World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[Flake]

Nations that are failed states: Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ukraine, North Korea

That awkward moment when the only common factor in the entire list is Western intervention that occurred for that state's own good.

[Blu]

I'm not with you, pulsar_t. How can interventionist actions like those we did for Vietnam have benefited those countries in the long run. We're still talking millions of lives lost and tons of money invested and spent, not to mention their economy disrupted. Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge are similar. Without going into greater detail, those were failed attempts at imperialism with great costs of life.

Thailand was never occupied or invaded by an imperial power. It sure could have been influenced by countries around it; the country I've heard often prides itself for never being under occupation.

Beyond that, I'm with you.

[marurun]

"Religion of peace" my foot.

Some of what your quote points to applies to Christianity, and to many other religions, as well. In that sense, the discussion is moot. There are words of peace and conciliation in the koran alongside words of violence and oppression. This is true of the bible and the torah also. This is the nature of religion.

It certainly applies if we're talking about a broader history of all atrocities committed in the name of religion. But we're talking about an act of terrorism committed by people acting on a literal translation of their holy texts ... that happened yesterday. To make it into a broader discussion regarding the nature of religion itself seems to me to be a discussion of false equivalence.

I did not mean to make it sound like religion itself is a problem. What I meant was that most religions, especially centuries old religions, share the quality of having calls for peace and understanding in with material calling for defending the faith, up to and including slaughtering nonbelievers. It is the economic and social conditions the practitioners face that shapes their interpretation of their texts. Right now, Islam is the major religion of a great many nations that are in turmoil, and have been in turmoil for some time, due to well-meaning and not-so-well-meaning meddling as well as a variety of other factors. Those who live in peaceful societies are much more likely to interpret their religious texts and faith as one of peace. Those who deal regularly with corruption and the arbitrary nature of power are more likely to look for something else in their faith.

A factor contributing to the attacks in France likely has to do with a large resident muslim community that is often discriminated against and economically disadvantaged. France has a lot of disaffected muslim youth who live in a modern nation but don't necessarily share the rewards. These youth are easily won to rhetoric like that coming out of ISIS. It gives them a chance to stand up to racism and inequality by shooting it in the face (along with anyone else nearby). I doubt ISIS actively targeted France. I suspect there was just a critical mass of recruits there that made an attack like this comparatively easy to pull off, and ISIS can chalk it up as an attack against the western hegemony.

And no, I'm not blaming France. Every nation struggles with national identity and issues of racism and disaffection, including the US. In this case, however, France is not nearly as far from the middle east as we are, and has been in the spotlight a little more for the struggles its muslim citizens have faced as part of French society. I think this attack was, for ISIS, an attack of convenience. It was a low-hanging opportunity to demonstrate its reach and muscle, and France was unfortunate enough to be in a position to provide the proper environmental conditions for it.

[Erik_Twice]

Erik Twice: And how many are in favor of sharia law in those countries?

Depends on the country. You can find more data on the same link (Here).

gsi2-chp1-3.png

So for example, 74% of Egyptian Muslims admit to supporting Sharia Law and 86% of those admit support killing those that leave Islam. So 63% of the Egyptian Muslim population admits supporting killing those that leaves Islam. That's...worrysome, to say the least.

I doubt ISIS actively targeted France. I suspect there was just a critical mass of recruits there that made an attack like this comparatively easy to pull off, and ISIS can chalk it up as an attack against the western hegemony.

The attackers themselves said that this attack was done in retailation for France's bombardments in Syria. Like the attacks on Madrid and London the attacks on Paris are of a political nature, not just a matter of ease.

Some could say a similar thing about a school shooting in the US. I don't need to wonder if they were female or if they are black, Asian, or Hispanic. So is that the nature of white males in the US?

"White male" is not an ideology nor did most of those shooters act in its name, while Islam is ideology and most Islamic terrorists do act on its name.

Having a certain skin tone does not drive people to murder others. The promise of God rewarding those who muder unbelievers does.

[Pulsar_t]

I'm not with you, pulsar_t. How can interventionist actions like those we did for Vietnam have benefited those countries in the long run. We're still talking millions of lives lost and tons of money invested and spent, not to mention their economy disrupted. Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge are similar. Without going into greater detail, those were failed attempts at imperialism with great costs of life.

Thailand was never occupied or invaded by an imperial power. It sure could have been influenced by countries around it; the country I've heard often prides itself for never being under occupation.

Beyond that, I'm with you.

Oh I didn't mean that colonialism helped those countries, each nation has its own story and background after all.. I just made broad generalisations and a quick list off the top of my head. Vietnam could have been as bad as Korea (ie a nation torn into two), but under the Vietcong it has known stability despite their awful human rights record, and like China they've transitioned into a market economy.

[marurun]

I doubt ISIS actively targeted France. I suspect there was just a critical mass of recruits there that made an attack like this comparatively easy to pull off, and ISIS can chalk it up as an attack against the western hegemony.

The attackers themselves said that this attack was done in retailation for France's bombardments in Syria. Like the attacks on Madrid and London the attacks on Paris are of a political nature, not just a matter of ease.

The attackers themselves chose to target France, but I don't think that ISIS commanders built this attack against France from the ground up. They probably want to attack everyone who targeted them, and France was the first opportunity due to conditions on the ground in France making it much easier to pull off. I'm sure the attackers themselves had ties to France and their experiences there made them want to do it. I suspect that this attack was begun in the planning stages in France among radicalized individuals there, who likely reached out to ISIS for support.

[pepharytheworm]

Some could say a similar thing about a school shooting in the US. I don't need to wonder if they were female or if they are black, Asian, or Hispanic. So is that the nature of white males in the US?

"White male" is not an ideology nor did most of those shooters act in its name, while Islam is ideology and most Islamic terrorists do act on its name.

Having a certain skin tone does not drive people to murder others. The promise of God rewarding those who muder unbelievers does.

So are you in agreement with him, that violence and terrorism is the nature of Islam?

[Erik_Twice]

So are you in agreement with him, that violence and terrorism is the nature of Islam?

I just don't think the nature of being white or male is comparable to the nature of a particular ideology.

But no, I just think there are aspects of Islam that justify and encourage violence, including acts we would define as "terrorism". I mean, c'mon, the Koran has stuff like this:

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.
—  Qur'an, Sura 5, ayat 33

I don't think that makes "the true nature of Islam" (not a term I would use) one of violence, but I do think it means a part of it, a significant part even, condones violence just like there are parts of it that codify and condone highly sexist structures or parts that support fraternity and love.

I think you are coming for a nice place, pephary, but I think pointing out this kind of stuff is both necessary and fair, not islamophobic or born out of ignorance.

@Marurun

I think we are on the same page, we are just expressing it differently and have some differences in how we handle the topic.

[dsheinem]

Let's see if this wakes some people up. Islam is a religion of violence and has no place in civilized society. Let's stop pretending otherwise.

Your ignorance here is astounding.

[Fragems]

Really if you get picky pretty much every religion has some form of punishment for none believers and many are quite extreme. It's kind of what makes it a religion if everyone got a free pass who would be there to fill the coffers.

Plus you have to take into account Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and etc. weren't exactly founded recently. The world we live in now is not even close to the extremes people used to have to survive in. That's why there are so many branches/reinterpretations of many religions.