybe inevitable. At times the whole thing seems completely intractable.

Might islam, as practiced in the west, evolve over the next 50 or 100 years into something that sits easier (or at least easier than it appears currently) along side traditional western society?

[David]

Now, to the facts - Germany let in a million in 15 months. Projections are always flawed, but the conservative projection of the Pew report - before the vast surge in Islamic immigration since 2015 - was that Muslims would be 10% of Europe's population by 2050. After the surge, it is reasonable to expect that to be near 20%. Now consider the problems we have with 5%, and double, or quadruple it, with significant risks to the upside.

Facts are facts, and labels are labels. Should you one day find yourself living ina society dominated by Islamic precepts , then then all you presently care for will very probably be extinguished.

Where are you getting these figures from? The current population of Europe is 743 million. An influx of 1 million is an increase of approximately 0.1%; even if they're having 20 children each, on what grounds do you propose a population of 20% by 2050? And even if that figure were correct, 20% is nowhere near enough to elect an Islamist government (and that's if we forget that a substantial proportion of those Muslims wouldn't even be interested in living under Sharia Law). So yeah, alarmist nonsense all round.

I'm sympathetic to this view, but I also find it ultimately misleading: if someone thinks they're a Muslim and follows some Islamic precepts, it doesn't really make sense to not call them one, even if many of their beliefs are anathema to the majority of other Muslims. Refusing to call a spade a spade only plays into the hands of people like Trump and "PC gone mad" types, who use it as an example of liberal dishonesty.

What we need to understand is that only a certain proportion of Muslims are Islamists, only a certain proportion of Islamists are jihadists, and only a certain proportion of jihadists are actually involved in terrorism. Sam Harris's mate (and prominent critic of Islam) Maajid Nawaz has written some great, easy-to-understand stuff on these distinctions.

https://www.quilliaminternational.com/w ... its-roots/

Does it strike you as at all odd that you are "sympathetic" to a view that you then go on to explain makes no sense and corrupts language ?

I'm sympathetic because I know where it's coming from, which is usually a) a deep place of frustration for many Muslims at constantly being associated with a violent ideology that they have nothing to do with, or b) an attempt by authority figures and others to distance Islam from terrorism in the public imagination as part of the anti-terror effort and to maintain public cohesion. That's all I meant here.

[stui magpie]

Perhaps down the track a clash of civilizations is possible, maybe inevitable. At times the whole thing seems completely intractable.

Might islam, as practiced in the west, evolve over the next 50 or 100 years into something that sits easier (or at least easier than it appears currently) along side traditional western society?

it might. It might also continue the trajectory toward the opposite. In a religion with no head authority, it will depend on a number of things so the future is far from written.

My perspective on it is:

1. I'll be dead
2. There's **** all I can do about it now
3. I don't get stressed over things I can't control.

[Mugwump]

Perhaps down the track a clash of civilizations is possible, maybe inevitable. At times the whole thing seems completely intractable.

Might islam, as practiced in the west, evolve over the next 50 or 100 years into something that sits easier (or at least easier than it appears currently) along side traditional western society?

It might, MM, but the strong evidence before us is that later generations of Muslim immigrants does not fare well. I think a reasonable person values and acts on the actual evidence in front of them, more than a hopeful outcome.

I don't think the clash is inevitable unless we allow the Muslim population to continue to grow in our society. If we do that, then indeed the clash may be inevitable. But we control our borders, no one else. Japan and China will probably not have the problem, but Europe and the other sloppily-managed societies - including Australia - very probably will.

[Mugwump]

Now, to the facts - Germany let in a million in 15 months. Projections are always flawed, but the conservative projection of the Pew report - before the vast surge in Islamic immigration since 2015 - was that Muslims would be 10% of Europe's population by 2050. After the surge, it is reasonable to expect that to be near 20%. Now consider the problems we have with 5%, and double, or quadruple it, with significant risks to the upside.

Facts are facts, and labels are labels. Should you one day find yourself living ina society dominated by Islamic precepts , then then all you presently care for will very probably be extinguished.

Where are you getting these figures from? The current population of Europe is 743 million. An influx of 1 million is an increase of approximately 0.1%; even if they're having 20 children each, on what grounds do you propose a population of 20% by 2050? And even if that figure were correct, 20% is nowhere near enough to elect an Islamist government (and that's if we forget that a substantial proportion of those Muslims wouldn't even be interested in living under Sharia Law). So yeah, alarmist nonsense all round.

I'm sympathetic to this view, but I also find it ultimately misleading: if someone thinks they're a Muslim and follows some Islamic precepts, it doesn't really make sense to not call them one, even if many of their beliefs are anathema to the majority of other Muslims. Refusing to call a spade a spade only plays into the hands of people like Trump and "PC gone mad" types, who use it as an example of liberal dishonesty.

What we need to understand is that only a certain proportion of Muslims are Islamists, only a certain proportion of Islamists are jihadists, and only a certain proportion of jihadists are actually involved in terrorism. Sam Harris's mate (and prominent critic of Islam) Maajid Nawaz has written some great, easy-to-understand stuff on these distinctions.

https://www.quilliaminternational.com/w ... its-roots/

Does it strike you as at all odd that you are "sympathetic" to a view that you then go on to explain makes no sense and corrupts language ?

I'm sympathetic because I know where it's coming from, which is usually a) a deep place of frustration for many Muslims at constantly being associated with a violent ideology that they have nothing to do with, or b) an attempt by authority figures and others to distance Islam from terrorism in the public imagination as part of the anti-terror effort and to maintain public cohesion. That's all I meant here.

The respected Pew Forum report is the source for the 10% by 2050. That predates the immigration surge. There is already some kowtowing to Islamic populations by opportunist politicians at 5%. You are entitled to regard it as alarmist. I am also entitled to regard your view as naively complaisant with a backward religion deeply implicated in intolerance and murder across the world. If I prove right, it is a tragedy. If you are right, and I am being alarmist, we might not change too much. Strange kind of bargain.

[David]

This sort of thing won't help either. Hey America, WTF is wrong with you?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/0 ... ump-239157

MM

As predicted, Trump's presidency is a wet dream for fundamentalists on both sides. Some of these Republicans have a serious Crusades complex and have been itching for an apocalyptic Christians vs Muslims showdown. They may not be the types to don a suicide vest and run into a crowded market, but tell me they'd blink at the prospect of carpet-bombing a city full of civilians. Hope Trump's Middle-Eastern policy mastermind (i.e. the bloke who married his daughter ) puts the kibosh on this.

[Mugwump]

This sort of thing won't help either. Hey America, WTF is wrong with you?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/0 ... ump-239157

MM

As predicted, Trump's presidency is a wet dream for fundamentalists on both sides. Some of these Republicans have a serious Crusades complex and have been itching for an apocalyptic Christians vs Muslims showdown. They may not be the types to don a suicide vest and run into a crowded market, but tell me they'd blink at the prospect of carpet-bombing a city full of civilians. Hope Trump's Middle-Eastern policy mastermind (i.e. the bloke who married his daughter ) puts the kibosh on this.

When was the last time they carpet bombed a city of civilians, David ? What is your evidence for for that claim ? There is a legitimately enacted US law requiring this move. It is a dumb law in my opinion, but it's a long way from asking the government to execute a law and move an embassy, to carpet bombing civilians. And you call my evidence-based reasoning alarmist !!

[David]