[Flipside]

Islamism isn't really a subset of anything, it's just a form of self-perception. It's easy to say, for example, that 30% of religious professors who are also Islamic support the idea of a Caliphate in the area, so what? If it's not included with the question 'Do you think ISIS is representative of your vision of that Caliphate?', then 30% is just a number with a squiggly thing after it with regards to revealing their stance on ISIS itself. It's the whole Data vs Information thing.

I don't mind that we accept that ISIS used a mutated version of Islam to draw attention to themselves, you could do that with any other religion as effectively, what I do mind is people claiming this is somehow Islam's 'fault', or that it was inevitable because it was Islam, that sort of thinking is far too generalized for me to be comfortable with it.

[Luis Dias]

That sort of thinking is both perpendicular and unnecessary. Islamism is defined as being the ideology of trying to bring about the conversion of any geographical place into a Caliphate, according to Sharia Law. Islamism is about trying to impose a set of rules of islamic origin unto others.

Islamism is the root cause that should be fought, ideologically. And yes, lots of muslims support it, instead of having a more liberal vision of what their relationship to other humans should be. I am not that interested in fatalisms and racist undertones in blaming muslims for having these thoughts, what matters is that there is a huge contingency of muslims who indeed have transcended this notion of Islamism, and so it's possible. And if it is possible, we should applaud every single method of support to try to bring these ideas forward.

I'm also skeptical of all this notion that we can't "blame Islam" because it's "too generalized", well, fine. Let's not "blame it", let's demand it become responsible, i.e., that they take a hard look into themselves and make sufficient questions regarding what they are doing to their own communities and the world at large. To insinuate that "Islam" has no bearing at all at what's happening is ridiculous and frankly, offensive!, at its face value, because that would necessitate that these religions would have nothing meaningful to add to our human experience whatsoever. That is, that they are all "equal". That they are all just "spiritual or whatevah". This is not true. Religions differ in placing the human psyche in certain very different states of mind and moral stances on what surrounds them. If you are worried about racism and general bigotry, I will follow you and your concerns, it's all too easy to descend into that too, but to deny the connection between Islam and what is happening in Iraq is just .... too much willful blindness.

[Flipside]

I find myself wondering why you constantly have to not only disagree with me, but attempt to play off all my comments as though they are 'spectacularly' wrong in some form or another, as though you are the only person whose opinion could possibly count in any way.

To be honest, I simply don't have the energy left to get into a discussion with someone who is dead-set on turning it into an argument. You carry on believing about the world what you will, I can't change you, but if you cannot listen to my point of view without resorting to constantly attempting to belittle it or decry it as 'not worth listening to', then you can do so alone.

[Luis Dias]

Imagine someone saying that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution, and then imagine your own reaction to that. Could you take that seriously?

Was I too disrespectful? I don't think I was, I kept giving you points where we could meet. However, written comments in forums might indeed express too much of an austere and cruel tone. Borrowing some ideas from the Volus species, perhaps I should start writing emotional tones before actual paragraphs. My sentiment there wasn't one of arrogance or condescendence, although I can certainly see how it might read like that. It's much more of bewilderment, dysmay, "I can't believe this" sort of feeling. I do understand you think differently, and by no means I want to take that away from anyone.

[Flipside]

What if someone said to you 'I think the common concept of Natural Selection is an over-simplification of how Evolution works'? Because that's what I'm effectively saying, that trying to put all of these problems into any kind of box, pointing to the box and saying 'THAT is the problem', is just going to lead to more of the same problems.

As I said at the start, there is a massive swathe of reasons for the problems in the Middle East, radicalized Islamic Terrorism is a symptom, not a cause to my mind, the cause of these problems won't vanish even if Islam vanished off the face of the Earth tomorrow, any more than the disappearance of the Klan, or the removal of every Confederate Flag would mean an end to racism or the crushing of the Nazi Party meant the end of antisemitism.

To my mind, thinking that if the area hadn't been Islamic, there wouldn't have been these problems is false. I grew up in a world where IRA Bombs were commonly on the News, the Protestant/Catholic divide was blamed, but everyone knew it was about far, far more than just Religious tension, even if the entire area had been one denomination or the other, there still would have been violence, there still would have been bombs, because what it was about at its root was borders, different standards, and the massive tension and anger caused by the division of the country into Northern Ireland and Eire. The religion was just a nice handy envelope.

Sectarian violence is still a problem in Northern island, as is tension along the Eire/NI border, there will always be some tension in a situation like that, but the idea that it was the religious divide that was responsible for the problem was a massive over-simplification of what was actually going on. The same applies here to my mind, religion is a problem in the area, certainly, but it's not the problem.

[Luis Dias]

What if someone said to you 'I think the common concept of Natural Selection is an over-simplification of how Evolution works'? Because that's what I'm effectively saying, that trying to put all of these problems into any kind of box, pointing to the box and saying 'THAT is the problem', is just going to lead to more of the same problems.

It's always a matter of degree, isn't it? I also never said that the *only* problem is islam. I made precise criticisms of your point of view, namely a scent of religious relativism (religions are all the same), a kind of exagerated contingency causality (Islam is just what these people used, and they did so becuase of their situation).

Remember, you said that the fact ISIS was "Islam" was irrelevant. It was just this that I argued against.

As I said at the start, there is a massive swathe of reasons for the problems in the Middle East, radicalized Islamic Terrorism is a symptom, not a cause to my mind, the cause of these problems won't vanish even if Islam vanished off the face of the Earth tomorrow, any more than the disappearance of the Klan, or the removal of every Confederate Flag would mean an end to racism or the crushing of the Nazi Party meant the end of antisemitism.

It is weird. At a glance, you seem to recognize as I do that these things are complex, non-trivial. Ok, I agree. Then, you say Islamic Terrorism has nothing to do with the cause, it's only a symptom. And yet, we do know a certain amount of facts that do question this narrative and to which you either kept ignoring them or... ignoring them. For instance, when I mentioned Whahabism and the huge investments of madrassas and other radical ideological schools all over the middle east, europe and even america. What do you say to this? Nothing. Because it seems that to you, all these issues are symptoms, not causes. Very well, I just disagree fundamentally here.

To my mind, thinking that if the area hadn't been Islamic, there wouldn't have been these problems is false. I grew up in a world where IRA Bombs were commonly on the News, the Protestant/Catholic divide was blamed, but everyone knew it was about far, far more than just Religious tension, even if the entire area had been one denomination or the other, there still would have been violence, there still would have been bombs, because what it was about at its root was borders, different standards, and the massive tension and anger caused by the division of the country into Northern Ireland and Eire. The religion was just a nice handy envelope.

Ok, but to be fair, and you could have noticed it by yourself, you started this paragraph with an obvious strawman. Where did anyone stated that without Islam, or indeed, without religion one would have no problems? To me, religious tension is the most damning tension here, not the only one and perhaps not even the catalyst. But it perpetuates the divides. I'm sure most irish people won't disagree with me there. Look at every big tension in the world, tell me religion is not playing a role. India / Paskistan. Israel / Palestine. ISIS / Shia Islam. Only North Korea seems to be an exception.

Now, again, I said *a role*. I did not say *THE* role. I also did not say *A symptom*. Which is our apparent disagreement here.

[StarSlayer]

Only North Korea seems to be an exception.

You doubt the Noble Divinity of the Dear Leader?

[Flipside]

Ok, but to be fair, and you could have noticed it by yourself, you started this paragraph with an obvious strawman. Where did anyone stated that without Islam, or indeed, without religion one would have no problems?

Well, thats not my point, my point is more like the opposite. ISIS is the fruit of Islamism, which is a fairly large and influential subset of Islam, dominant in middle east. As I said, if some other faith was in the area, there would probably be no ISIS, and the situation would look much different (probably much better).

Accusing me of 'not noticing things' and 'making obvious strawmen'...

You're doing it again, and I'm tired of it. I'm out.

[Luis Dias]

Jesus ****ing hell, no one there said there would be "no problems". The mere fact that this region is filled with oil is just asking for a huge load of problems. I'm also tired of your deflections and shenanigans but don't want to end this on a sour note. Agree to disagree?

[Flipside]

The problem isn't what you are saying, it's that you cannot seem to say it without being abusive of the other persons' opinions. Oh, sure we all say 'It's the Internet', but don't you think it's funny that was always say it in the third person, as though we aren't right here, being responsible for the very attitudes we claim to be inevitable because 'it's the Internet'.

I'm sick and tired of trying to have discussions with people who seem to think the only possible way of responding to an argument they disagree with is to start calling it 'Strawman' or 'Ridiculous' or 'Stupid', it's immature and creates an atmosphere where I really cannot be bothered to discuss it any more, I don't read further into your posts on occasion because I read something like 'This is a stupid argument', and from that point onwards I have no interest whatsoever in what you have to say, because you've gone straight to the ridiculing, so I greatly doubt anything beyond that is going to contain anything that even begins to be level-headed or reasonable. Even if it does, you've not exactly created an 'open and frank' forum for discussing your points have you? Instead you've created an ethos of confrontation that is actually a block to discussion.

It's not just you, I understand that, but I've got better things to do than have a discussion with someone whose idea of an argument is to spend the first sentence of every paragraph trying to think of ways of calling me 'stupid' or 'ignorant' or 'delusional' in such as way as it skirts just inside the forum rules by pretending to attack the argument.

[Bobboau]

I have had similar arguments with you about similar subjects. You can come up with an assumption about a person's motivations and make constant efforts to guide them into saying something that you can use to prove their 'true' hidden motivations that you have decided on. I have noticed that when I say Christianity causes problems I never get any flack, but if I say Islam causes problems, well now I just simply hate all Muslims don't I?

though, I think we can all agree that Luis is... somewhat... ...unrefined...

[Flipside]

I have had similar arguments with you about similar subjects. You can come up with an assumption about a person's motivations and make constant efforts to guide them into saying something that you can use to prove their 'true' hidden motivations that you have decided on

Do you have an example of that, because I'm certainly not aware of doing that, and if I do, then I'd like to see in what way so I can be aware of when I am doing it.

To be honest, I've never said either religion 'never causes any problems', I'm perfectly aware of the impact both of them have had. But that's how I feel about most religions, the moment it gets organized, it gets dangerous, but the thing is, this isn't a discussion about whether Islam or Christianity is 'Good' or 'Bad', it's discussion about whether the Middle Eastern problems were caused by Islam, or whether Islams problems were caused by the Middle East, and I really don't think it's a binary situation.

I have my own opinion on Islam and it's Tenets, and they are not favorable ones, same as many implementations of Christianity, and that is an issue humanity has to deal with, but we need to separate out what we are concerned about with regards to the religious practice in general, and what we are concerned about with regards to extreme interpretations of it. I don't agree with the Roman Catholic opinion on contraceptives, for example, but that is a different issue from Priests abusing children. One is an outdated, and somewhat dangerous tenet that is a common-held 'foundation' to the religion, the other is an aberration caused by sick people abusing a position of trust and responsibility. Whilst I would happily say some RC Priests are pedophiles, I would not, therefore continue to claim that this means that every Roman Catholic should take some responsibility for their actions.

Edit : For those that are interested : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33645685

It's an interesting piece about someone in the UK whose brother went to join ISIS, and his investigation into how his brother was lured there and why he chose to go. You'll note, it's largely about a schism in Islam that largely resembles the Protestant/Catholic schism in Europe. All ISIS is, at it's heart, is the symbol of another religion collapsing in on itself like a failed souffle.

[Bobboau]

Do you have an example of that

one of the draw mohamed day threads.

nothing you said there I disagree with strongly.

[Flipside]

Yeah, those Mohammed threads were a bit rough, but I didn't feel I was being manipulative at the time. I'll keep my eyes open for myself doing it, and if you see me doing it, let me know because it's not my intention to behave like that, and like every human being, I know it's perfectly possible for me to do so, so if I can see the signs, I can avoid it.

[Luis Dias]

I really don't know what to say. Is it my tone? Is it that I'm "unrefined" or, quote, "immature"? Was that a description on what I said or on my persona?  Perhaps indeed I am, I'm really open to that. From my end, it merely feels that whenever I happen to disagree with something some people say, I'm labeled as confrontational, not "open and frank" enough, etc. Whenever I share some ideas and concepts and links, etc., they are immediately ignored, and what actually matters is my "tone". I do realise that you feel that I'm using sleazy tactics to be able to call you names under the radar, because perhaps I get off of something like that or something. Nothing could be further from the truth! I do happen to like you and do enjoy what you mostly contribute to the discussions. I just happen to disagree with some things you say. And if I detect that something you said was a strawman and pointed out, it was just to inform you of this, not to make a mark on a checklist of logical fallacies in a gotcha style.

Slight interlude here. Do consider that whenever I do intervene is because something props up in my mind that isn't being taken to account. So it will appear that my comments are mostly confrontational. It might be that I agree with what you are saying to a 70/90% degree, and I just mention what irked me the most, i.e. the 10/30% that is left.

Now was I really being rough on the edges? I'm sorry if it feels that way. Let me tell you, I also don't like that my points are being ignored or strawmanned, or deflected with discussions around "tone". Do I get to say this as well? Are my feelings about the kinds of responses I get to be considered as well, or not?

Because I am confused about some of your arguments. And stop right there. I know what you're feeling. "Ah, here he comes again with his immature smugness and condescension towards me, NOW what fallacy is he gonna point out, I'm tired of this ****". It's NOT smugness. I am *really* confused, because I think I see a contradiction in here, and yet you seem unflinched, as if there isn't any contradiction. You insist that Islam is mostly irrelevant, it is a symptom, it may well be a cause for a lot of trouble, but nothing that would irrevocably separate it from other religions. But now you say this:

You'll note, it's largely about a schism in Islam that largely resembles the Protestant/Catholic schism in Europe. All ISIS is, at it's heart, is the symbol of another religion collapsing in on itself like a failed souffle.

Now, this I totally agree. But it's also in direct contradiction with your previous statements, I believe? Is it not fair to point this out? The whole ISIS phenomena *is* a symbol of a wider crisis within Islam, a Reformation and all the "butterflies"that come with them (the christian reformation was followed by bloody wars), movements of radical resistance to change. Your insight is a wider "Look at the forest, forget the trees" bird's eye view, but it establishes that, much rather than being an irrelevant side aspect of the whole problem, it's at its core. We might disagree on the conclusions to take from this. For instance, one of the big issues I see with this analogy is that it sort of makes one feel that History is fatalistically "doomed" to make Islam more moderated and, like you say, "collapse in on itself like a failed souffle". I disagree with how this prediction is made, because I feel the future is open. There is a fever, but the patient can get worse, not better, after it passes.

But regarding the inconsistency here, what am I missing?

[NGTM-1R]

Do you have an example of that, because I'm certainly not aware of doing that, and if I do, then I'd like to see in what way so I can be aware of when I am doing it.

Hi.

[Flipside]

I'd suggest, after what you did, that you stay well away from this conversation.

And particularly considering what you did, I'd also suggest you stay well away from concerns about manipulation.

[NGTM-1R]

I'd suggest, after what you did, that you stay well away from this conversation.

I'd suggest that you not attempt to dictate what conversations I can and can not participate in as though you are a mod. You gave that up. I'd equally suggest that you successfully manipulated that conversation by doing so, whether you wish to call it that or not, and thus it is a rich statement that you suggest I stay away from it for being manipulative when you were the best manipulator present at the incident you're complaining about now.

More seriously, though, the idea that ISIS is not about Islam everyone has been pushing most of this thread baffles me. (Even Luis' commentary about it being "Islamism" is dancing around this point, afraid to approach it.) Every bizarre pronouncement about Rome is rooted in Islamic religious prophecy; every crowing statement about the capture of some obscure valley is because it has religious significance; the rank and file spout religious statements at every turn because they believe them.

I suppose this is one of the grand Western conceits, that faith is not a thing; that behavior informs religion, not the other way around. We who grew up going to church but never feeling a deep call ourselves and never having met anyone who did, imagining that such deep callings do not exist. But they do. Perhaps I should thank, rather than curse, the Southern Baptist's Conference and its ilk for providing me evidence of this rather than being a constant irritant on social issues.

ISIS could not exist without Islam. Regardless of whatever possible problems one wishes to discuss, the problems at hand are deeply, inextricably religious. Whatever else one chooses to blame, whatever other contexts in which we choose to frame the discussion, we have to accept that religion is a major dynamic and that it will matter. To do otherwise means our solutions will be less effective, and we deny ourselves further means with which to combat ISIS.

ISIS is based in Islam, and that is a strength, but it is also a weakness. Much as the IRA once considered itself the protector of Catholic Irishmen and could be attacked via the acts it undertook which were distinctly unCatholic to the minds of many, so can ISIS be fought inside the framework of Islam for the actions it takes that are considered unIslamic. There is a famous quote of the Prophet: when a man accuses his brother of being an infidel, there is indeed an infidel present. The eagerness of ISIS to declare others apostates is just the start of the things that can be used against it once we are willing to acknowledge that this war is a religious one.

[Flipside]

So you don't like people suggesting things to you either? Why doesn't that surprise me? I'm not part of the Mods so you can't even use your 'conspiracy theory' rubbish to try and manipulate things either now, can you?

The whole reason I quit as a Mod, as you are well aware, was because I was tired of trying to find the middle road between people who thought that whenever the Forum didn't bow to their wishes, that it was all some kind of conspiracy theory against them, I put up with that crap with you for over a year and ended up quitting because I was sick and tired of you misquoting facts and quote mining purely for the sake of hurling abuse...

Let me give you an example :

There was a somewhat heated discussion about Modified Newtonian Dynamics going on some time ago, I posted a response which read :

It's all theory, that's what I'm saying. The real risk here is putting the cart before the horse, the worst step science could take would be to assume that because something doesn't match what we think is true, it must, therefore, be untrue.

As I said before, there's work to do, but if you look back 15 years on the Dark Matter model, and you'd be in a similar situation, it's only through years of adjustment that we've defined a model of the Universe based on Dark Matter theory, not the opposite, if MOND had been thought of first, I wonder if the position would be reversed, and we'd be discussing that fact that Dark Matter can't be right, because it doesn't produce the same numbers as MOND.

MOND has had, possibly, a decade to produce results, I've been hearing about Dark Matter for about 3 decades, and for a lot of that, that theory produced no results either, so I'd be inclined to leave things just a little longer before writing it off.

Edit : Look at it this way, we spent a long time believing the Sun went round the Earth, we had maths that worked for that model, we even calculated a complex system for the regression of planets. The maths fitted, the model fitted, there was only one minute flaw, the entire model was based on a false premise.

Edit 2 : And even wierder is that I could take those incorrect calculations, based on an incorrect model and get correct answers from them with regards to where the Sun is going to rise etc.

Your highly thought out, well structured response to this was :

It's all theory, that's what I'm saying.

Twenty demerits for using an argument straight out of a creationist playbook.

By this stage, this was an ongoing problem with you, out-of-context quote mining and idiotic behaviour, and it was starting to get to me, as it would with anyone. So before you start accusing me of being manipulative to you, maybe you should ask yourself why you wrote to Admin claiming that if they didn't do what you wanted, you would assume it was just 'evidence' of the perceived corruption you believed the Moderators were indulging in.

You're sitting in a glass-house and throwing stones, so I'd, once again, suggest that you think very hard before making claims about manipulation.

[Luis Dias]

Could you two get on that in pms or whatever?

(Even Luis' commentary about it being "Islamism" is dancing around this point, afraid to approach it.)

Hey now that I'm called a coward I have to intervene! (I totally got that you didn't call me a coward, don't worry, smileys smileys, etc.)

Just to clarify here that my position is not, I believe, "dancing around" this issue. Islam is front and center of what is going on. My last comment points precisely this, and apparently, even Flipside believes this as well.

The thing is, I think it is possible to abstract Islam from Islamism, and if this is done correctly and overwhelmingly, then most people will understand that there is a difference between a theocratic fanatical project and a secular liberal tolerance that allows everyone to have their own personal beliefs without imposing them on everyone else. We can agree, I believe, that this project has numerous problems, one of which is consistency with Islam itself, that is, can Islam be compatible with secularism? I'd argue that this compatibility is difficult, but even if it brings certain contradictions, it's not as if all Religions do not suffer them and still go on being pretty popular anyway.

But, even given all these problems, which undoubtedly you'd start listing all them out, I do think that we have a better shot (even at long term) by outlining this difference between liberal islam and Islamism rather than just blanket Otherizing every single 1.5 billion muslims and tell them that it's all their fault, they should better convert to Christianity or just go full Atheists themselves. That's Ann Coulter - type of rambling (and I'm NOT suggesting anyone here is saying it), and we can all agree that it's not even fruitless, not even silly. It's just ... aeeugh. It's just antagonistic.

So I don't take my "dancing around" as cowardish, but rather as pragmatic, and I even believe it's the sort of angle of attack that might bring long term benefits, ideologically speaking. It's not antagonistic, it's rather inviting all muslims to defend secularism and fight islamism, of all sorts.