Explosion at Ariana Grande concert in Manchester; fatalities

Did the above address the question?

My point that I think you're responding to was for the western powers and Russia to stop treating the Middle Eastern countries as pawns in a bigger pissing match.

 

How can you establish educational opportunities if some of those opportunities go against their religious beliefs?

 

Muslims used to be the greatest keepers of knowledge, established algebra, kept some of the great texts of the world in libraries during the middle ages, so I don't buy education goes against religious beliefs. I think there are those trying to cling to power who don't want the populace educated, especially girls. But there are people in the Middle East who want an education and are dying to try to give/get one.

 

Lots of people all over the world seeking/hoping for better opportunities. People in much worse shape. They're not perpetrating mass violence. But I guess that Middle East heat does things to a man.

 

Finally an argument that is more nuanced than religion made me do it ... sort of.

Yes, other places are just as desperate, even more so in some parts. I think what is fueling things here is a combination of desperate circumstances and people who can point to places such as the US, UK and France and say "these people are why you are the way you are" and they actually have legitimate things to point to. Then you sprinkle in a healthy dose of twisted religious ideology that goes against what the religion actually teaches and you have a movement. The Middle East is a perfect storm of Western good intentions, a gold mine of resources coveted by the entire world and a bunch of recent conflicts that have taught enough of the crazies how to fight.

 

So the Western countries have good intentions, but they don't know what the countries in the Middle East truly need?

 

The root of terrorism is to be found in a lack of pussy. There are religious, cultural, and personality reasons for this deficit among the terrorists.

A productive method to address this might be to increase education on sex, widely distribute birth control, legislate against forced marriages and decriminalize consensual sex for pay.

 

Specify your pawns.

You seem to be cultivating this view that, rather than radical Islam, this is really about the despair in impoverished third world Mideast countries weary of being exploited and "plundered" by the likes of us. That's a fair hypothesis, except for a glaring flaw: that's in most cases NOT who's been carrying out attacks of this nature. Hell, the 9/11 hijackers were nearly all well-educated men (many from wealthy backgrounds) from oil rich Saudi Arabia. How exactly does that fit into your theory? Do you include the filthy rich Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar amongst the exploited "pawns" you reference?

And, of course, a ton of these attacks have been committed by muslims who are Western citizens long-living (and often born and raised) in Europe or the United States (See Manchester, Paris, Nice, Orlando, London, Boston, Berlin, Brussels, etc.). That doesn't exactly jibe with your view either.

Fact is it's hard finding other common explanatory links between the perpetrators of these types of attacks except for one--some are from rich countries, some from poor, some well-educated, some not, some from the West, some not, etc.--BUT there is one common denominator that binds virtually all of the them: at some point, by some means, the perpetrator got drawn in and caught up in a form of radical Islamic theology preaching an ultra-strict version of Islam. THAT is the common bond, like it or not.

Yet we're supposed to pretend it's not really about religion at all. And I'm amazed at the lengths some (many of whom I usually agree with it) will go to maintain that denial out of fear of having their "enlightened liberal" card revoked.

 

I'll concede my hypothesis is lacking because you're right there are plenty who are a) wealthy or come from wealthy backgrounds who commit terror and b) not everyone who commits terrorist acts come from the Middle East. I can explain some as just being crazy--Orlando and San Bernardino being good examples. But yes I should walk back the blanket statements.

I think ultimately what I'm getting at is there is set of circumstances that are sending people down a path of terror that defies a lot of theories that seem to explain a lot of what is going on. But claiming it's all because of Islam is an oversimplification too and one that is harmful to boot if used to justify hate and prejudicial policies.

Perhaps my best stab at trying to sum up my position of what is going on is this, and I'll admit this will likely have logical missteps along the way too. We see through history and through cultures and traditions the tendency to believe in an ultra strict, ultra conservative, hyper reactionary interpretation of what ever it is they believe, follow or live by or within. In some cases this is benign like the Amish or Hasidic Jews. In other cases this becomes dangerous: the Nazis in Germany, the KKK and ISIS. The danger can be mitigated if these splinter groups emerge in a time when their message is just too crazy for the populace. Hitler was thrown in jail when he first tried to start a revolution and ISIS was initially laughed away by people like al Qada who just thought they were nuts. But then you start to get a perfect storm of events where the message doesn't seem so crazy after all. The KKK gets 10s of thousands of followers in the Jim Crow South, Hitler wins legitimate elections and the environment in the Middle East through war and Western meddling promotes extremists to actually attract followers. So it has little to do with actual Islam except that's how people are connecting. There is something in their countries, cities or home life they don't like and see this group offering an explanation. That allows the group to grow and gain legitimacy. Now people in other countries who feel ostracized from their home culture find meaning in the terrorist group and latch on to the point they become terrorists themselves.

Hope that made sense.

 

My theory is pretty simple: We have to be very careful about giving the impression we're at war with the religion of Islam. Because, if we are at war with the religion of Islam, we're going to lose and lose badly.

Do some people overcorrect to the point where it seems like they're defending terrorists? I guess that depends on your perspective. But the fact is we HAVE to separate the terrorism from the religion if we want to win.

 

Some of this is silly

If obsessive fans of Metallica were committing acts of terror in their name, while no fans of other musicians were doing the same, we'd eventually take a look at what was it about their music that inspired these actions.

The source material for Islam -- the Koran, and other teachings of Muhammad -- is problematic.

It's why we see those who become more religious become more radical.

That most Muslims reject the calls to violence doesn't mean we should pretend they aren't a part of the religion.

 

I never said that. I said we absolutely must make the distinction between the religion and its radicals, precisely because most reject the calls to violence.

And doing so is in no way "appeasement."

That doesn't mean ignoring the religious tenets that encourage radicalism.