Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Deadly gun attack in Paris: Global reactions & discussion Watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I'm not sure that's true. The excess mortality rate due to terrorism seems to be in the region of 1/year. For a population of 60,000,000, that is negligible.
    For France in 2015 it is 17 times that halfway through January.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Killing 1/60,000,000 of the population cannot overthrow the political order. The military threat posed by terrorism is negligible. It is a quality of life issue.
    If not strenuously fought, the death toll will not remain there. There were 16 deaths as a result of terrorism or government action in response to terrorism in Northern Ireland in 1969 and 479 in 1972.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    If not strenuously fought, the death toll will not remain there. There were 16 deaths as a result of terrorism or government action in response to terrorism in Northern Ireland in 1969 and 479 in 1972.
    There were 40,000 civilian deaths due to military action in London between September 1940 and May 1941; this had neither an important military nor political effect.

    The IRA had no important military effect and was not stopped by military means. It was stopped when the British government offered a partial concession to their position, having judged that the cost of IRA terrorism - albeit easily endurable - was higher than giving them enough of what they want for them to stop.

    So this is an economic question judged on the relative value of various political choices, not a military question concerning a possible forcible destruction of the current legal order and its replacement by a new one. I suggest that most people drastically overestimate the value of reducing the already negligible risk of being a victim of a terrorist attack.

    In the long term, the relevant question is whether increased Muslim immigration, and the high Muslim birth rate, are going to result in a permanent insurgency that the population as a whole considers less desirable than conceding at least a partial Islamification of the country. While surveillance and other intrusive state security measures could delay that point, ultimately it's the value of the goal that is important in this case, not the cost of fighting. If Britain is as committed to upholding its current constitution today as it was committed to preventing German domination of Europe in 1941, state security measures are unimportant. The cost of those security measures is also likely to be considered a part of the cost of not conceding by at least a large part of the population.

    Moreover the clearly most cost effective such measure would be to stop allowing Muslims to immigrate, not tap peoples' phones. This would be essentially costless for us yet as far as I can see is totally outside the mainstream debate on political grounds: a lot of people assign a higher psychological value to allowing immigration than stopping terrorism, even though it's personally worthless to them.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    There were 40,000 civilian deaths due to military action in London between September 1940 and May 1941; this had neither an important military nor political effect.
    The capture and tral of one Jordanian pilot has brought about a reversal of Jordanian government policy on participation in the war against ISIS. These things are about relative commitment.

    The IRA had no important military effect and was not stopped by military means. It was stopped when the British government offered a partial concession to their position, having judged that the cost of IRA terrorism - albeit easily endurable - was higher than giving them enough of what they want for them to stop.
    Of course it was stopped by military means. The intervention of the military prevented Northern Ireland collapsing into anarchy and the intervention of the Irish army to prevent the contagion spreading south of the border.

    The British government ultimately conceded less to the IRA in 1996 than it was willing to concede to them in 1973.

    So this is an economic question judged on the relative value of various political choices, not a military question concerning a possible forcible destruction of the current legal order and its replacement by a new one. I suggest that most people drastically overestimate the value of reducing the already negligible risk of being a victim of a terrorist attack.

    In the long term, the relevant question is whether increased Muslim immigration, and the high Muslim birth rate, are going to result in a permanent insurgency that the population as a whole considers less desirable than conceding at least a partial Islamification of the country. While surveillance and other intrusive state security measures could delay that point, ultimately it's the value of the goal that is important in this case, not the cost of fighting. If Britain is as committed to upholding its current constitution today as it was committed to preventing German domination of Europe in 1941, state security measures are unimportant. The cost of those security measures is also likely to be considered a part of the cost of not conceding by at least a large part of the population.
    Neither result is inevitable. We have been here in with past with English Catholicism.

    At the moment the non-revolutionary overwhelming majority of the Muslim population have not put sufficient skin in the game.The radicalisation of a family member seems to be treated in the same way as a unmarried pregnancy in 1920s England. This is the family's problem and the family's shame but the wider social group will cut the radical adrift, pretend it never happened and move on.

    It is clear that a number of Muslim denominational structures have to be created, with a clerical structure. No Islamic nation would permit the hedge-preaching that currently takes place in the UK. British Islam is largely cut off from the mainstream of historic Islamic thought through the lack of scholarship of the clergy. Real governmental pressure needs to be brought here to bring this about.

    Moreover the clearly most cost effective such measure would be to stop allowing Muslims to immigrate, not tap peoples' phones. This would be essentially costless for us yet as far as I can see is totally outside the mainstream debate on political grounds: a lot of people assign a higher psychological value to allowing immigration than stopping terrorism, even though it's personally worthless to them.
    Of course it is not Muslim immigration that is the issue for most of the population but non-discrimination.

    Moreover, an economic analysis of values cannot work because there is no medium of exchange for values. A person can say in a contest between value A and value B, B is more important. In a contest between value B and value C, C is more important. Yet in a contest between value A and value C, A is more important.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The capture and tral of one Jordanian pilot has brought about a reversal of Jordanian government policy on participation in the war against ISIS. These things are about relative commitment.
    As I stated: it's not a military question but rather a question of whether the customer is willing to pay what it costs to live a certain way. It is an economic question.

    Of course it was stopped by military means. The intervention of the military prevented Northern Ireland collapsing into anarchy and the intervention of the Irish army to prevent the contagion spreading south of the border.

    The British government ultimately conceded less to the IRA in 1996 than it was willing to concede to them in 1973.



    Neither result is inevitable. We have been here in with past with English Catholicism.

    At the moment the non-revolutionary overwhelming majority of the Muslim population have not put sufficient skin in the game.The radicalisation of a family member seems to be treated in the same way as a unmarried pregnancy in 1920s England. This is the family's problem and the family's shame but the wider social group will cut the radical adrift, pretend it never happened and move on.

    It is clear that a number of Muslim denominational structures have to be created, with a clerical structure. No Islamic nation would permit the hedge-preaching that currently takes place in the UK. British Islam is largely cut off from the mainstream of historic Islamic thought through the lack of scholarship of the clergy. Real governmental pressure needs to be brought here to bring this about.
    I didn't say it was inevitable, I said it was an open question. It is plausible that we will solve this issue, as you propose, by founding an established Islamic church, excluding dissenters from the franchise and public office, and imprisoning dissident clerics. You rightly point out that this more or less how political Catholicism was purged from Great Britain, so as a technical solution it can work. The problem with this solution is that we have justified every conflict we have fought since 1914 by the argument that we are the side that doesn't do things like that.

    Another plausible outcome is mandatory power-sharing between common and Sharia law factions, by analogy to Northern Ireland. Another plausible outcome is religious extraterritoriality, which the Muslims will probably insist be heritable, as in Malaysia. Another plausible outcome is more or less willing Islamification on the part of the elite, which is eventually halted (but probably not reversed) by the emergence of a secular/Christian terrorist organisation creating an equivalent pressure in the opposite direction. At that point we are living in Enoch Powell's nightmares.

    I am not sure which of these (if any) is most likely to come about. Ideally, of course, Muslims would simply become secular over time. This is still possible, but seemingly increasingly unlikely. Surveys suggest that most Muslims agree with the basic aims of Islamic terrorists, just not with the methods, and that young peoples' opinions are hardening in favour of theocracy, not against it. The unity of religion and state is not a perversion of Islam; it is the explicit intention of its originator. In the Islamic world the Hashemite monarchies you reference are not strengthening and secularising, they're being washed away.

    Of course it is not Muslim immigration that is the issue for most of the population but non-discrimination.

    Moreover, an economic analysis of values cannot work because there is no medium of exchange for values. A person can say in a contest between value A and value B, B is more important. In a contest between value B and value C, C is more important. Yet in a contest between value A and value C, A is more important.
    I'm not sure this is true. People may express such preferences, just as sometimes people pass up obvious bargains, but this is not due to reasoned though but lack thereof. If it is true, as seems probable, that there is a choice to be made between not discriminating between potential immigrants on the basis of their philosophical beliefs, and remaining a free and secular society, then people who choose such non-discrimination for immigration are deciding to place that value higher than the preservation of a free and secular society. I suspect the vast majority of people who support mass immigration of more Muslims would deny that that choice exists, but that is a question of fact, even if an uncertain one, not a question of values.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)


    I didn't say it was inevitable, I said it was an open question. It is plausible that we will solve this issue, as you propose, by founding an established Islamic church, excluding dissenters from the franchise and public office, and imprisoning dissident clerics. You rightly point out that this more or less how political Catholicism was purged from Great Britain, so as a technical solution it can work. The problem with this solution is that we have justified every conflict we have fought since 1914 by the argument that we are the side that doesn't do things like that.
    There are other levers of power in modern society than the vote, public office and gaol.

    The planning system, the welfare system, the immigration system, the education system, the tax system and the law of charity, amongst others, are also available.

    Governments do not have to be coercive to achieve policy aims. They can incentivise and make unattractive. Remember these measures are not directed at extremists and they are not things that seek to push moderates to extremism. A Mosque will hire an overseas Imam with the intellectual and educational resources to engage in theological debate if it can't get a visa for one who doesn't have them. If the answer is that some Mosque in someone's front room can't afford that, the answer is that there is a building with shiny minarets the other side of town whose committee includes the local police inspector, a surgeon at the local hospital and a couple of councillors.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    There are other levers of power in modern society than the vote, public office and gaol.

    The planning system, the welfare system, the immigration system, the education system, the tax system and the law of charity, amongst others, are also available.

    Governments do not have to be coercive to achieve policy aims. They can incentivise and make unattractive. Remember these measures are not directed at extremists and they are not things that seek to push moderates to extremism. A Mosque will hire an overseas Imam with the intellectual and educational resources to engage in theological debate if it can't get a visa for one who doesn't have them. If the answer is that some Mosque in someone's front room can't afford that, the answer is that there is a building with shiny minarets the other side of town whose committee includes the local police inspector, a surgeon at the local hospital and a couple of councillors.
    These are coercive powers of the same sort but a different degree. In one extreme limit, the state appoints Muslim clerics and imprisons those who purport to be Muslim clerics without the state's blessing. In the other extreme limit, we have freedom of religion, and anyone may disseminate any religious opinion as they please. In your version, the state excludes some extremist foreign preachers but with an unclear definition of extremist, and doesn't exclude domestic extremist preachers.

    This is not, in a purist philosophical sense, consistent with a belief in freedom of speech and association and favouring an immigration policy that doesn't discriminate on creed. I agree, though, that those measures would likely be accepted. However, unlike the Test Acts and other open persecution, they've never been demonstrated to work.

    In particular I think you are building your views on shaky ground by assuming that 1. 'real' Islam interpreted by good scholars is not inherently theocratic and 2. there is any clear connection between wealth and status, and desire to engage in terrorism. It seems to me that real Islam is theocratic and that this is not just a class war in different clothes. Bin Laden was not a poor or stupid man. Nor is the King of Saudi Arabia.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Nor is the King of Saudi Arabia.
    I am not making an assumption about the nature of Islam but of the nature of religions generally.

    Religions operate by a method of exegesis of the historic mediated views of a divinity. All religious texts are inevitably the product of the time and place in which they are written. In most cases they were created in a harsh and primitive society.

    The "taming" of religions is about that the development of that exegesis. It is important that theologians care about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Religious fanaticism (as opposed to Reformation) comes from the stripping away of layers of exegesis without adequate replacement, leaving bare statements taken out of time and context.

    Without persons able to engage in that exegesis, religion regresses to a more primitive form.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I am not making an assumption about the nature of Islam but of the nature of religions generally.

    Religions operate by a method of exegesis of the historic mediated views of a divinity. All religious texts are inevitably the product of the time and place in which they are written. In most cases they were created in a harsh and primitive society.

    The "taming" of religions is about that the development of that exegesis. It is important that theologians care about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Religious fanaticism (as opposed to Reformation) comes from the stripping away of layers of exegesis without adequate replacement, leaving bare statements taken out of time and context.

    Without persons able to engage in that exegesis, religion regresses to a more primitive form.
    Do you accept that there's any fundamental difference of belief between religions that at least constrains where they can go with later reinterpretation?

    Is there any difference between, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," and, "And whoever rules not by what God has revealed, those are the wrongdoers."?

    My interpretation is that there was a Christian reformation when people read the Bible and saw that it didn't call for a monolithic Church with state-like powers and its own law. Islam, due to the explosion of literacy in the Islamic world in the latter half of the 20th century, is experiencing a reformation in which people read the Quran and see that that's exactly what the Quran calls for.

    The call for moderation in Islam is really a call for Christianisation of Islam, replacing society-church-state unity with religion as a private relation with God, and the necessity of military expansion with pacifism.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Do you accept that there's any fundamental difference of belief between religions that at least constrains where they can go with later reinterpretation?

    Is there any difference between, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," and, "And whoever rules not by what God has revealed, those are the wrongdoers."?
    No.

    We interpret the first as an obligation to comply with the civic duties of the state in which one lives regardless of its hostility to the faith. It could be interpreted as a theological defence of casuistry or even an imperative that Christians should support the Treaty of Rome!

    I don't know how the second has been interpreted by Islamic scholars over 1500 years but I strongly doubt that the one and only interpretation has been that one should steer flying machines into pentagonal shaped office buildings.

    My interpretation is that there was a Christian reformation when people read the Bible and saw that it didn't call for a monolithic Church with state-like powers and its own law. Islam, due to the explosion of literacy in the Islamic world in the latter half of the 20th century, is experiencing a reformation in which people read the Quran and see that that's exactly what the Quran calls for.
    Or there was a Christian Reformation when people read the Bible and created the Church of Sweden.

    The call for moderation in Islam is really a call for Christianisation of Islam, replacing society-church-state unity with religion as a private relation with God, and the necessity of military expansion with pacifism.
    Secularisation is a different matter.

    What I am describing does not does not preclude extreme theological viewpoints. What is happening in UK Islam is the equivalent of a TSR debate on the proof/disproof of God, an argument without the tools to conduct it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    No.

    We interpret the first as an obligation to comply with the civic duties of the state in which one lives regardless of its hostility to the faith. It could be interpreted as a theological defence of casuistry or even an imperative that Christians should support the Treaty of Rome!

    I don't know how the second has been interpreted by Islamic scholars over 1500 years but I strongly doubt that the one and only interpretation has been that one should steer flying machines into pentagonal shaped office buildings.
    I think the clear difference is that an educated and honest scholar would interpret the first as permitting obedience to a non-Christian state and the second as forbidding it. That is the trend you are going to get without coercion. Now by all means you can establish the Mosque of England and outlaw orthodoxy - and perhaps we can have another two centuries of religious wars.

    Or there was a Christian Reformation when people read the Bible and created the Church of Sweden.
    I would not cite Sweden as an example of a Christian theocracy.

    Secularisation is a different matter.

    What I am describing does not does not preclude extreme theological viewpoints. What is happening in UK Islam is the equivalent of a TSR debate on the proof/disproof of God, an argument without the tools to conduct it.
    The problem is you want mainstream Islam to become mainstream Christianity with beards and crescents and this is not a moderate interpretation of Islam which is in fact a different religion to Christianity. The views I suspect you consider "extreme" Islam are only extreme with reference to our Christian-secular society, not with reference to Islamic theology. It's indeed likely that Muslims in Europe are the most pacific and least theocratic in the world - perhaps extreme, but not the one you think.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I think the clear difference is that an educated and honest scholar would interpret the first as permitting obedience to a non-Christian state and the second as forbidding it.
    A soon as you Google the Koranic phrase you will see that there is deep theological debate about what it means,
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    A soon as you Google the Koranic phrase you will see that there is deep theological debate about what it means,
    Perhaps, and I'm not a Koranic scholar so I won't engage that debate. But I chose those two to illustrate broader trends, not to prove everything thereby.

    There is no deep debate as to whether Islam should have one law that trumps all others. This is an alien concept in Christianity but fundamental in Islam. Some argue that if the believers can't impose it on the society in a more or less legal way, they're not bound to obey it where doing so would lead to severe discomfort or death. That's it. Sharia is not a concept with any good analogy that is known to the vast majority of Westerners.

    The introduction of large numbers of believers in this concept can't help but change the political and social organising principles of the West unless believers are converted away from it more quickly than they are introduced. It is not social drapery, like what food one chooses to eat or what clothes one chooses to wear.

    It is like to say in the Cold War that we will admit a few million professed Marxists and see what happens. Indeed today many Marxists repudiate the USSR and claim to believe in democracy, Marxists in the PRC are even adopting some limited form of free markets. One could call them moderate Marxists. Though in reality they're extremists almost to the point of not being Marxists at all, it is possible for a Marxist to reach this conclusion. Widespread conversion took a clear and public failure of their philosophy on its own terms. What's the equivalent for Islam?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    My interpretation is that there was a Christian reformation when people read the Bible and saw that it didn't call for a monolithic Church with state-like powers and its own law. Islam, due to the explosion of literacy in the Islamic world in the latter half of the 20th century, is experiencing a reformation in which people read the Quran and see that that's exactly what the Quran calls for.
    Interesting point.

    In fact, I feel that it wasn't the reformation that tamed Christianity, but the enlightenment. If you look back to the reformation, and the early protestant clerics reference directly to the bible (sola scriptura, as it was), those early protestants in fact became more aggressive and more violent, at least for a time.

    They started burning people at the stake. If you look at the fate of Michael Servetus, it shows a certain fanaticism that can arise from people looking directly at the scripture and taking a literalist meaning from it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael..._and_execution

    I do think that most Muslims in the West are good people, they don't support terrorism and they resent the effect terrorists have on their standing in society.

    But I also feel that they are, in some ways, theologically frightened of the extremists. I think deep down, they are scared the extremists might be right, religiously speaking. The zeal of the fanatic is hard to stand up to when your religion says that the words they are referring to are the inerrent words of the prophet of god

    Whatever happens, I feel the key to this really does lie in the Muslim community, in how they approach terrorism and religiously motivated violence
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Here is the list of brave newspapers that have published the caricature of the "prophet": http://www.buzzfeed.com/austinhunt/h...0EE#.syJa6Bb7B
    Please don't buy them anymore.

    7 million copies of Charlie Hebdo will be printed. 116 times more than before the attack. Thank you terrorists.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    I do think that most Muslims in the West are good people, they don't support terrorism and they resent the effect terrorists have on their standing in society.

    But I also feel that they are, in some ways, theologically frightened of the extremists. I think deep down, they are scared the extremists might be right, religiously speaking. The zeal of the fanatic is hard to stand up to when your religion says that the words they are referring to are the inerrent words of the prophet of god
    in a way, those who take holy scriptures to the letter can more easily take the moral high ground as compared to those who interpret, contextualise, take a "metaphorical" or a "historical" approach

    as disbelievers, we usually support those who "contextualise" Islam - but our support does not help them much: on the contrary
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I have a pessimistic outlook on the aftermath of these attacks
    Yeah sure, lots of people went in the streets but that's not all.
    Too many people are not willing to take real action and aren't fit to talk about race relations, religions, our banlieues... That's where the real problem lies.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by She-Ra)
    Breaking news story here

    Two gunmen have killed team members working for the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

    The BBC have reported: "Its latest tweet was a cartoon of the Islamic State militant group leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi."

    https://twitter.com/Charlie_Hebdo_

    Oh no! Twelve people died? Oh my! This is outrageous! All of Europe should start protesting! We should make the whole world cover this event! TWELVE PEOPLE DIED OH MY GOD WERE ALL UNDER ATTACK. Get over yourselves. 2500 people died on the 6th of january in Nigeria, did anyoen give a flying mother****? Nope. 300,000 civilians died in Iraq, did anyone give a flying ****? Nope. Thousands are dying in Syria does anyone give a ****? Nope. It seems like unless the people are white and upperclass and have blue eyes, they don't get news coverage or any reaction from people. ****ing double standard uneducated vile hypocritical creatures.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Benjamin31415)
    Everyone is saying that perhaps we need to rethink our ideas on free speech should realise that the people who share this view are people who shoot dead unarmed journalists. We do not get to pick and choose what constitutes free speech, it is a fundamental liberty opposed by despots and terrorists worldwide. If anything, the fate of Charlie Hebdo's staff should cause us to redouble our efforts in defending it, not cause us to reconsider its meaning.
    Western society is pluralistic and thus contains tolerance and diversity, as well as open communication and freedom of speech and the press. Islam is a fundamentally violent and intolerant religion and although I am fully aware many people are able to conduct peaceful lives following it, there are sufficiently many causing pain, suffering and terror towards others and fuelling war such that it should be addressed to some extent accountable and clearly incapable of being cohesive with western society.
    Your 'freedom of speech' crap is a joke. It only works when it's infavor of you, bullying isn't allowed eventhough most bullying is verbal. I cant walk around calling people ******s because that's just 'wrong'. Likewise, I can't talk **** about your mother because oh that's wrong too. But when you talk about Muslims and keep poking at them to get a reaction, yeah it's freedom of speech, ******. They arrested a comedian for making fun of the situation, he said I feel like I'm charlie hebdo on twitter and they ****ing arrrsted the guy. **** your freedom of speech, it's all an illusion
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrBiology)
    Your 'freedom of speech' crap is a joke. It only works when it's infavor of you, bullying isn't allowed eventhough most bullying is verbal. I cant walk around calling people ******s because that's just 'wrong'. Likewise, I can't talk **** about your mother because oh that's wrong too. But when you talk about Muslims and keep poking at them to get a reaction, yeah it's freedom of speech, ******. They arrested a comedian for making fun of the situation, he said I feel like I'm charlie hebdo on twitter and they ****ing arrrsted the guy. **** your freedom of speech, it's all an illusion
    MrBiology. I salute you. My thoughts exactly!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 22, 2015
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.