Multi-pronged terrorist attack in Vienna - unfolding

[CM156]

Some people are able to consider more than one idea at a time and have analyses of social problems more sophisticated than brown religion bad

How many Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, or Hindus are carrying out religiously motivated terrorist attacks in Europe?

 

[Seanchaidh]

How many Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, or Hindus are carrying out religiously motivated terrorist attacks in Europe?

I don't know, what does that have to do with anything?

 

[CM156]

I don't know, what does that have to do with anything?

That their are numerous legitimate criticisms of Islam that are frequently brought up, but dismissed by some people by attempting to play the race card (hence your statement "brown religion bad")

 

[Seanchaidh]

That their are numerous legitimate criticisms of Islam that are frequently brought up, but dismissed by some people by attempting to play the race card (hence your statement "brown religion bad")

And what legitimate criticism of Islam are you talking about? Is it, properly understood, even a criticism of Islam?

 

[CM156]

And what legitimate criticism of Islam are you talking about?

You mean the theology of Islam or the consequences of it?
For the second: The fact that it has inspired a non-insignificant number of young men (and women, in rare cases) to take up arms against their country and murder civilians in terrorist attacks.

Of course, your average Muslim isn't responsible for these: I don't believe in collective responsibility. However, this is something that should cause a certain degree of soul searching and reflection for both Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

 

[SupahEwok]

You mean the theology of Islam or the consequences of it?
For the second: The fact that it has inspired a non-insignificant number of young men (and women, in rare cases) to take up arms against their country and murder civilians in terrorist attacks.

Of course, your average Muslim isn't responsible for these: I don't believe in collective responsibility. However, this is something that should cause a certain degree of soul searching and reflection for both Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Yeah, maybe we should have done a better job drawing borders and maybe helping the Middle East get on its feet rather than treating it as a colonialist playground.

 

[Trunkage]

How many Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, or Hindus are carrying out religiously motivated terrorist attacks in Europe?

Not in Europe. But in other countries, yes

 

[Trunkage]

Yeah, maybe we should have done a better job drawing borders and maybe helping the Middle East get on its feet rather than treating it as a colonialist playground.

But oil

 

[Hawki]

Yeah, maybe we should have done a better job drawing borders and maybe helping the Middle East get on its feet rather than treating it as a colonialist playground.

Islam accounts for 90% of all terrorist attacks globally (or at least those that have a religious element). That goes well outside the Middle East, from Africa to Asia.

This current cycle of violence started because a man from Chechnea killed a man who displayed an image of a warlord who served one of the numerous imaginary sky daddies the human race has conjured up over the millennia. But sure, Middle East, something something...

Not in Europe. But in other countries, yes

Again, globally, more religious-based terrorist attacks are commited by Islamic terrorists than every other religion COMBINED.

This isn't an "all religions are terrible" thing. I mean, they kind of are, but some are more terrible than others.

 

[CM156]

Yeah, maybe we should have done a better job drawing borders and maybe helping the Middle East get on its feet rather than treating it as a colonialist playground.

"We"
Hey, that was mostly the French and the British doing that.

Not in Europe

It's not like, combined, there's an insignificant number of those people in Europe (and the USA). And yet they don't commit terror attacks here at nearly the same rate.

This isn't an "all religions are terrible" thing. I mean, they kind of are, but some are more terrible than others.

As A religious person, I guess I have to say "thank you?"

 

[SupahEwok]

Islam accounts for 90% of all terrorist attacks globally (or at least those that have a religious element). That goes well outside the Middle East, from Africa to Asia.

This current cycle of violence started because a man from Chechnea killed a man who displayed an image of a warlord who served one of the numerous imaginary sky daddies the human race has conjured up over the millennia. But sure, Middle East, something something...



Again, globally, more religious-based terrorist attacks are commited by Islamic terrorists than every other religion COMBINED.

This isn't an "all religions are terrible" thing. I mean, they kind of are, but some are more terrible than others.

The vast majority of Islamic terrorists are either from the Middle East, or they have been to the Middle East to live and be trained.

Maybe find another major religion whose homelands have been riven by ethnic and religious strife for decades, move on to Islam being as much of a cultural identity as a religious one, round it out to the disenfranchisement Muslims face in Western countries from historical resentments dating back to the Crusades, and then get back to me.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Again, globally, more religious-based terrorist attacks are commited by Islamic terrorists than every other religion COMBINED.

I guess we're not counting the wars perpetrated by Western empires.

 

[Trunkage]

I guess we're not counting the wars perpetrated by Western empires.

It's not terrorism if a country sanctions it

 

[Hawki]

Maybe find another major religion whose homelands have been riven by ethnic and religious strife for decades, move on to Islam being as much of a cultural identity as a religious one, round it out to the disenfranchisement Muslims face in Western countries from historical resentments dating back to the Crusades, and then get back to me.

Christianity, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism.

The Middle East is the homeland of all of the above. Zoroastrianism has been practically wiped out. Judaism is practically extinct in the Middle East outside Israel. Christianity is projected to be extinct (or near extinct) in the Middle East within this century. How many terrorist attacks have they done?

And if we're talking about "disenfranchisement," be intellectually honest - who has it worse? Muslims in the West, or non-Muslims in the Middle East? Heck, Muslim countries, period. Would you rather be a Muslim in a Western country, or a non-Muslim in Pakistan, where it's legal to undergo forced conversion? I dunno. Whatever prejudice Muslims face in Western countries, that pales to the actual, real oppression that goes on against minorities. Prejudice that's outright sanctioned by law. FFS, by number, Christians are the most persecuted group on Earth.

And the Crusades? Seriously? There's at least a causal link of sorts between the end of the Ottoman Empire and the carving up of the Middle East, but if we're going back nearly 1000 years, then I can just as easily go back further to the Islamic conquests of North Africa, southern Europe, and the Indian sub-continent.

I guess we're not counting the wars perpetrated by Western empires.

Terrorism, not war.

And if we're including war, then I can include war by Islamic empires and caliphates.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Terrorism, not war.

And if we're including war, then I can include war by Islamic empires and caliphates.

But you won't have shown a causal mechanism in any case.

 

[Hawki]

But you won't have shown a causal mechanism in any case.

Are you referring to causality between religion and war/terrorism, or the idea that 90% of terrorist attacks being Islamic-based has nothing to do with the doctrines of Islam itself?

If it's the former, then there isn't a 1:1 link. You can have war without religious issues. The most bloody wars in history and the cold war that followed had nothing to do with religion. Religion's certainly played a part in wars, but it isn't the be all and end all.

If we're disputing the former, I disagree. The idea of the Middle East being a playground for Western empires has been brought up as if that explains everything. I'm not denying that the ME was carved up after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and that the borders are artificial, but that doesn't take into account the prevalance of terrorism in Africa and Asia, most of which is still Islamic-based. We don't see similar levels of terrorism from other religions.

I'll skip ahead and posit as to why. The first is that the Abrahamic religions are far more zealous than a lot of other ones. Noel Harrari explained this better than I ever could in Sapiens, but what he posited is that when your religion is based on the idea of one supreme god that shan't suffer others, you have a vested interest in stamping out any other competitors. He contrasted the lassire faire approach to religion in the Roman Empire (when it was polytheistic) as compared to the more dogmatic versions of Christian rule that followed. This has been made most apparent in Christianity and Islam in that both have displayed a zeal in converting people into the faith that most other religions haven't - the Zoroastrian praying to fire isn't particuarly interested in the faith of those outside his tower for instance.

The second question then, is why Islam? The argument I've seen, and one I agree with, is that Christianity takes its very name from Jesus Christ, while Islam takes its faith from Muhammad. Jesus preached peace and tolerance, Muhammad spread his faith by the sword. This isn't a spiritual discussion, the Arabic conquest that followed the rise of Islam is well documented. Christianity, despite all the attrocities done in its name, does have the idea of "loving thy neighour" and turning the other cheek, which is why it's been posited that we don't see similar levels of Christian-based terrorism. Islam, on the other hand? Not so much. There was a book that pointed out, using Indonesia as an example, that if we believe that religious terrorism is a response to oppression, then there should be much more Christian-based terrorism in Indonesia. But no. Instead, it's still mainly Islamic, despite that faith already having a special status (de facto, if not de jure).

So, yeah. Even if you factor all the geo-politics in the world, Islam still has more terrorist acts done in its name than other religions. The more fundamentalist you get in Islam, the more violent you become (as opposed to Jainism, where it's the other way round). You can criticize Western imperialism all you want, a Chechan Muslim beheading a French teacher over depictions of their prophet is not something that can be called geopolitical. ISIS killing people in Vienna isn't geo-political, because as far as I'm aware, Austria hasn't played any role in the Middle East.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Terrorism, not war.

And if we're including war, then I can include war by Islamic empires and caliphates.

Sure you can include those. Excluding wars seems dubious at best.

 

[Seanchaidh]

The second question then, is why Islam? The argument I've seen, and one I agree with, is that Christianity takes its very name from Jesus Christ, while Islam takes its faith from Muhammad. Jesus preached peace and tolerance, Muhammad spread his faith by the sword. This isn't a spiritual discussion, the Arabic conquest that followed the rise of Islam is well documented. Christianity, despite all the attrocities done in its name, does have the idea of "loving thy neighour" and turning the other cheek, which is why it's been posited that we don't see similar levels of Christian-based terrorism. Islam, on the other hand? Not so much. There was a book that pointed out, using Indonesia as an example, that if we believe that religious terrorism is a response to oppression, then there should be much more Christian-based terrorism in Indonesia. But no. Instead, it's still mainly Islamic, despite that faith already having a special status (de facto, if not de jure).

And the lack of such notably higher rates of a certain kind of terrorism during the Islamic Golden Age? Or the centuries between then and (relatively) recent?

Here is what I think is a much better explanation, though by no means exhaustive: Arab-speaking countries can more easily communicate with each other-- they are one linguistic community-- and much they have in common is guerilla resistance to oppression by foreign empires dating back to at least the Ottoman Empire. Successful resistance. Glorified resistance-- watch Lawrence of Arabia for an example. The Islamic world has many linguistic and religious communities that have quite justifiably encouraged martyrdom entirely apart from any theological implications. And there is ongoing aggression from Israel, the United States, Soviet Union/Russia, China, and between various authoritarian regimes and their populations. It's not just a coincidence that Sayyid Qutb was brutalized in an Egyptian prison and then executed.

And the big virtue of this explanation is that it doesn't rely on a theological cause which, if it were doing what you say, predicts SO MUCH MORE historical violence than has actually happened. This explanation seems to much more accurately track with the timeline of events and the material conditions surrounding them.

 

[Iron]

And the lack of such notably higher rates of a certain kind of terrorism during the Islamic Golden Age? Or the centuries between then and (relatively) recent?

Here is what I think is a much better explanation, though by no means exhaustive: Arab-speaking countries can more easily communicate with each other-- they are one linguistic community-- and much they have in common is guerilla resistance to oppression by foreign empires dating back to at least the Ottoman Empire. Successful resistance. Glorified resistance-- watch Lawrence of Arabia for an example. The Islamic world has many linguistic and religious communities that have quite justifiably encouraged martyrdom entirely apart from any theological implications. And there is ongoing aggression from Israel, the United States, Soviet Union/Russia, China, and between various authoritarian regimes and their populations. It's not just a coincidence that Sayyid Qutb was brutalized in an Egyptian prison and then executed.

And the big virtue of this explanation is that it doesn't rely on a theological cause which, if it were doing what you say, predicts SO MUCH MORE historical violence than has actually happened. This explanation seems to much more accurately track with the timeline of events and the material conditions surrounding them.

Very skewed perception of the ME rooted in ignorance using a socialist worldview. You somehow managed to absolve the religion for not making more war than you think is justified. All interpretation, absolutely no grounding in reality. You'd be reading in tea leaves at this point and have no credibility to your analysis. There's nothing quantifiable for me to argue with, which was done on purpose.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Sure you can include those. Excluding wars seems dubious at best.

Tbh at that point I'm wondering if he's gonna try to look back earlier than the modern era at which point I'm gonna find including those ones a bit ???