It’s reasonable to draw a distinction between religious fanatics who are acting on their own and religious fanatics whose religion is the governing principle of a state.
For example, a politician telling me I might not get the wedding cake I want is not quite the same thing as a politician pushing me off the top of a twelve story building, no matter how much you think it is.
Agreed and I’ve never argued as much. Of course, I recognize the difference. And I’ve been vocal in my opposition to the Saudis and how they rule their state (especially as they are stewards of Mecca and Medina, which puts them in an important political position). Plus, looking across the Islamic world, you have a wide variety of interpretations and practices within states that conform to Islamic law to one degree or another - from generally secular to what we’d call Islamist in orientation. But the group who claimed responsibility for this, IS, is not a state, nor do they govern a state as we recognize it (though they are certainly seeking to carve one out - but like other “revolutionary states”, if they managed to do so, they would likely find the experience much harder in practice than in the current war zone they now claim to govern). Nor has the use of Islam in constructing the state been consistent across time. The Saudis look nothing like the Ottoman empire, despite both being nominally Sunni political structures - the Ottomans found religious tolerance to be a useful tool, while the Saudis tend to depend upon repression in public, with wider latitude in the private sphere.
That being said, I can do nothing about Saudi Arabia, other than flail and bitch about it online, and try and vote for politicians who will make good foreign policy. The US, however is my country and I can have an effect, even though it’s probably small. The passage of regressive laws here also have a direct impact on my life. So, there’s that.
I think that’s the more accurate term to apply. There is plenty on the rise of political Islam and Islamists, but it tends to be constricted to the academic sphere.
A concentration camp, by definition is meant to concentrate people, for any number of political reasons. Refugees coming in through the Balkans are indeed being put into camps, though the purpose is to facilitate their movement, but given the haphazard way that people are moving through, the tensions around that, and the knee jerk reaction of places like Hungary, I can imagine some bad things happening.
Think of Islamist terrorism as the response to ethics in capitalism, if you like. The fact remains that the world as it exists is very much shaped by the dictates of capitalism, and to think that the Islamists are profiting off the inequality it causes would miss a very large part of what’s happening in the world today. Some of bin Laden’s works refers to the workings of the global capitalist system. But there is nothing inherently anti-capitalist or pro-capitalist about Islam.
I would fucking love to. My dear leaders don’t seem to want to listen to us, though.
I think that’s fair enough.
Again, fair enough. There is also the problem of how much political power that religious groups may or may not have.
FYI, some numbers on who is committing acts of violence in the US (makes some reference to Europe as well):
That’s not true at all, we’re still far behind them:
Edit: It should be noted he doesn’t actually list all the relevant battles in the 2nd half, but even if he did, it would still be far fewer.
I started to watch that and within three sentences decided the presenter was so over the top for a supposed academic that the rest of it would be worthless. Real academics don’t sound like they’re trying to get the Republican nomination, or at least they never used to.
Straw man argument alert.
Board the Eurostar in Paris, a little bit over 2 hours later you’re in London. I agree that the attacks in Paris don’t change anything about the likelihood of something similar in the UK - but under Schengen rules and a working highspeed rail system France and UK are not far away.
watch it with the sound off then, the point will still stand.
Actually, that’s debatable. They’re certainly not recognised by anyone as a state, but they’ve got plenty of the trappings of a state within their territory.
Jellinek’s definition of a nation has three core conditions:
I think it’s not wrong to call the areas controlled by ISIS/IS/Daesh a state.
This wasn’t a straw man at all, it was in fact a good illustration of the false equivalence being made.
For anyone who is talking about the “ebil mooslims” this is a must watch:
There’s been quite a lot in the public sphere in the last couple of years actually, Sam Harris being one of the main people. His book with Maajid Nawaz is definitely worth reading.
I have to agree with @popobawa4u on this one - terrorism is a really vague concept that doesn’t seem particularly useful, other than for political purposes. There doesn’t seem to be a universally accepted definition, but to go with the Oxford Dictionary:
The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
What’s “unofficial or unauthorized”? Why is official and authorised violence and intimidation not terrorism? What are “political aims”? Is it still terrorism if there aren’t any political demands, there’s no connection to a terrorist group and it’s just seen as retribution rather than an attempt to coerce people into a particular action (as in the Boston bombing). Does it need to involve a terrorist group, or can systemic violence and intimidation in a culture count? Would physically disciplining your child or sending them to gay conversion camps be terrorism, since those involve violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims? How about honour killings?
Your link suggests that the Boston bombing is more like Columbine than a terrorist attack, which makes some sense to me. I suspect that isolation has a significant part in a number of these shootings, rather than ideology. I think people have a basic need to feel connected to their community, and for (often very) different reasons, a number of these young white guys and young Muslim guys really didn’t. I can’t speak from personal experience, but it does seem that a number of US schools are environments that could exacerbate this, and could lead to people becoming radicalised through identification with fringe groups that claim to understand and accept them and share their anger.This isn’t a comment about the relative justification for that anger, because I don’t think it really matters. Community and acceptance is important, and the targets of resentment for this isolation (it’s women’s fault for not being interested in me; it’s the corrupt West’s fault for being so decadent and blasphemous) do not address the real underlying issues, which could be in culture or the person themselves. Just my $0.02.
The UK is not in Schengen. So Boarder Control significantly different from rest of Europe. In addition it’s an Island (or two) a significant section of which is surrounded by inhospitable waters–very different from the Mediterranean.
I always assumed that Bush just said this to keep the fundies voting Republican, because no sane person with an expensive private education could believe that in the 21st century, and I don’t think he was insane.
Of course the original statement is a false equivalence; the straw man is suggesting that a significant number of people would accept it as true.
If I find any presentation by someone with an obvious axe to grind, I assume I’m going to be presented with a one-sided cherry picked argument, and I am too old to bother with those any more. It saves me having to look at tabloid newspapers.
(I exclude on the ground reports by real journalists).
Did you know that religious extremists in this country, including politicians, have been hard at work supporting exactly those politicians in Africa who think denying cake to gay people isn’t enough, it’s much better to kill them?
In other words, haters will be exactly as hateful as they can get away with. Having a functional society and government is the only thing keeping us from the same religious-based killing that is happening in other parts of the world. No cake today, maybe no life tomorrow.
I can’t watch the video right now: did it take into account the relative number of people alive at the time? As a percentage of population, is the conclusion the same?
It was just counting battles. Population levels not relevant (and in that time frame, wouldn’t make a significant difference anyway).
