[Luis Dias]

First it was the Catholics, then the Irish, then the Chinese...children of immigrants do become part of society.

Yeah, and I honestly hope so. But the past is no guarantee of the future.

Problem is, if you incentivate their own ghetization (?), like, say, creating a different set of laws just for muslims, create religious schools where they get the usual "they say the world is 4.5 billion years old and you are obliged to answer this in the tests but we know better" ridiculous ****fest, and all and all confine the new generations to a whole muslim experience, we are not creating a tolerant, "multicultural", diverse society. We are fragmenting it to pieces and shattering societies.

Private Christian schools exist that do the same thing.  You just explained the entire problem behind fundamentalist Christianity in America.

The way you solve this problem is expose that group to secular ideas that counter the backwards beliefs of a Young Earth.  The way the Republicans like to do it with Muslims though, is to deride them all as backwards extremists who can't contribute to society, and make no effort to integrate them peacefully.

And I agree that's a stupid thing to do.

[uote]And don't you think labeling an entire group as savage or disruptive does much for merging that group into society?  If anything, it forces that group to isolate themselves and defend themselves against what they view as a hostile society.[/quote]

You are conflating an ideology with its membership. I can say that scientology is a ridiculous monstruosity, which it is, and not view scientologists as "monsters". Actually I see them as victims. Still, would you be at ease if you knew a very adept scientologist would go to a supreme court, or something, knowing what we know about scientology's practices? Will you lie to me and say "yeah why not"?

You get the point? Do you understand where I am going at?

In an ironic way, these religious groups are doing to themselves what some tiranies did to other religious groups in the past: confine themselves.

Tyrannical measures, like, say, racially profiling Muslims and assuming that every Muslim is in favor of enforcing Sharia law on the rest of their countrymen.

I already admitted that such a thing is wrong, so go on bang on me like if I didn't say anything about it.

What a cop out. People are always savage. And people will act differently according to their beliefs and practices. Religion is one of said beliefs and practices and is very important.

Alright, so tell me, who's more prone to extremism, a poor unemployed young man from Riyadh, or an accounting major from Dearborn?

Tell me, was a group of poor people who flew to the twin towers, or highly educated people?

Extremism isn't a distorted attempt of social "justice", it is a consequence of too much love for abstract, symetrical, mathematical, pure thoughts, the result of moralistic minds who think they know better how all the others should behave, and if they don't, they will go to hell, or something like it. The most extremist people out there are not poor, but rather quite well educated and somewhat, gasp, rich.

Something you would learn, if you searched a bit about the history of religious fundamentalism, at least since the second world war.

Demagoguery is a major factor in fomenting extremism among religious groups.  For the most part, that doesn't exist in a significant way among American Muslims.  If it does exist, it exists as a defensive mechanism against society's persecution of Muslims.  It's a self-fulfilling prophecy:  the more you isolate a group of people, the more likely they are to turn to extreme measures to defend themselves.

I might believe you. Hell, I wanna believe you. It's just that nagging feeling that you are just, you know, inventing statistical **** up while we speak.

Besides, if you have a stable and comfortable lifestyle, and you don't feel like you're being singled-out for who you are, you're less likely to feel resentment against the people doing it.

This is tautologically true. And relevant. But it doesn't solve the issue.

[Grizzly]

Extremism isn't a distorted attempt of social "justice", it is a consequence of too much love for abstract, symetrical, mathematical, pure thoughts, the result of moralistic minds who think they know better how all the others should behave, and if they don't, they will go to hell, or something like it. The most extremist people out there are not poor, but rather quite well educated and somewhat, gasp, rich.

The most extremist people are gasp, not extremistic at all. They use extremism as a leverage to gain more power, nothing more.

Note that you are using a few fallacies in your last post, as of the  "You would know this if you had the knowledge of the subject I had" type. Be wary that that may have undesirable consequences.

[Luis Dias]

Extremism isn't a distorted attempt of social "justice", it is a consequence of too much love for abstract, symetrical, mathematical, pure thoughts, the result of moralistic minds who think they know better how all the others should behave, and if they don't, they will go to hell, or something like it. The most extremist people out there are not poor, but rather quite well educated and somewhat, gasp, rich.

The most extremist people are gasp, not extremistic at all.

Thanks for stating something completely contradictory.

They use extremism as a leverage to gain more power, nothing more.

Nor I nor anyone else here was speaking of "non-extremist bastards".

Note that you are using a few fallacies in your last post, as of the  "You would know this if you had the knowledge of the subject I had" type. Be wary that that may have undesirable consequences.

I know. It's also true.

[Nuclear1]

You are conflating an ideology with its membership. I can say that scientology is a ridiculous monstruosity, which it is, and not view scientologists as "monsters". Actually I see them as victims. Still, would you be at ease if you knew a very adept scientologist would go to a supreme court, or something, knowing what we know about scientology's practices? Will you lie to me and say "yeah why not"?

You get the point? Do you understand where I am going at?

I see what you're saying, and that's why I'm saying it's important to consider each SCOTUS nominee by his or her individual merits.  What you seem to be saying is that every Scientologist or Muslim identifies with the most extreme elements of their religion, or that they have the potential for it.  I'm willing to say that if they've reached the credentials in America to be nominated for the highest court that they've had the experience and the education to be more moderate in their beliefs, or at least to separate their religious beliefs from their duties as a judge.

Besides, all federal judgeship appointees have to be confirmed by Congress, and the hearings are usually highly-publicized and come under extreme scrutiny. 

Tell me, was a group of poor people who flew to the twin towers, or highly educated people?

9/11 was an unusual event.  It was one of the most complicated terrorist attacks ever carried out, simply because it required people with some education to be able to fly massive passenger airliners. 

A hotel bombing, kidnapping, market bombing, or vehicular homicide doesn't require the same expertise or education.  There are enough unemployed, disheartened youths in the Middle East to be recruited to blow themselves up for the promise of salvation.  Poor, uneducated, and disheartened people tend to be easier prey for religious extremism than the rich.

The most extremist people out there are not poor, but rather quite well educated and somewhat, gasp, rich.

Hence my point about demagogues.  Osama was the son of a rich Saudi construction magnate and many TV evangelists in the US are obscenely rich.  They have the resources to recruit and organize extremist groups.

But their efforts mean nothing if we can develop a society where the factors that lead young people to terrorism no longer exist. 

Something you would learn, if you searched a bit about the history of religious fundamentalism, at least since the second world war.

United States Air Force Cryptologist Linguist, specialized in Arabic, primarily focused on anti-terrorism, especially Islamic extremism.

And I gotta say, most of what you're saying goes against everything I've learned about religious extremism.

[NGTM-1R]

This is tautologically true. And relevant. But it doesn't solve the issue.

On the contrary; it solves everything. It's buy-in. Terrorist groups can only exist due to perceived oppression. If someone looks around and is content with their lot in life, then there is no motivation for them to lash out. You can't get them to buy into the concept of some great evil if they cannot detect it.

Terrorism is a hobby of the poor because they are demonstrably not doing well, and of the rich because they have room to explore and find more evil and the means to exercise their ambitions to destroy all evils. It does not belong to the middle class, and it is most effectively fought through expanding that category.

Mind, this can be applied to other actions. Such as revolution.

[Nuclear1]

Mind, this can be applied to other actions. Such as revolution.

Exactly.

See:  Greece and Turkey under the Marshall Plan.

[Delta_V]

On the contrary; it solves everything. It's buy-in. Terrorist groups can only exist due to perceived oppression. If someone looks around and is content with their lot in life, then there is no motivation for them to lash out. You can't get them to buy into the concept of some great evil if they cannot detect it.

Terrorism is a hobby of the poor because they are demonstrably not doing well, and of the rich because they have room to explore and find more evil and the means to exercise their ambitions to destroy all evils. It does not belong to the middle class, and it is most effectively fought through expanding that category.

Mind, this can be applied to other actions. Such as revolution.

For my U.S. military history class, I've been writing a paper on the insurgency in Iraq, and I've seen this in several sources.  Whether it's terrorists, insurgents, or revolutionaries, their primary reason for fighting is some sort of perceived oppression or neglection of basic needs.  If the government is able to correct the problems, the reason for fighting disappears, and the movement shrivels up and dies.  From my research, in insurgencies like Iraq, the insurgents need the support (whether passive or active) of the people.  The people will only support them if they are not happy with the current government.  One of the big reasons for the drop in violence in Iraq in 2007, besides the troop surge, was American and Iraqi efforts finally succeeded in winning over the support of the people.  Once the people turned their backs on the insurgents, the insurgents completely lost momentum.

The most effective method of fighting extremists is not on the battlefield, but by eliminating the reasons people follow the extremists in the first place.

[bobbtmann]

Hmmm. Does that mean that a "War Against Terrorism" is futile? An army marching in and conquering would, I presume, be seen as an oppressor. Terrorism only starts dying off when non-fighting measures are taken?

[Nuclear1]

You need both.  It's really difficult to implement the measures you need to create a peaceful society when there's open conflict.  You have to work a balancing act of ensuring security but not being seen as an oppressor.  By maintaining security you can allow the society around you to reform itself to ensure that the root causes of terrorism can't manifest themselves in the country in question.

Military measures are just bandages in the grand scheme of things.  If used right, they'll prevent the wounds of a collapsed society from spreading or getting worse, but if the country can't treat the problems already in its own country, it won't be able to become a healthy society in the long run.  Economic stability and a fair justice system (among other things) essentially work as the country's antibodies against extremism.

[Luis Dias]

I see what you're saying, and that's why I'm saying it's important to consider each SCOTUS nominee by his or her individual merits.  What you seem to be saying is that every Scientologist or Muslim identifies with the most extreme elements of their religion, or that they have the potential for it.

The only thing I say is that if one person identifies himself as a Muslim, I take that seriously, and I think that such a person will identify himself with all the tenets of islam. That is what I say is dangerous, and "extremism" be damned. Imagine if one person goes to you and states "I'm a nazi". Now all of a sudden, third parties will tell you "now hang on, don't go all nuclear on him, examine what he has to say, consider his merits, etc, don't discriminate him for being a nazi, he might not be an extreme nazi."

The example is an "extreme" one so you get the core concept of what I am talking about, I am not comparing nazism with islam (I actually think they are very different, evil in different ways).

If you tell me, well he might not be an extreme muslim, that is equivalent of saying "he might not be a full muslim, he might only be a *slight* muslim".

And that is still, of course, true, and the reason why I conceded that point before.

I'm willing to say that if they've reached the credentials in America to be nominated for the highest court that they've had the experience and the education to be more moderate in their beliefs, or at least to separate their religious beliefs from their duties as a judge.

Quite the presumption, but you convince me to take the chance, what the hell, what's the worse that can happen.

Tell me, was a group of poor people who flew to the twin towers, or highly educated people?

9/11 was an unusual event.  It was one of the most complicated terrorist attacks ever carried out, simply because it required people with some education to be able to fly massive passenger airliners. 

A hotel bombing, kidnapping, market bombing, or vehicular homicide doesn't require the same expertise or education.  There are enough unemployed, disheartened youths in the Middle East to be recruited to blow themselves up for the promise of salvation.  Poor, uneducated, and disheartened people tend to be easier prey for religious extremism than the rich.

Of course, but then don't tell me this is a "poor phenomena". It isn't. It's an extremism phenomena.

Hence my point about demagogues.  Osama was the son of a rich Saudi construction magnate and many TV evangelists in the US are obscenely rich.  They have the resources to recruit and organize extremist groups.

But their efforts mean nothing if we can develop a society where the factors that lead young people to terrorism no longer exist. 

You should consider what these "young" people really abhor about our society. They do not speak about their own poverty. They speak about the lack of moral values, the disgusting lack of leashes we have over women, the whorization of the entire society, the consumerism, etc. IOW, they abhor our society and western values themselves.

United States Air Force Cryptologist Linguist, specialized in Arabic, primarily focused on anti-terrorism, especially Islamic extremism.

And I gotta say, most of what you're saying goes against everything I've learned about religious extremism.

Are you really? That's awesome. About the contradiction between your beliefs and mine, well if what you say is true, I recognize your authority over mine. I still remain unconvinced of what you say.

[karajorma]

The only thing I say is that if one person identifies himself as a Muslim, I take that seriously, and I think that such a person will identify himself with all the tenets of islam. That is what I say is dangerous, and "extremism" be damned. Imagine if one person goes to you and states "I'm a nazi". Now all of a sudden, third parties will tell you "now hang on, don't go all nuclear on him, examine what he has to say, consider his merits, etc, don't discriminate him for being a nazi, he might not be an extreme nazi."

I  will now prove how your point is utter bollocks (on top of being a Godwin) by asking you what a moderate Nazi believes in.

[Grizzly]

Moustaches?

I see what you're saying, and that's why I'm saying it's important to consider each SCOTUS nominee by his or her individual merits.  What you seem to be saying is that every Scientologist or Muslim identifies with the most extreme elements of their religion, or that they have the potential for it.

The only thing I say is that if one person identifies himself as a Muslim, I take that seriously, and I think that such a person will identify himself with all the tenets of islam. That is what I say is dangerous, and "extremism" be damned. Imagine if one person goes to you and states "I'm a nazi". Now all of a sudden, third parties will tell you "now hang on, don't go all nuclear on him, examine what he has to say, consider his merits, etc, don't discriminate him for being a nazi, he might not be an extreme nazi."

So if someone says: "I am a socialist", then you automatically assume that he does like the ideology, but also the most absurd and extreme forms of that ideology, say, The Soviet Union (which, if you look at the core, didn't quite 'get it')?

[General Battuta]

aaaaahahahaha someone comparing Islam to National Socialism as the root of an argument

i think we know how well this is going to go, gentlemen

[zookeeper]

The only thing I say is that if one person identifies himself as a Muslim, I take that seriously, and I think that such a person will identify himself with all the tenets of islam. That is what I say is dangerous, and "extremism" be damned. Imagine if one person goes to you and states "I'm a nazi". Now all of a sudden, third parties will tell you "now hang on, don't go all nuclear on him, examine what he has to say, consider his merits, etc, don't discriminate him for being a nazi, he might not be an extreme nazi."

I  will now prove how your point is utter bollocks (on top of being a Godwin) by asking you what a moderate Nazi believes in.

Uh, what? A moderate nazi believes in all the nice-sounding tenets of the party but isn't for gassing gays and starting wars as such. Taking whatever they're comfortable with and ignoring the rest.

- An economy where community interests would be upheld: nazi.
- A national state for all those of german origin: nazi.
- Homosexuality is disgusting and unnatural: nazi.
- Sometimes it's more humane to euthanize: nazi.

- Starting a war? Of course war is always a tragedy, but sometimes it's simply necessary for a nation to do whatever it takes to defend itself.
- Persecuting jews? Well surely there can be an occasional good jew, but look, it's either the german people or them. You'd rather hand out the nation to a parasitic race, would you, huh, would you?
- Political executions? Oh come on. Suppressing treasonous assaults are legal as acts of self-defense by the State. You think you could hide a conspiracy involving hundreds of people killing your own citizens for something other than a really good reason a secret? Maybe you should watch less tv.

Etc etc. Considering that there were, what, 8.5 million genuine nazis, it's pretty odd to say that a moderate nazi is a ridiculous idea. Almost every party, movement or group with at least some good ideas will have some moderate members.

[Grizzly]

Etc etc. Considering that there were, what, 8.5 million genuine nazis, it's pretty odd to say that a moderate nazi is a ridiculous idea. Almost every party, movement or group with at least some good ideas will have some moderate members.

Do we call people who follow something due to fear of prosecution or simple lack of better alternatives (we are talking about the greatest financial crisis in history) a genuine follower?

aaaaahahahaha someone comparing Islam to National Socialism as the root of an argument

i think we know how well this is going to go, gentlemen

You mean stuff like this?

EDIT: Edited link because it was the wrong one last time.

(By the way, since when did you start doing hte Aaaaaaahahahahahaa stuff? It's not very... authoritylike.)

[UnendingRequiem]

We can't have Sharia Courts in the US, EVER!

[zookeeper]

Etc etc. Considering that there were, what, 8.5 million genuine nazis, it's pretty odd to say that a moderate nazi is a ridiculous idea. Almost every party, movement or group with at least some good ideas will have some moderate members.

Do we call people who follow something due to fear of prosecution or simple lack of better alternatives (we are talking about the greatest financial crisis in history) a genuine follower?

Well, a nazi doesn't need to be a follower, just a member of the party. With "genuine" I was referring to actual members, not to the people who fully bought into the ideology, and in that 8.5 million there still has to be thousands of people who subscribed to the non-extreme ideas of the party but didn't want any of the really nasty stuff to happen and/or simply didn't believe that it really would: moderate nazis. But yes, within the actual nazists the number of moderates must have been considerably lower; I don't believe they were non-existant since it's still entirely possible to believe in the core nazi principles without any desire for genocide, for example.

[Nuclear1]

The only thing I say is that if one person identifies himself as a Muslim, I take that seriously, and I think that such a person will identify himself with all the tenets of islam. That is what I say is dangerous, and "extremism" be damned. Imagine if one person goes to you and states "I'm a nazi". Now all of a sudden, third parties will tell you "now hang on, don't go all nuclear on him, examine what he has to say, consider his merits, etc, don't discriminate him for being a nazi, he might not be an extreme nazi."

This...I don't know what to do with this.

I assume by bringing up Nazis you want to evoke the racial purity aspect that really made Nazis evil evil...but that argument is still...odd.  Racial purity is a cornerstone of National Socialism, and without it, you're following just another form of fascism.

Sharia law, on the other hand, isn't a major cornerstone of Islam.  In fact, it's something most moderate Muslims go without even mentioning (at least in the US), and the only reason it's such a big deal is because the right wing took a few token extremists in the country and turned Sharia law into the next bogeyman.  And again, this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy; extremist Muslims want to enact Sharia law as a reactionary measure against what they perceive as a hostile society, and society becomes hostile against them because of Sharia law.

[Mars]

I totally agree that religion is generally stupid, but that does not mean that all Muslims are anything like Nazis. You clearly need more diverse friends.

I've had Christian friends, I've had Hindi friends, I've had Musilim friends, and all of them believed some seriously stupid things. It didn't make them bad, or dangerous people.

Don't go around comparing things to Nazism unless you really have a good comparison.

[Flipside]

Maybe I was fortunate that I had friends who followed Islam before 9/11 and knew some of their practices and beliefs both post- and pre- attack. The sad fact is that this 'hardening' of Islam in the West is mainly a self-defence mechanism, and could even be considered to be a response to a similar reaction on the part of Christianity.

Islam has been with us for years, and before 9/11 and all this territorial pissing that took place between Islam, Judaism and Christianity, Western Islam was much like Western Christianity, they went to church, listened to the sermon, obeyed the rules if they thought it was important enough (I knew quite a Muslims who liked a pint and a joint) and generally got on with their lives. Most Muslims would be perfectly happy if that trend had continued, but the situation in the Middle East spread over here and everything changed.

I walked past Muslims for years and didn't know they were followers of Islam, because it didn't matter, but a lot of the post 9/11 change has been in ourselves, we notice Muslims more and distrust them, and in defence of that Muslims become more withdrawn and defensive, and the cycle continues.