And in Iran they held candlelight vigils for the victims of 9-11. Our response? We labeled them part of an imaginary “Axis of Evil” and rattled our saber at them some more. And we conquered & slaughtered their neighbors who had nothing to do with it. Real peace-loving people, we are.
When’s the last time anyone here went out on a protest against Russia’s occupation of Crimea? I certainly haven’t. Does this mean I approve of it?
Open protest is only one of a number of means of expressing disapproval.
You’re not looking in the right places.
A Muslim insurgency has been raging in Thailand’s Deep South for a decade now. Even little children’s heads have been cut off. It’s not a good place to go. And yet, all the Muslims I’ve met in Bangkok – and there is a sizable community of them – have been pretty decent folk.
You hear about the Bali and Jakarta bombings by Jemaah Islamiah, the Indonesian-based al Qaeda affiliate, and yet I’ve found Indonesia to be a very warm and welcoming country.
Northeastern peninsula Malaysia is hardcore Islam territory, and yet Malaysian Muslims are among the best people I’ve ever met.
Hard to generalize about this subject.
I do have to wonder. Hypothetically, if there were a major religion in which most of the central teachings of the religion and the holy book focused on encouraging violence against people of other religions, would everyone here actually admit that? Or is that a forbidden thought, and so they’d be making apologies and talking about how all religions are all equally good or bad, all equally violent, etc.
I’m not saying that’s what’s happening here, but I do wonder - if one religion’s teachings really did allow and encourage more violence than another’s, and the actual rate of religious violence around the world reflected that, would we acknowledge it? My gut says no - people (well, let’s be honest, modern western liberals) are so afraid of making any sort of generalization that could be viewed in any way as racist or culturalist that they’d bend over backwards to be apologists and explain it away.
It is true though that you can make fun of, say, Baptists and not have to wonder if a car bomb is going to be parked outside your door.
This is an important point. To say that Islam is a threat to the West is not the same as saying any individual Muslims are a threat, or that they are bad people, or that they hate anybody.
Groups do not behave the same way as individuals. Whether those groups are religious, corporate, or simply mobs, large amounts of people can end up acting in a way, or simply passively accepting other’s acts, that they would not do of their own accord, and would say that they opposed if asked about the general morality of the acts, rather than the specific situation.
Usually, but not always, these groups have a charismatic (or occasionally just rich) leader, but some mobs can form spontaneously.
So, it’s entirely possible that Muslims, or Christians, or soccer fans or whatever, can act in a way that directly leads to terrorism, repression, violence, and so forth, without ever doing anything specific that could be considered “wrong”.
It does seem to me that religion in general (not just Islam) is more prone to that than any other groups, but that’s perhaps another issue.
Here’s a fun article from 2010: All Terrorists are Muslims… Except the 94% That Aren’t.
We must therefore ask: is the West kidding itself about the good intentions of Judaism worldwide?
Not if you lived in Northern Ireland during the Troubles it you switch the Christian denominations.
For better or worse aside from the US, and more specifically US conservatives, I don’t think most of the western world is particularly impressed (at all) with the “good intentions” of Judaism as reflected by Israeli policy decisions.
Maybe, but we don’t protest in droves if anything remotely resembling a synagogue might go up in a 500 mile radius of our homes, either.
We’re fooling ourselves about human nature in general and shifting the blame onto religion:
The Cold War did not end 40+ years ago, unless math has changed, and look, it’s starting again.
You didn’t put a time frame on it. Now, it’s Islamic fundamentalists, sure. But 30 years ago - that’s 1984 - the West’s major enemy was Communists, especially in the USSR, and people didn’t give Islamic fundamentalists much thought. A few decades from now the enemy will be someone new - hell, it could be two years from now, if North Korea or Russia get frisky. Enemies come and go.
Well, they gave Islamic fundamentalists a little thought: given some money and weapons, they seemed like a great way to give the atheistic Commies a headache! And there was only one possible way it could backfire.
Emphasis on “little.” Remember the first World Trade Center bombing, in 1993? Much was made in the media for a couple of weeks about Islamic fundamentalists, then it died away.
“died away”
This paragraph completely lacks logic. Are all people equally likely to be violent? No, statistics will show that rates of violence vary enormously from place to place. It is not the case that there’s always a certain number of people who will be psychopathically violent regardless of their social surroundings.
Are Muslims always particularly violent? No. Some Muslim countries have relatively low rates of murder, compared to other third-world countries.
But the question of terrorism is different from the question of violence overall. Terrorism is violence used to instill fear for political ends. And like overall violence, terrorism is not used equally all around the world. It is plainly not the case that all groups of people simply sprout a predictable number of terrorists.
People make decisions based on their beliefs and their circumstances. Groups that have an aggressive, violent, or confrontational set of beliefs will necessarily produce more terrorists than those who don’t. And Islam, more than any other major religion, has beliefs which demand that its followers shape society with certain laws and certain confrontational attitudes towards those who don’t follow those laws. Now of course, as many are quick to remind us, there’s a wide variety of different beliefs within Islam and not all interpret the Koran and other texts the same way. But as a whole, its perfectly true to say that Islam is more confrontational than any other major world religion. And when the entire set of Islamic beliefs leans more in that direction, it’s likely to produce more militant elements that will actually use terrorism than other religions. Muslims make a tiny fraction of the USA’s population, but a rather large fraction of those who would hijack airplanes, bomb marathons, or shoot up army bases in the past few years. Muslims make a tiny portion of Argentina’s population, but a large portion of those who would kill Argentine Jews just because they’re Jewish. Muslims make a small sliver of the population of Denmark and Netherlands, but a large chunk of those who would murder filmmakers or cartoonists in an attempt to suppress free speech. To ignore these facts is to ignore reality.
Thank you for confirming you don’t plan to make an effort, Mr. Natural. That’ll save everybody some time.
Oh great, is it time for another one of these threads already?
In practice but not in intent. The economic model relied on being able to squeeze the infidels for extra tax money to support the true believers; when the infidels decided that it was better to convert than to keep paying through the nose, revenues dried up and the economy worsened. In the end the answer was “more conquest”. Rinse and repeat.
It was all about the money, not the mosques.