Society/Culture Why I blame Islam for the fact it's raining today.... part 2

[Chief]

Reminder: This isn't the Israel/Hamas thread. Go to the Israel/Hamas thread if you want to talk about that. Thanks.

Mid East - Israel declare war after Hamas attack II

Part I: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/israel-declare-war-after-hamas-attack.1371828/page-47#post-81443295 Thread Rules: Alright. I recognise that this is a fraught topic for any number of you posting here. Some of you will have family in Israel or Palestine. Some of you will have...

www.bigfooty.com

Thread rules update:

From this point if you're going to make a connection between Islam and the crime rate, you need to demonstrate causation in your post. If you do not, I'm going to infract you for the inherent racism in the position you're taking.

 

[ZEV]

Nationalism is innately opposed to the teachings and views of an enormous number of churches. So criticising Christian Nationalists is specifically criticising the views of a particular section of the broader Christian community. It is not even close to ascribing the terrorist acts being pushed by some mosques to the entirety of Islam - which you do. You are even criticising those mosques who are strongly opposed to Islamic terrorism and those countless Muslims who have been killed due to being in opposition to proscribed terrorist groups and their views.

Majority of people cannot differentiate between Islamic people and Islamists.

 

[Gethelred]

But Christian nationalism has existed in multiple countries for a long time. It ranges from harmless little old ladies who have forever thought it’s good to have kids singing “god bless America” to people who think the US should be on some conquest to convert the entire Middle East to Christianity and using military force to achieve it. It’s not fair that the former should be called a “threat”.

... the societal prohibition on corporal punishment of children over the last 40ish years has had a number of good affects, but one of the bad ones is that people forget things.

One of the things they've forgotten is just how happy some of those harmless little old ladies were to dish out lashings and canings when they felt it appropriate.

'Spare the rod, spoil the child.'

 

[ZEV]

... the societal prohibition on corporal punishment of children over the last 40ish years has had a number of good affects, but one of the bad ones is that people forget things.

One of the things they've forgotten is just how happy some of those harmless little old ladies were to dish out lashings and canings when they felt it appropriate.

'Spare the rod, spoil the child.'

Good luck with the size of some of the yr 12s around these days...

 

[sr36]

But Christian nationalism has existed in multiple countries for a long time. It ranges from harmless little old ladies who have forever thought it’s good to have kids singing “god bless America” to people who think the US should be on some conquest to convert the entire Middle East to Christianity and using military force to achieve it. It’s not fair that the former should be called a “threat”.

You're right in terms of criticising actions, but not necessarily right in terms of criticising views.

Now, in terms of the comment from Gough, I don't agree with him that Christian Nationalist groups will always pose more of a threat regarding terroism in America than Islamic groups will.

We are currently in a situation where USA is supplying bombs to a country that most of the Islamic world view as committing genocide against an Islamic group. Their president is currently advocating the complete ethnic cleansing of a region where that group lives. America's threat of a terrorist attack from an Islamic group is rising significantly - so the recent situation where their bureaucracy said that the bigger threat is from Christian groups is very likely to have changed. The same probably applies to Australia due to our strong connections with America and our strong military ties with America.

No one is denying that there are Islamic terrorist groups. No one is denying that they do threaten secruity. There's nothing wrong with pointing out threats that might come from these groups - or from Christian groups - or from nationalist groups.

However, having a view of Islam being bad formed with limited knowledge of Islam and then finding anecdotes of Muslims behaving badly to support that opinion, isn't rational - it's ignorant prejudice - completely devoid of a rational process. And then trying to spread that ignorant prejudice is just downright dangerous and to use your word, "bad". Islamic terrorist groups threaten security in Australia. As do Christian terrorist groups. As do you - with the ignorant prejudice that you try to spread.

 

[sr36]

Majority of people cannot differentiate between Islamic people and Islamists.

I don't think it's the majority, but they're certainly ****ing vocal and remarkably think their opinion has validity on a topic they just don't have any desire to understand at all.

I don't want to know anything about cars. But I can tell you they're bad. See, a car killed someone yesterday. Oh look here's more deaths from cars. Cars are bad. Let's stop importing them and bringing their killing into the country. Let's get rid of cars and not allow them to spread.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Murderous comments made by 2 randoms in response to a war strengthens the argument that Islam is bad?

Mammamia

In that case there's strong evidence that every religion on the planet is bad. Every significant ideology. Every country. We're all evil ...FFS.

You believe the events are an outlier opinion - you are wrong. Islam is a religion of hate.

 

[liz]

I don't want to know anything about cars. But I can tell you they're bad. See, a car killed someone yesterday. Oh look here's more deaths from cars. Cars are bad. Let's stop importing them and bringing their killing into the country. Let's get rid of cars and not allow them to spread.

Not a bad idea, actually.

 

[sr36]

You believe the events are an outlier opinion - you are wrong. Islam is a religion of hate.

That comment suggests you're into hate - so is that intended to be a compliment or an insult? It's hard to tell when someone is wearing their hate proudly and pointing out the hate of others.

 

[sr36]

Not a bad idea, actually.

Not a bad idea if they get gradually phased out and replaced with better modes of transport. And I certainly won't be concerned if Islam and Christianity are gradually phased out and replaced by better ideas or in terms of both cars and religion, adaptation is probably a better more realistic hope

 

[ElectricG]

I don't want to know anything about cars. But I can tell you they're bad. See, a car killed someone yesterday. Oh look here's more deaths from cars. Cars are bad. Let's stop importing them and bringing their killing into the country. Let's get rid of cars and not allow them to spread.

I know you are putting this forward to lampoon what I’ve been saying, but it’s logically sound isn’t it?

It always struck me as weird how the road is a place that we just accept will always be unsafe and will kill a bunch of people every year.

 

[sr36]

I know you are putting this forward to lampoon what I’ve been saying, but it’s logically sound isn’t it?

It always struck me as weird how the road is a place that we just accept will always be unsafe and will kill a bunch of people every year.

Do you think cars are bad and want to stop importing or allowing them to be built domestically?

 

[ElectricG]

Do you think cars are bad and want to stop importing or allowing them to be built domestically?

I agree with what you wrote. Given our society can’t function without them at this time, going cold turkey on cars would be a pretty crazy proposition.

But they are bad in many ways, and a future without them seems like a good thing. (Before you be a smart arse I actually am talking about cars here and not Muslims)

 

[schneebly111]

This makes you wonder how much fake press actually exists and is used to smear Muslims in a poor light:

News Corp team confronted after alleged attempt to provoke staff at Sydney Middle Eastern restaurant

Staff member at Cairo Takeaway in Newtown alleged she felt intimidated by a customer who entered restaurant with Daily Telegraph crew waiting outside

www.theguardian.com

 

[peetoo]

The aca crowd does foreign affairs

 

[ZEV]

I wonder what bombshell the poster thought that they were delivering by pointing out that Islam has an Armageddon story that's basically the same as the Christian one?

Lost on me

I agree with what you wrote. Given our society can’t function without them at this time, going cold turkey on cars would be a pretty crazy proposition.

But they are bad in many ways, and a future without them seems like a good thing. (Before you be a smart arse I actually am talking about cars here and not Muslims)

Cuba has the right idea

 

[sr36]

I agree with what you wrote. Given our society can’t function without them at this time, going cold turkey on cars would be a pretty crazy proposition.

But they are bad in many ways, and a future without them seems like a good thing. (Before you be a smart arse I actually am talking about cars here and not Muslims)

I don't think we'll replace them - they just give people so much more freedom and choice, but we'll adapt them. We've been adapting them and our use of them for years to massively reduce the road toll. And we're moving to more environmentally friendly options with additional safety features to reduce the negatives. AI self drive will probably eventually significantly reduce the impact of driver or pedestrian errors and make them really safe.

But my point is if you only look at the death resulting from people driving cars recklessly and don't know anything else about cars, other than there's some major brands, it'd be pretty easy to believe that cars are evil with no possible benefit to the individual or the community. But cars can be fantastic and fortunately, most cars aren't unroadworthy death traps driven by arseholes. Some are though, so we police the arseholes.

 

[ElectricG]

I don't think we'll replace them - they just give people so much more freedom and choice, but we'll adapt them. We've been adapting them and our use of them for years to massively reduce the road toll. And we're moving to more environmentally friendly options with additional safety features to reduce the negatives. AI self drive will probably eventually significantly reduce the impact of driver or pedestrian errors and make them really safe.

But my point is if you only look at the death resulting from people driving cars badly and don't know anything else about cars, other than there's some major brands, it'd be pretty easy to believe that cars are evil with no possible benefit to the individual or the community. But cars can be fantastic and fortunately, most cars aren't unroadworthy death traps driven by arseholes. Some are though, so we police the arseholes.

I can’t really roll with this analogy tbh. The problem is that human life has value whether or not people are useful. To draw a parallel is to inevitably end up sounding like a genocidal maniac.

It’s also a topic where I start naively daydreaming. What if our train network was so good we could tear up most of the roads and plant trees in their place!? That type of stuff.

 

[sr36]

I can’t really roll with this analogy tbh. The problem is that human life has value whether or not people are useful. To draw a parallel is to inevitably end up sounding like a genocidal maniac.

It’s also a topic where I start naively daydreaming. What if our train network was so good we could tear up most of the roads and plant trees in their place!? That type of stuff.

My analogy to cars was about the religion and not the people who follow it. When I was saying useful, I was referring to the religion. Hence I was talking about the drivers of cars - they were analogous to the believers. I wasn't saying whether the people are useful. That would be a bit twisted - slave owneresque.

 

[JayJ20]

Majority of people cannot differentiate between Islamic people and Islamists.

Maybe because the term Islamist itself is coined and used to deliberately muddy the waters. It also attempts to absolve the West of any responsibility in spreading extremist ideologies within an Islamic context (I'll explain at the end of the post).

This is not aimed at you specifically.

No Muslim I know ever uses the term Islamist because to a layman, what does that even supposed to mean? It's another 'Pavlov's dog' situation. Many layman will interpret 'Islamist' in the same way as Islamic.

Even the term 'Islamic fundamentalist' does nothing to help people understand the problematic ideology behind extremism within the Islamic world.

If people actually listened to Muslim people and the terms we use instead of popularising and coining words used to deliberately incite misunderstanding (whether done intentionally or unintentionally), then perhaps we would be in a better place.

When people say Islamic fundamentalist or Islamist, what they really mean is Wahhabism, also known as so-called Salafism. This is the term we Muslims use to ensure people understand the difference between Islam and this extremist ideology. So why use the term Islamist instead of Wahhabism? Because Wahhabism is known to have been spread by Western powers to destabilise Muslim countries. It is also well known to be removed and separate from the true Islam. Also, the originators, implementers and propagators of Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia, are direct Western allies, whose rise to power and occupation of Al-Hijaz (Madinah, Makkah, Jeddah and Ta'if) were partly as a result of Western assistance. Hillary Clinton among other politician addressed the issue of Wahhabism multiple times.

 

[JayJ20]

This makes you wonder how much fake press actually exists and is used to smear Muslims in a poor light:

News Corp team confronted after alleged attempt to provoke staff at Sydney Middle Eastern restaurant

Staff member at Cairo Takeaway in Newtown alleged she felt intimidated by a customer who entered restaurant with Daily Telegraph crew waiting outside

www.theguardian.com

This is disgraceful. Of course, we won't see widespread condemnation or reporting of this stunt.

 

[Gough]

This is disgraceful. Of course, we won't see widespread condemnation or reporting of this stunt.

Someone should given that guy something real to complain about.

 

[Chief]

This makes you wonder how much fake press actually exists and is used to smear Muslims in a poor light:

News Corp team confronted after alleged attempt to provoke staff at Sydney Middle Eastern restaurant

Staff member at Cairo Takeaway in Newtown alleged she felt intimidated by a customer who entered restaurant with Daily Telegraph crew waiting outside

www.theguardian.com

Have we finally seen the stunt so low that even Murdoch goons find it unacceptable? It never seemed like something I would see in my lifetime.

According to a News Corp source who spoke on the condition of anonymity, newsroom staff were appalled by the incident. The source said they were disgusted that it could have been sanctioned and even more disgusted that there appeared to be zero consequences.

 

[sr36]

Maybe because the term Islamist itself is coined and used to deliberately muddy the waters. It also attempts to absolve the West of any responsibility in spreading extremist ideologies within an Islamic context (I'll explain at the end of the post).

This is not aimed at you specifically.

No Muslim I know ever uses the term Islamist because to a layman, what does that even supposed to mean? It's another 'Pavlov's dog' situation. Many layman will interpret 'Islamist' in the same way as Islamic.

Even the term 'Islamic fundamentalist' does nothing to help people understand the problematic ideology behind extremism within the Islamic world.

If people actually listened to Muslim people and the terms we use instead of popularising and coining words used to deliberately incite misunderstanding (whether done intentionally or unintentionally), then perhaps we would be in a better place.

When people say Islamic fundamentalist or Islamist, what they really mean is Wahhabism, also known as so-called Salafism. This is the term we Muslims use to ensure people understand the difference between Islam and this extremist ideology. So why use the term Islamist instead of Wahhabism? Because Wahhabism is known to have been spread by Western powers to destabilise Muslim countries. It is also well known to be removed and separate from the true Islam. Also, the originators, implementers and propagators of Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia, are direct Western allies, whose rise to power and occupation of Al-Hijaz (Madinah, Makkah, Jeddah and Ta'if) were partly as a result of Western assistance. Hillary Clinton among other politician addressed the issue of Wahhabism multiple times.

It's a really good point that the term Islamist is problematic as it muddys the waters and linguistically points the finger at all of Islam.

But I think you've jumped the shark by attributing intentional destabilization to the West.

Western actions have helped to empower Wahhabism. But the driver was short term self interest, rather than destabilization, even if destabilization has been the result.

They wanted the Russians out of Afghanistan ASAP, so they funded, armed and trained anyone willing to help with that. Concerned about the oil shocks of the 70s, and having lost Iranian access, they wanted allies to reduce economic risk related to oil, so they allied with anyone willing to help with that - the Saudis were.

The West is guilty of not giving a shit about anything other than short term self interest and yes it's helped to destabilize the region, from encouraging and militarily supporting the corruption of the Shah's regime to funding and helping the growth of the Mujahideen to supporting Saudi Arabia and thus their brand of Islam. But it's been greed and self interest driving it, not intentional destabilization.

And these ideologies may have been enabled by the West, but they weren't created by the West or adhered to by many Westerners. Both the Christian and the Islamic world have played their part in where it's at. Pointing the finger of blame at each other will just make it grow further. Need to work together, rather than in opposition, which isn't looking likely at all at the moment.

P.S. What term do you use to describe the Shia version that is holding sway in Iran?

 

[schneebly111]

Have we finally seen the stunt so low that even Murdoch goons find it unacceptable? It never seemed like something I would see in my lifetime.

No, because the staff could only speak “on anonymity”. They’re too afraid to go public because they know what narrative their bosses want.

The Daily Tele released a typical “we never indented harm and the story didn’t go as planned” excuse statement.

No doubt News Corp are hunting for another “anti semitism in the rise” story now to deflect from this incident.

Also why do you say “it never seemed like something I would see in my lifetime”? The Australian media is full of clickbait manufactured “news” and always has been. I’d be more shocked if the Daily Tele did some actual investigative journalism that targeted someone in a position of power that is not the ALP.

 

[peetoo]

The Manchester bomber was from a family of western sponsored terrorists/anti ghaffafi Libyans

They had been relocated to the UK