Turn on thread page Beta

Above all, the Islamist extremists want to divide us and turn us against each other watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    There will be anti-Muslim threads popping up, but are they from new people who have just decided to hate Muslims in the light of yesterday's attack, or are they from people who have posting histories of posting weekly anti-Muslim threads anyway....?
    I'm getting really sick of the latter TBH. I can see a pattern now from some of these users.
    Offline

    17
    Agreed OP.
    It's too late for Nigeria unfortunately. Hatred between the Christian south and Muslim north is rife because of the boko haram terrorist attacks. It doesn't help that the president is Muslim. It's so bad that people are wanting the country to be divided. I haven't even been to school for the past couple days because there have been violent protests going on demanding that Nigeria be divided. (Thankfully this has been subdued so far)
    Some of the very wealthy have already started shipping their families to Europe in anticipation of a civil war even though it's not that much safer there (going by the Paris attacks and any future attacks that could take place)


    I just hope it doesn't get this bad in Europe. Whilst the Paris attacks were abhorrent, people really shouldn't start getting angry at all Muslims and plotting "revenge" or whatever.
    It would rip your society apart.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    And apologised for by many more. The terrorists laugh at people like that. Charles Martel and also the soldiers at the Battle of Vienna must be rolling in their graves.
    It's like two men


    I.S. is the cocky guy with the six pack. The West, OP, whoever made that post about love is the little fat guy with the hot wife.


    Every day big six pack comes over and ****s his wife, probably in the ass as well, all kinds of positions


    The little fat guy comes up with reasons why his wife loves him, 'I let her do what she wants, I'm a perfect husband, she'll choose me in the end'


    It's just funny man :rofl:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Jack)
    Well said.

    The correct response to hate is love. Our values will not be changed because of the acts of the few.
    Well said.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Bit sad this morning to see anti-Muslim threads popping up already.

    Whilst it's predictable that people will want to lash out (and we are all angry), we should pause a moment to consider what it is that the extremists behind these actions really want.

    Above all, they want to create a climate of fear and hatred here in Europe, they want Muslims living here to be attacked and they want that to push young European Muslims into their hands.

    They want us to act blindly, to react on the basis of hate and anger and to lash out. They want to bring about a collapse of our society into violence and rage.

    The question for France is the same as the question for us - will we buy into what they want, or will we continue to stand for a society of law, enlightenment and civilised values?
    No, I don't think this is their intention. Their intention is to try to subdue Western civilization with fear.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Bit sad this morning to see anti-Muslim threads popping up already.

    Whilst it's predictable that people will want to lash out (and we are all angry), we should pause a moment to consider what it is that the extremists behind these actions really want.

    Above all, they want to create a climate of fear and hatred here in Europe, they want Muslims living here to be attacked and they want that to push young European Muslims into their hands.

    They want us to act blindly, to react on the basis of hate and anger and to lash out. They want to bring about a collapse of our society into violence and rage.

    The question for France is the same as the question for us - will we buy into what they want, or will we continue to stand for a society of law, enlightenment and civilised values?
    Excellently put.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    These Islamic extremists don't have any power
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    What you call utterly stupid has over 2000 years built the civilisation in which you live; a civilisation which for every Muslim wishing to destroy it, a thousand Muslims are treking hundreds of miles and risking death to join.
    Not true. Many Muslims are trekking thousands of miles away from the middle east, towards secular Europe. Only the extremists are risking death to join.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I am not sold on the idea that these attacks are planned with a detailed knowledge of our society and its likely responses in mind. These attacks cause little or no material damage to the West while increasing support for Western attacks against Islamic countries and organisations. If we wanted we could destroy Islamic State by ground invasion in a matter of days, and return it indefinitely to direct rule by a colonial government, imposing secular education and outlawing private religious organisation. The Islamic world certainly does not have an interest in actually unleashing the vast military power of the West from its current ideological constraints.

    It is more plausible to me that Islamic State does not understand our society or what motivates us. I think they are following their own goals in the context of their own model of the world largely in a vacuum. To their mind there is no "we" in a mixed population of secular democrats and muslims; there is a muslim population that should rule and an alien population that has no rights unless it makes the required submission to the muslim minority. Throwing bombs indiscriminately amongst this population, to their minds, is not a crime, and there is no complex rationalisation required for it.

    Similarly they do not fear the possibility of an unrestrained Western military response because they do not realise it is a possibility. They do not have in-depth knowledge of the complicated technical means by which Western states derive their power, and therefore how inefficiently that power is currently being used. They see that Western states make limp responses in general and assume this is also the practical limit of their power rather than a result of ideological constraints. What we see is an emaciated peasant trying to push Mike Tyson and Tyson responding by tapping him on the shoulder. What they are seeing is a maximum effort by both sides which works out about equal, suggesting that the conflict is balanced and they therefore have a pretty good chance of winning it. Complex bluff and double-bluff conspiracies to induce Westerners to create more blowback are not necessary.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I am not sold on the idea that these attacks are planned with a detailed knowledge of our society and its likely responses in mind. These attacks cause little or no material damage to the West while increasing support for Western attacks against Islamic countries and organisations. If we wanted we could destroy Islamic State by ground invasion in a matter of days, and return it indefinitely to direct rule by a colonial government, imposing secular education and outlawing private religious organisation. The Islamic world certainly does not have an interest in actually unleashing the vast military power of the West from its current ideological constraints.

    It is more plausible to me that Islamic State does not understand our society or what motivates us. I think they are following their own goals in the context of their own model of the world largely in a vacuum. To their mind there is no "we" in a mixed population of secular democrats and muslims; there is a muslim population that should rule and an alien population that has no rights unless it makes the required submission to the muslim minority. Throwing bombs indiscriminately amongst this population, to their minds, is not a crime, and there is no complex rationalisation required for it.

    Similarly they do not fear the possibility of an unrestrained Western military response because they do not realise it is a possibility. They do not have in-depth knowledge of the complicated technical means by which Western states derive their power, and therefore how inefficiently that power is currently being used. They see that Western states make limp responses in general and assume this is also the practical limit of their power rather than a result of ideological constraints. What we see is an emaciated peasant trying to push Mike Tyson and Tyson responding by tapping him on the shoulder. What they are seeing is a maximum effort by both sides which works out about equal, suggesting that the conflict is balanced and they therefore have a pretty good chance of winning it. Complex bluff and double-bluff conspiracies to induce Westerners to create more blowback are not necessary.
    Superb comment. It's convenient for leftists to depict ISIL as some kind of strategic geniuses. If that were the case, they wouldn't have beheaded Western hostages thereby bringing the wrath of the United States upon them. The idea that they're "sucking us in", when in fact we have pursued a methodical patient strategy, and for which we are fighting (in varying degrees) on the same side as all of Europe, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Gulf States, Russia, China, Australia... there's no way that they could actually benefit from that.

    They believe their own propaganda. There's no reason to think that we should not step up the campaign, which particularly in the last 24 hours has borne fruit. I am fairly sure the French will send more aircraft to take part in the bombing and ground troops. The French are determined, if nothing else. And they are far less squemish than the Brits when it comes to dealing out death to their enemies (the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior being an example)
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Bit sad this morning to see anti-Muslim threads popping up already.

    Whilst it's predictable that people will want to lash out (and we are all angry), we should pause a moment to consider what it is that the extremists behind these actions really want.

    Above all, they want to create a climate of fear and hatred here in Europe, they want Muslims living here to be attacked and they want that to push young European Muslims into their hands.

    They want us to act blindly, to react on the basis of hate and anger and to lash out. They want to bring about a collapse of our society into violence and rage.

    The question for France is the same as the question for us - will we buy into what they want, or will we continue to stand for a society of law, enlightenment and civilised values?
    This is by far the most sensible thread I have come across - your intellect regarding the attacks is phenomenal, it's absoloutely correct and should be preached. Well done on creating this thread I realy do applaud you
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    There is no confusion if you apply Aquinas' tenets of a just war:-
    • it is waged in the name of lawful authority
    • it is waged for a just and good purpose
    • it is waged with the aim of peace
    Most of the problems the West has encounted with militant Islam in the last 40 years result from a failure to adhere to these principles.

    If you go back to Afghanistan in the early 1980s by what authority did the
    Mujahideen act? Where was the government in exile to whom they were accountable?

    My enemy's enemy is not necessarily my friend
    That is not quite the point I was trying to make. A poster said that our civilisation was a creation of war. You said that we don't say things like that anymore because people who did were burnt to death in their front rooms by thousands of British and American bombers and implicitly people who don't want that to happen to them know to keep their mouths shut in future.

    In other words, our socially dominant ideology of quasi-pacifism is a creation of war.

    That war determines who wins social struggles is almost tautological, like evolution by natural selection. Once you see it you can't unsee it. The fact is that tolerant states won WWII broadly because the United States' tolerance of lots of different European diasporas and latterly the African Americans gave it the large free population it needed to overwhelm all the European powers and conquer them by e.g. building thousands of bombers to burn little German children to death in their beds. That is, there are technical reasons why tolerance was an adaptive idea at that time; it is not divine providence making this idea always triumph in all circumstances. It is perhaps not pretty but that is the world as it is and we must react to that.

    Now we can see if that technical logic that worked for the US still works here, and I am not sure it does. That tolerance on the part of the United States only worked because it was reciprocated in large part by the immigrants themselves who dissolved willingly into a common national culture. Muslims are broadly not willing to do this, including the peaceful and moderate. The US' own tolerance also was not so tolerant around the edges, where it appeared that tolerance was being used for ends incompatible with those of the United States.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    That is not quite the point I was trying to make. A poster said that our civilisation was a creation of war. You said that we don't say things like that anymore because people who did were burnt to death in their front rooms by thousands of British and American bombers and implicitly people who don't want that to happen to them know to keep their mouths shut in future.

    In other words, our socially dominant ideology of quasi-pacifism is a creation of war.

    That war determines who wins social struggles is almost tautological, like evolution by natural selection. Once you see it you can't unsee it. The fact is that tolerant states won WWII broadly because the United States' tolerance of lots of different European diasporas and latterly the African Americans gave it the large free population it needed to overwhelm all the European powers and conquer them by e.g. building thousands of bombers to burn little German children to death in their beds. That is, there are technical reasons why tolerance was an adaptive idea at that time; it is not divine providence making this idea always triumph in all circumstances. It is perhaps not pretty but that is the world as it is and we must react to that.

    Now we can see if that technical logic that worked for the US still works here, and I am not sure it does. That tolerance on the part of the United States only worked because it was reciprocated in large part by the immigrants themselves who dissolved willingly into a common national culture. Muslims are broadly not willing to do this, including the peaceful and moderate. The US' own tolerance also was not so tolerant around the edges, where it appeared that tolerance was being used for ends incompatible with those of the United States.
    You misunderstand my position. It is not merely that we do not say that our civilisation is a product of war; ideologically it isn't. Ideologically it is a product of Christianity and not a self-consciously hypocritical Christianity.

    That ideology which has to some degree transcended Christianity is still the dominant ideology in the world.

    You and I are old enough to remember a time when questions of ethnic conflict had virtually nothing to do with religion and were almost entirely about skin colour.

    I do think the west needs to roll through the middle east with troops but I do not think colonialism is the answer. America has to bring three things to the party:
    • a willingness to leave boots on the ground to provide sufficient security to allow wealth to develop that can't be carried away in a sock which enough people are frightened to lose. Oddly there is one man who has actually managed to do this in the middle east in the last 20 years and that is Assad with troops in Lebanon
    • an acceptance that the conditions for Republican democracy are not made out. Two Hashamites need to be put on the thrones of Syria and Iraq
    • a willingness to pressure Israel that the USA's guarantee of its continuing existence requires in return that Israel does not undermine America's other foreign policy objectives
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Somehow I don't think they're as intelligently conniving as that.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    You misunderstand my position. It is not merely that we do not say that our civilisation is a product of war; ideologically it isn't. Ideologically it is a product of Christianity and not a self-consciously hypocritical Christianity.

    That ideology which has to some degree transcended Christianity is still the dominant ideology in the world.
    I am not disagreeing. I am saying there are technical reasons this set of ideas won and not some other. If the North American continent had not been as hospitable then it is possible that the Nazi Germans would have won and their intolerant nationalist ideas could have produced a stable equilibrium of their own.

    I am then asking whether [post-]Christianity (by whatever name it goes and whatever theological claims it declines to make the content is basically the same) is any longer capable of producing a stable equilibrium. I am not doubting Christianity's ability to make converts and indeed secular liberalism is now the de-facto ideology of most of the world, including parts that weren't ever explicitly Christian. But what do we do if we encounter an intolerant nationalism that won't be converted? Historically the solution has been to "not self-consciousless hypocritically" unleash the bombers. Generally I prefer that that not happen when everyone has gone too far to pull back. I certainly prefer that it not happen inside the United Kingdom.

    You and I are old enough to remember a time when questions of ethnic conflict had virtually nothing to do with religion and were almost entirely about skin colour.
    That is true and at that time I think the tolerance people were much more correct than they are here. There seem to be durable differences in social outcomes between racial groups that are not the result of the society in which they are living, but that is essentially a class question and we have dealt with it before. Race riots made the country a generally worse place to live but they didn't threaten the constitution because the riots had no alternative proposal. They just wanted a bigger slice of the pie.

    Islam is an exclusivist nationalism with an ideological ecosystem of its own, and Britain's record of dealing with nationalist conflicts is poor. The stock approach has generally been to separate and withdraw. How do we withdraw from the UK? It makes more sense for the other side to withdraw. The tolerance people simply deny that any such conflict exists.

    I do think the west needs to roll through the middle east with troops but I do not think colonialism is the answer.
    I am afraid I do not see a desirable middle way. Any real threat to our constitution comes (as even the OP identifies) from the settled immigrant population at home. If this population did not exist then it would not matter to us in any more than a humanitarian sense who ruled the Middle East. If we want to have free intercourse between the West and the Islamic world then we need to make people in the Islamic world believe in or at least accept our ideas. That means colonialism.

    Personally I do not regard the colonialism option as desirable. It is both expensive and dangerous. It would be much better to try to decouple through the immigration system. But our remaining available time window is short.

    America has to bring three things to the party:
    • a willingness to leave boots on the ground to provide sufficient security to allow wealth to develop that can't be carried away in a sock which enough people are frightened to lose. Oddly there is one man who has actually managed to do this in the middle east in the last 20 years and that is Assad with troops in Lebanon
    • an acceptance that the conditions for Republican democracy are not made out. Two Hashamites need to be put on the thrones of Syria and Iraq
    • a willingness to pressure Israel that the USA's guarantee of its continuing existence requires in return that Israel does not undermine America's other foreign policy objectives
    This is very close to being colonialism. Also the status quo in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, and to some extent in Iran, the biggest state sponsors of both Islamic proselytism and terrorism. If you say that the Western backers wouldn't let them do those things, how does it different from full colonialism?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    By far the most sensible thread on this topic :yy:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I am not sold on the idea that these attacks are planned with a detailed knowledge of our society and its likely responses in mind. These attacks cause little or no material damage to the West while increasing support for Western attacks against Islamic countries and organisations. If we wanted we could destroy Islamic State by ground invasion in a matter of days, and return it indefinitely to direct rule by a colonial government, imposing secular education and outlawing private religious organisation. The Islamic world certainly does not have an interest in actually unleashing the vast military power of the West from its current ideological constraints.

    It is more plausible to me that Islamic State does not understand our society or what motivates us. I think they are following their own goals in the context of their own model of the world largely in a vacuum. To their mind there is no "we" in a mixed population of secular democrats and muslims; there is a muslim population that should rule and an alien population that has no rights unless it makes the required submission to the muslim minority. Throwing bombs indiscriminately amongst this population, to their minds, is not a crime, and there is no complex rationalisation required for it.

    Similarly they do not fear the possibility of an unrestrained Western military response because they do not realise it is a possibility. They do not have in-depth knowledge of the complicated technical means by which Western states derive their power, and therefore how inefficiently that power is currently being used. They see that Western states make limp responses in general and assume this is also the practical limit of their power rather than a result of ideological constraints. What we see is an emaciated peasant trying to push Mike Tyson and Tyson responding by tapping him on the shoulder. What they are seeing is a maximum effort by both sides which works out about equal, suggesting that the conflict is balanced and they therefore have a pretty good chance of winning it. Complex bluff and double-bluff conspiracies to induce Westerners to create more blowback are not necessary.
    There's an extremely interesting article by Scott Atran, who has presented to the US Congress on this topic, in the Guardian.
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...errorists-isis

    Atran shows that far from being wild and uninformed, the jihadi attacks are thought out and the aim is clearly to attempt to create an atmosphere of mutual loathing and terror between non-Muslim and Muslim populations in the West and that this was pre-planned and based on the ideology of one of the main founders of ISIL/ISIS.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    There's an extremely interesting article by Scott Atran, who has presented to the US Congress on this topic, in the Guardian.
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...errorists-isis

    Atran shows that far from being wild and uninformed, the jihadi attacks are thought out and the aim is clearly to attempt to create an atmosphere of mutual loathing and terror between non-Muslim and Muslim populations in the West and that this was pre-planned and based on the ideology of one of the main founders of ISIL/ISIS.
    I did not say that they were wild and uninformed. I said that they were operating from their own script, not ours. What they are doing will be reasoned and rational in the context of their intellectual ecosystem, but not necessarily in the context of ours.

    You have said that they don't intend their attacks to cause direct damage, rather they intend to provoke Western actions that will be self-destructive. That isn't what it sounds like from the quotes in the link you provided:

    Hit soft targets. “Diversify and widen the vexation strikes against the crusader-Zionist enemy in every place in the Islamic world, and even outside of it if possible, so as to disperse the efforts of the alliance of the enemy and thus drain it to the greatest extent possible.”
    This sounds very much like they see their military actions as directly effective, as though they were the Luftwaffe bombing radar stations or the Imperial German Navy torpedoing British merchant ships.

    I have also said that they probably underestimate the strength of the Western powers.

    “Work to expose the weakness of America’s centralised power by pushing it to abandon the media psychological war and the war by proxy until it fights directly.”

    ...

    "The world today is divided. Bush spoke the truth when he said, ‘Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists’, with the actual ‘terrorist’ being the western crusaders.” Now, it said, “the time had come for another event to … bring division to the world and destroy the grey zone”
    Imagine if the US did fight a total war against a united Islamic world. The question isn't who would win, rather whether it would last weeks or days. Yet this is what they're writing to one another - they do not understand the force they are dealing with or its real limitations (ideological, not practical), just as Bush and Rumsfeld seemingly did not understand that Iraq was not a nation-state or the significance of the Sunni-Shia division.

    I am not suggesting these people are morons just that they are no less blinkered by the assumptions of the intellectual ecosystem from which they emerged than our own leaders and thinkers.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I did not say that they were wild and uninformed. I said that they were operating from their own script, not ours. What they are doing will be reasoned and rational in the context of their intellectual ecosystem, but not necessarily in the context of ours.

    You have said that they don't intend their attacks to cause direct damage, rather they intend to provoke Western actions that will be self-destructive. That isn't what it sounds like from the quotes in the link you provided:
    I didn't say that.

    (Original post by Observatory)
    This sounds very much like they see their military actions as directly effective, as though they were the Luftwaffe bombing radar stations or the Imperial German Navy torpedoing British merchant ships.

    I have also said that they probably underestimate the strength of the Western powers.


    Imagine if the US did fight a total war against a united Islamic world. The question isn't who would win, rather whether it would last weeks or days. Yet this is what they're writing to one another - they do not understand the force they are dealing with or its real limitations (ideological, not practical), just as Bush and Rumsfeld seemingly did not understand that Iraq was not a nation-state or the significance of the Sunni-Shia division.

    I am not suggesting these people are morons just that they are no less blinkered by the assumptions of the intellectual ecosystem from which they emerged than our own leaders and thinkers.
    I agree there are large, indeed, fantastic amounts of self delusion in their plans.

    However, the basic point I was making is valid, that a key aim of theirs is to promote an anti-Muslim backlash in the West, pushing young Muslims into their arms. Inevitably there will be a backlash in countries where the New Far Right has following winds, like France, which doubtless contributes to their focus on Paris.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I didn't say that.



    I agree there are large, indeed, fantastic amounts of self delusion in their plans.

    However, the basic point I was making is valid, that a key aim of theirs is to promote an anti-Muslim backlash in the West, pushing young Muslims into their arms. Inevitably there will be a backlash in countries where the New Far Right has following winds, like France, which doubtless contributes to their focus on Paris.
    The quotes you've provided don't support that analysis. The author of the article seems to imply it, but only obliquely and doesn't provide any substantiating evidence.

    Something that seems clear about Islamic State is that they want us to fight them. Although they certainly want muslims to fight us, they are annoyed in turn by our non-engagement in and of itself. This is because the scriptures both demand and predict victory in battle. It is not because of any rational military analysis. The plan you have proposed is much more like something a Bush or a Rumsfeld could come up with.

    This is important because if we were to clearly defeat them in battle it would undermine their legitimacy in the same way that our providing better living standards for the poor than they did undermined the legitimacy of the world communist movement. Islamic State is not Al-Qaeda; it is a territorial organisation with a conventional (albeit weak) army. It has to, because the scriptures demand it.
 
 
 

2,743

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.