NationStates Jolt Archive

Because so many people who deny it's a threat to the West later come back in other threads and deny they've ever said it, we're going to have to find out once and for all who believes it and who doesn't.

This is a public poll because of the constant denials.

Let's say the West is the EU and US.

"Threat" means that they have the intent to destroy the West, and are trying to act on it.

Is it a threat? Sure. Is it the most pressing threat? Fuck no. Is it a threat that will be best dealt with through force of arms? Holy gosh golly wow fuck no.

Define "threat."

Define "threat."
I think you know what "threat" is. Either answer the question yes/no, or say you're too embarassed to tell people what you really believe.

Is it a threat? Sure. Is it the most pressing threat? Fuck no. Is it a threat that will be best dealt with through force of arms? Holy gosh golly wow fuck no.
Did I ask if it's the most pressing threat? No.

Is it a threat? If so, answer yes.

Where we asking if Militant Christianity was a threat when they were hanging black people from trees, bombing abortion clinics, and beating up homosexuals?

Where we asking if Militant Christianity was a threat when they were hanging black people from trees, bombing abortion clinics, and beating up homosexuals?
You appear to be off topic. It's a simple question.

Yes, and it will stay a threat untill we challenge extremist beliefs.

Did I ask if it's the most pressing threat? No.

Is it a threat? If so, answer yes.
...


Is it a threat? Sure.

Was something unclear about that?

...


Was something unclear about that?

Nope. Then vote Yes.

Where we asking if Militant Christianity was a threat when they were hanging black people from trees, bombing abortion clinics, and beating up homosexuals?

What does that have to do with anything? And no things like that are so incredibly rare these days that extremist Christians pose no threat to society.

Nope. Then vote Yes.
Ahhh, you added a poll. Gotcha.

I think you know what "threat" is. Either answer the question yes/no, or say you're too embarassed to tell people what you really believe.
Fuck you. Threat could mean anything from "minor travel annoyance" to "toppler of governments." What do you mean when you call militant Islam a threat? Define your terms, you fucking hack.

Fuck you. Threat could mean anything from "minor travel annoyance" to "toppler of governments." What do you mean when you call militant Islam a threat? Define your terms, you fucking hack.

Nice to see that your only recourse is to quibble about terms, or call me names.

The usual from you.

Nice to see that your only recourse is to quibble about terms, or call me names.

The usual from you.
This is not a simple quibble. Definition of the terms "threat" and "the West" are essential to any real discussion. Now, if you want a real discussion, you'll define the terms. If, as I suspect, you merely want a cudgel with which to bash those who call you a bullshit artist, then you won't. How serious of a threat are you talking about? How far ranging do you consider the west to extend? Define some parameters of the debate, and you'll get a debate.

This is not a simple quibble. Definition of the terms "threat" and "the West" are essential to any real discussion. Now, if you want a real discussion, you'll define the terms. If, as I suspect, you merely want a cudgel with which to bash those who call you a bullshit artist, then you won't. How serious of a threat are you talking about? How far ranging do you consider the west to extend? Define some parameters of the debate, and you'll get a debate.

Let's say the West is the EU and US.

"Threat" means that they have the intent to destroy the West, and are trying to act on it.

What does that have to do with anything? And no things like that are so incredibly rare these days that extremist Christians pose no threat to society.
I'd imagine that black people, abortion doctors/patients, and homosexuals feel somewhat different about that.

Hell, I don't need to imagine; I know from personal experience. Statistically speaking, I am far more likely to be hurt or killed by an extremist Christian than by an extremist Muslim. I am far more likely to have my freedom violated by an extremist Christian than by an extremist Muslim.

If we're talking about threats, extreme Islam isn't even in my top ten. Extremist Christianity IS my top ten.

I'd imagine that black people, abortion doctors/patients, and homosexuals feel somewhat different about that.

Hell, I don't need to imagine; I know from personal experience. Statistically speaking, I am far more likely to be hurt or killed by an extremist Christian than by an extremist Muslim. I am far more likely to have my freedom violated by an extremist Christian than by an extremist Muslim.

If we're talking about threats, extreme Islam isn't even in my top ten. Extremist Christianity IS my top ten.

How? The KKK don't kill people anymore, abortion clinics have not been blown up in years. How are you under threat?

Let's say the West is the EU and US.

"Threat" means that they have the intent to destroy the West, and are trying to act on it.
Okay--that's a pretty shitty definition of threat, but under those terms, then sure, militant Islam is a threat to the west. But for me, threat has to extend way past intent--there has to be some ability to make that threat come to fruition, and frankly, I don't think militant Islam has the power necessary to topple and subjugate the west, or to destroy it. I doubt that they have the power to control their own area, much less extend into the rest of the world. Most of Islam, after all, is not militant, no matter how much you try to argue it is.

Because so many people who deny it's a threat to the West later come back in other threads and deny they've ever said it, we're going to have to find out once and for all who believes it and who doesn't.

This is a public poll because of the constant denials.

Let's say the West is the EU and US.

"Threat" means that they have the intent to destroy the West, and are trying to act on it.
Some Islamist groups and Islamist Ideologies are a threat; though not a threat to the existence of the EU or the US. They are a relatively minor threat to human life and a major threat to our way of living and our civil liberties… They also can evoke state terror which is a huge threat; consider the numbers of people that have been murdered by states in the 20th century (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc.)

These groups do not seek to destroy the west as I said before:
Their goal is not to destroy the west, but to bring together the divided East. Attacks and counter attacks are necessary to rally follow Muslims behind their flag, in order to create a global Ummah and a United Islamic state in the Middle East, ranging from India to Morocco.
It is the reaction to this Islamist threat that constitutes the main threat of terrorism

Some Islamist groups and Islamist Ideologies are a threat; though not a threat to the existence of the EU or the US. They are a relatively minor threat to human life and a major threat to our way of living and our civil liberties… They also can evoke state terror which is a huge threat; consider the numbers of people that have been murdered by states in the 20th century (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc.)

These groups do not seek to destroy the west as I said before:

It is the reaction to this Islamist threat that constitutes the main threat of terrorism
Well said.

How? The KKK don't kill people anymore, abortion clinics have not been blown up in years. How are you under threat?
Sorry, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince somebody that racism, anti-abortion violence, and homophobia still exist in America today and pose very real threats to the wellbeing of American citizens. I'm not going to waste my time listing all the specific ways in which racism, anti-choice fanaticism, and homophobia are directly linked to radical Christianity. If you can't be bothered to pick up a newspaper, you're certainly not going to bother to listen to me.

Sorry, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince somebody that racism, anti-abortion violence, and homophobia still exist in America today and pose very real threats to the wellbeing of American citizens. I'm not going to waste my time listing all the specific ways in which racism, anti-choice fanaticism, and homophobia are directly linked to radical Christianity. If you can't be bothered to pick up a newspaper, you're certainly not going to bother to listen to me.

I believe any form of militant religion or militant political belief is a threat to a current society.

I'm not saying you don't see a threat - I see one there too.

I'm just talking about something else.

"Threat" means that they have the intent to destroy the West, and are trying to act on it.
http://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif

Well, in that case, yes.

Of course, it's not a credible threat. Considering "the West" is an enormously powerful combination of economic and military power, as well as a mindset developed over a thousand years or so...well, I guess an ant may have the intent to destroy me and will try to act on it.

War on Ants? I'm all for it.

Now, the reaction of RWA-personalities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism) in our society however to this pathetic attempt at threat...that is a worry indeed.

EDIT: I vote "No" in the poll, because despite their intentions and actions, I consider a threat something much more serious than anything they could ever do to us. As I said, the real threat comes from the way we react.

Okay--that's a pretty shitty definition of threat, but under those terms, then sure, militant Islam is a threat to the west. But for me, threat has to extend way past intent--there has to be some ability to make that threat come to fruition, and frankly, I don't think militant Islam has the power necessary to topple and subjugate the west, or to destroy it. I doubt that they have the power to control their own area, much less extend into the rest of the world. Most of Islam, after all, is not militant, no matter how much you try to argue it is.

So you believe that even if they acquire nuclear weapons, they will never be a threat?

Of course it's a threat, of what sort of threat is debatable. Right now it's a threat to life and property, but not yet a serious threat to liberty, because while they can kill, main and destroy, they cannot rule. If some of these whackos get their way, it could indeed become a true threat to liberty, but that's a a long-range intelligence projection, and, making long-range intelligence projections is like attempting to predict the weather a week and a half in advance,

Of course it's a threat, of what sort of threat is debatable. Right now it's a threat to life and property, but not yet a serious threat to liberty, because while they can kill, main and destroy, they cannot rule. If some of these whackos get their way, it could indeed become a true threat to liberty, but that's a a long-range intelligence projection, and, making long-range intelligence projections is like attempting to predict the weather a week and a half in advance,
So, is killing, maiming, and destroying (which you say they are capable of) not a threat to liberty? Can a dead person vote?

Let's say the West is the EU and US.

"Threat" means that they have the intent to destroy the West, and are trying to act on it.

Ok, going by that definition, no. They are not a threat.

So, is killing, maiming, and destroying (which you say they are capable of) not a threat to liberty? Can a dead person vote?

their not going to kill half a billion people in one attack

the bigger threat to liberty, at least individual liberty is the governments of free countries sacrificing liberty for a false sense of security

I believe any form of militant religion or militant political belief is a threat to a current society.

I'm not saying you don't see a threat - I see one there too.

I'm just talking about something else.
Oh, I think I understand your point with this thread. I'm simply amazed by the people who are so insulated from reality that they think radical Muslims on the other side of an ocean pose a more immediate threat to American citizens then do the radical religious nutters on our own soil.

Like I said, I do believe Muslim extremists are a threat to "the West." I happen to believe they are a relatively low threat, all things considered, but they are still a threat.

their not going to kill half a billion people in one attack

the bigger threat to liberty, at least individual liberty is the governments of free countries sacrificing liberty for a false sense of security

If they kill only 3000 in an attack, how will you select which person in your country will have their liberty permanently revoked by death?

Or are you saying that a few people at random don't have any rights at all?

The questions of "Are they a threat to the West?" can be answered a number of different ways. OK, kids, you can squabble over senatics, you can break it down, or you can do both.

Is militant Islam a threat to attack the West? Well, duh. It attacked London, Madrid, and NYC.

Is it a threat to take over the West? Not quite. it will try, but no one's going for it. European birth rates will go up in time, I predict, and improvements will be made so that Muslims in Europe feel more at home. I predict that the biggest thing that will turn Muslims peaceful: air conditioning.

Are Islamist governments a threat to wage war on the West? Not a chance in hell. Theocracy has been tried in Iran and Afghanistan. At first, everyone was pro-Ayatollah, but they were pro-Ayatollah simply because they were anti-Shah. Most people in iran are told to hate America and the West, but they hate the Ayatollah (well, that's a bit extreme..."resent" is probably better.) Going to war would be a bad idea. And once the people in Saudi Arabia get sick of the fundies there, they will stay in power only because they don't have the means to kick the government out. Iran's people don't really hate the West because the West hasn't done squat-ola to them in about 25 years. Give it time, and let Saudi Arabia turn into a hellhole, and soon Iran and Saudi Arabia both will have their own little French Revolutions. The Islamic world will go through what the West did in the first half of the 20th century, with democracy and extremism squaring off. I can only hope and pray that democracy wins.

Now, that brings us to extremist groups. We've already proven that most extremist groups are, well, extremist. They wage war on the U.S. and Europe. Hezbollah wages war on Israel. Iran's government helps, but Iran's people don't really seem to give a damn. I don't think they much care for Israel, but they'll put up with it. Hamas sends people to blow up Israeli civilians. Then we have our old friends from al-Qaeda. Look up the definition of "batshit insane" in the dictionary, and what will you find? Well, you will probably find the definition of "batshit insane," but a reference to al-Qaeda is warranted. God help us if they get their hands on a nuke. They're about the only people crazy enough to use it. Even North Korea isn't that stupid.

Our interstate highway system is vastly more worrying than Bin Ladin and his ilk. Kill more people ever year too.

Don't see anyone demanding war over shoddy roads.

Our interstate highway system is vastly more worrying than Bin Ladin and his ilk. Kill more people ever year too.

Don't see anyone demanding war over shoddy roads.

Don't see any major parties in the US saying as their primary statement, "we can build more roads".

Politically speaking, getting up and saying "militant Islam is not a threat to anything" is political suicide in the US. Both major parties are climbing over each other to assert that "they" can do a better job winning the war on terror.

Don't see any major parties in the US saying as their primary statement, "we can build more roads".

Politically speaking, getting up and saying "militant Islam is not a threat to anything" is political suicide in the US. Both major parties are climbing over each other to assert that "they" can do a better job winning the war on terror.

As a rule one should not look to politicians when trying to find the truth about anything.

Yes, according to your definition, militant Islam is a threat to the West; athough by that definition I'm a threat to even my dinner, it's so broad and vague.

Or are you saying that a few people at random don't have any rights at all?

Please don't put words in my mouth, I never said anything like that.

What I am trying to say is that Islamic Terrorists are not going to conquer and replace all western democratic governments, unaided.

Please don't put words in my mouth, I never said anything like that.

What I am trying to say is that Islamic Terrorists are not going to conquer and replace all western democratic governments, unaided.
Some of them don't want to bother with conquest. They would be perfectly happy if we all died.

Because so many people who deny it's a threat to the West later come back in other threads and deny they've ever said it, we're going to have to find out once and for all who believes it and who doesn't.

This is a public poll because of the constant denials.

Let's say the West is the EU and US.

"Threat" means that they have the intent to destroy the West, and are trying to act on it.

There is a threat there, but I believe if someone were to assign blame that the West started it. Both ideologies are so different that they are bound to clash. I was thinking about this the other day, take Iraq for example. If you lived one way of life, and then some one came along and decided that you should live a different way how would that make you react? If this new way of life was so fundamentally different from your own would you become Militant? Say for hell of it, that the current Iraqi/Iranian way of life was imposed on you: What would you do?

There is a threat there, but I believe if someone were to assign blame that the West started it. Both ideologies are so different that they are bound to clash. I was thinking about this the other day, take Iraq for example. If you lived one way of life, and then some one came along and decided that you should live a different way how would that make you react? If this new way of life was so fundamentally different from your own would you become Militant? Say for hell of it, that the current Iraqi/Iranian way of life was imposed on you: What would you do?
I'm not assigning blame. Why is that necessary?

I'm not assigning blame. Why is that necessary?


Oh I know your not I was just saying that if I had to assign blame that the West has brought a lot of it on themselves! Hence the threat.

So, is killing, maiming, and destroying (which you say they are capable of) not a threat to liberty? Can a dead person vote?

Please...

people die in accidents, are accidents therefore a threat to liberty?

Note that there is a difference between democracy and liberty

Terrorism becomes a threat to democracy when polling-stations in specific districts are targeted. Indiscriminate killing is not a threat to democracy; state reactions are...

Indiscriminate killing is not a threat to democracy; state reactions are...

Funny... if indiscriminate killing is not a threat to democracy, why are there laws against murder? Or against terrorism?

So you're saying that when terrorism happens, the state should not react at all?

So you believe that even if they acquire nuclear weapons, they will never be a threat?
A threat to destroy the US and EU? Nope. Their greatest threat to the US and EU is that we are likely to overreact and change our core societal laws because of the threat we perceive to be out there, as opposed to any threat that actually exists. They can make our lives miserable, to some extent, but they can't destroy us. The flip side is this--we can't destroy them either, unless we're willing to commit genocide and kill everyone in the area, militant or not.

A threat to destroy the US and EU? Nope. Their greatest threat to the US and EU is that we are likely to overreact and change our core societal laws because of the threat we perceive to be out there, as opposed to any threat that actually exists. They can make our lives miserable, to some extent, but they can't destroy us. The flip side is this--we can't destroy them either, unless we're willing to commit genocide and kill everyone in the area, militant or not.

Logically, isn't that "destroying" the West by other means?

Forcing an overreaction?

Logically, isn't that "destroying" the West by other means?

Forcing an overreaction?
No, because no matter how hard militant Islam tries, they cannot "force" an overreaction. We are responsible for our reactions--if we overreact, we have only ourselves to blame, and if we trade in our values for a false sense of security, then militant Islam has not destroyed us; we have destroyed ourselves.

Politically speaking, getting up and saying "militant Islam is not a threat to anything" is political suicide in the US.
True.
Interestingly so is saying that the current US government is screwing the legal system, the system of checks and balances created by the founding fathers and the rights and freedoms of its own people.
Both are true. Neither will get you elected.

However, screaming...
'CRAZY MILTANT ISLAMO-FASCIST KILLING MACHINES ARE BREEDING CHILDREN SPECIFICALLY SO THEY CAN DROP ON YOU, YES YOU PERSONALLY, FROM A PLANE DAUBED IN THE BLOOD OF AMERICAN CHILDREN. THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THEM IS TO ELECT ME!!!!!! ME!!!!!! A VOTE FOR THE OTHER GUY IS A VOTE FOR BIN LADEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'
...from the roof of your house in an attempt to be elected chief-paper stacker of your local newspaper will get you elected.
It says a lot about the electorate.

Yes. Militant Islam is a 'threat'. But so is the cavalier way the US treats it economical relations with the EU. In fact, I would rate the US as more of a threat to the EU than militant Islam. I would even rate Chrisitans as more of a threat than militant Islamicists.
And history over the last 2,000 years backs me up.

Seriously, ask a question with some meaning to it.

So, is killing, maiming, and destroying (which you say they are capable of) not a threat to liberty? Can a dead person vote?
When I say liberty, I am referring to the concept that they might be able to actually come to power through force, something they are not currently capable of, but it is a goal they strive for.

Let's say the West is the EU and US.

"Threat" means that they have the intent to destroy the West, and are trying to act on it.
By your extremely narrow definition of threat, then yes, Militant Islam is a threat. However, similarly to The Nazz, and Neu Leonstein (among others), I disagree that the 'intent to destroy the west, and are trying to act upon it' actually constitutes a threat. A threat would be if they had 'intent to destroy the west, and are trying to act upon it and have a reasonable likelyhood of succeeding.' There is an important difference there.

As others have said before me, the main thread from militant Islam is our reaction to it. This reaction can cause far more damage than any attack they could possibly pull off.

Nay.. they are a major travel incovenience, they might blow a city or two, but in order for them to threaten us, they would need a regular, conventional army to invade us all.

God, I wanted to be invaded. Europe is lacking war!

Of course, you could construe the argument that our fears about Islam might make us throw away our basic liberties, and then they win..

...

Its complicated. I vote yesno.

Because so many people who deny it's a threat to the West later come back in other threads and deny they've ever said it, we're going to have to find out once and for all who believes it and who doesn't.

This is a public poll because of the constant denials.

Let's say the West is the EU and US.

"Threat" means that they have the intent to destroy the West, and are trying to act on it.
The problem with this thread is the definition of threat that is given by the starter...

Few people will argue, even though one definitely can, that these groups have the intent to destroy the west and act upon it...
Subsequently, many will vote yes...

However, the question above the poll states:

Is Militant Islam a threat to the west....

which does imply that they might threaten our way of living and our existence, also considering the tittle of the thread:

Is Islam a threat to the west?

It looks like another attempt to portray Islam as a threat to the west to me
:(

Logically, isn't that "destroying" the West by other means?

Forcing an overreaction?

yes, but who is to blame for that?

the terrorists provoking an over-reaction?
or the people over-reacting?

Seriously, ask a question with some meaning to it.
I ask because a few people post here without wanting to be pinned down on their answer. They would rather castigate me for choosing a position, and then not want to choose any position themselves, although by opposing my position, they are taking one (which they vigorously deny).

The problem with this thread is the definition of threat that is given by the starter...

Few people will argue, even though one definitely can, that these groups have the intent to destroy the west and act upon it...
Subsequently, many will vote yes...

However, the question above the poll states:

Is Islam a threat to the west....

Looks like another attempt to portray Islam as a threat to the west to me
:(


Now you're lying.

It says. "Is Militant Islam a threat to the West?"

Big difference.

Funny... if indiscriminate killing is not a threat to democracy, why are there laws against murder? Or against terrorism?
Now you're just trolling, I know you're not that stupid.
So you're saying that when terrorism happens, the state should not react at all? No one has suggested that. Nice straw-man.

Funny... if indiscriminate killing is not a threat to democracy, why are there laws against murder? Or against terrorism?

So you're saying that when terrorism happens, the state should not react at all?
He's not saying that and you know it. We have laws against murder begause it is held that murder is wrong, not undemocratic.

Now you're just trolling, I know you're not that stupid. No one has suggested that. Nice straw-man.
I'm not trolling.

I am asking rhetorical questions.

So, if you believe they are no threat, then unless you provide me some counterproposal, I can only assume you mean that we should do nothing.

Propose something.

Funny... if indiscriminate killing is not a threat to democracy, why are there laws against murder?
My understanding is that laws against murder do not exist because indiscriminate killing is a threat to democracy. Said laws exist, pragmatically speaking, because society won't function well if people are allowed to go around randomly killing one another. Remember, non-democratic societies have prohibitions against murder, too.

No, because no matter how hard militant Islam tries, they cannot "force" an overreaction. We are responsible for our reactions--if we overreact, we have only ourselves to blame, and if we trade in our values for a false sense of security, then militant Islam has not destroyed us; we have destroyed ourselves.
Right :D

Note that the destuction of our values is not the goal of these groups, but they will not mind the "verelendung"

For it helps them to overthrow the dictators in the Middle East and unite all Muslims... A common enemy helps to close the ranks...

The attacks we have withnessed in New York, London and Madrid are signs of a struggle within the muslim community, our reactions make the radicals ever more influencial

My understanding is that laws against murder do not exist because indiscriminate killing is a threat to democracy. Said laws exist, pragmatically speaking, because society won't function well if people are allowed to go around randomly killing one another. Remember, non-democratic societies have prohibitions against murder, too.

Logically, random killings disrupt any society.

Therefore, random killings can disrupt a democracy, and are therefore a threat to a democratic government.

I ask because a few people post here without wanting to be pinned down on their answer. They would rather castigate me for choosing a position, and then not want to choose any position themselves, although by opposing my position, they are taking one (which they vigorously deny).
If, as I suspect, I am one of those people you're talking about here, then I reply thusly: simply because we refuse to be sucked into your false dichotomies and overly simplistic definitions does not mean that we don't want to be pinned down on an answer. What it means is that we refuse to allow you to use terms indiscriminately, and pin us down with shoddy reasoning. In short, we refuse to let you Limbaugh us, and you can't stand it. Limbaugh is only as powerful as he is because he has no one challenging him to his face--you don't have that luxury, because you have people here who are more than your intellectual equal, and we have the same forum you do in which to express ourselves.

I'm not trolling.

I am asking rhetorical questions.

So, if you believe they are no threat, then unless you provide me some counterproposal, I can only assume you mean that we should do nothing.

Propose something.

In response to 9/11? Best thing we could of done, improved boarder security, improved airport security.

Start two wars? That's a bit much.

I'd imagine that black people, abortion doctors/patients, and homosexuals feel somewhat different about that.

Hell, I don't need to imagine; I know from personal experience. Statistically speaking, I am far more likely to be hurt or killed by an extremist Christian than by an extremist Muslim. I am far more likely to have my freedom violated by an extremist Christian than by an extremist Muslim.

If we're talking about threats, extreme Islam isn't even in my top ten. Extremist Christianity IS my top ten.

Did a building full of 3,000 black gay abortion doctors get blown up and i missed it on the news?

Did a building full of 3,000 black gay abortion doctors get blown up and i missed it on the news?

I doubt you'd of missed the Xians parading in the streets if it had happened.

Right :D

Note that the destuction of our values is not the goal of these groups, but they will not mind the "verelendung"

For it helps them to overthrow the dictators in the Middle East and unite all Muslims... A common enemy helps to close the ranks...

The attacks we have withnessed in New York, London and Madrid are signs of a struggle within the muslim community, our reactions make the radicals ever more influencial

I agree, We have progressives tring to ensure Islam's survival in the 21st century, and we have Fundies trying to send Islam back into the 7th century.

That being said, what should we do about it?

In response to 9/11? Best thing we could of done, improved boarder security, improved airport security.

Start two wars? That's a bit much.
Why improve security if they are not a threat? That's what I want to know.

Propose something.
I propose that the general public should be encouraged to go about their daily business as normal.
I propose that the political parties should stop trying to use the 'threat' of Militant Islam to:-
(a) Score cheap political points
(b) Try to encourage more people to vote for them based on a 'strawman'
(c) Curtail civil rights
(d) Carry out illegal actions
(e) Inflate their own image
(f) Label anyone who calls them on their abuses of power an 'apologiser' (or similar)
I propose that we do as little as possible to publicise their actions and threats.
I propose that we should leave combating the 'threat' of militant Islam to the Intelligence services who are the only organisations that are fit for purpose.

Why improve security if they are not a threat? That's what I want to know.

Reactionary politicians deciding to go for the vote-grabbing short-term idea rather than the less impressive long-term solution. That sounds about right. And, looking at the London scare with the two Asian men, it looks like a lot of people are falling for it.

Why improve security if they are not a threat? That's what I want to know.
Because there are plenty of people who are a threat that you seem to want to ignore. And who are, in my opinion, much more of a threat than the 'great militant Islamic threat' you seem so scared of.

I propose that the general public should be encouraged to go about their daily business as normal.
I propose that the political parties should stop trying to use the 'threat' of Militant Islam to:-
(a) Score cheap political points
(b) Try to encourage more people to vote for them based on a 'strawman'
(c) Curtail civil rights
(d) Carry out illegal actions
(e) Inflate their own image
(f) Label anyone who calls them on their abuses of power an 'apologiser' (or similar)
I propose that we do as little as possible to publicise their actions and threats.
I propose that we should leave combating the 'threat' of militant Islam to the Intelligence services who are the only organisations that are fit for purpose.

Ah, but don't we have a free press? Isn't a paper going to publish the government's plans and failures?

And free speech - how are you going to get politicians to shut up?

Because there are plenty of people who are a threat that you seem to want to ignore. And who are, in my opinion, much more of a threat than the 'great militant Islamic threat' you seem so scared of.
I'm not ignoring them.

I just want to know what you would tell the public that would actually get you elected.

Why improve security if they are not a threat? That's what I want to know.
Because life has value, regardless of if they're a threat to our republic.

Because life has value, regardless of if they're a threat to our republic.
That's not an answer.

If there's no threat, why do you need security?

Ah, but don't we have a free press? Isn't a paper going to publish the government's plans and failures?

And free speech - how are you going to get politicians to shut up?

politicians aren't people, like us:D

politicians aren't people, like us
They run things. And the majority of people vote for them.

Logically, random killings disrupt any society.

Therefore, random killings can disrupt a democracy, and are therefore a threat to a democratic government.
Yes. But what I am saying is that the laws prohibiting murder aren't in place SPECIFICALLY because murder disrupts democracy. Rather, they're in place because murder disrupts SOCIETY. Democracy may or may not be an element of a given society.

All fundamentalist religion is a threat (to the whole world), therefore I vote 'yes'.

Edit: thanks for the other thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=496955)

Sorry, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince somebody that racism, anti-abortion violence, and homophobia still exist in America today and pose very real threats to the wellbeing of American citizens. I'm not going to waste my time listing all the specific ways in which racism, anti-choice fanaticism, and homophobia are directly linked to radical Christianity. If you can't be bothered to pick up a newspaper, you're certainly not going to bother to listen to me.

Those things have always existed and are decreasing, they do not pose a catostrophic threat anymore which can cost thousands of lives. Millitant Islam is killing thousands of people all the time, just look at the middle east. Millitant Islam is the fanatacism that hates the west the most, and would it to be destroyed.

That's not an answer.

If there's no threat, why do you need security?

Actually it is an answer, even if it's not one you find suited to your beliefs.

Yes. But what I am saying is that the laws prohibiting murder aren't in place SPECIFICALLY because murder disrupts democracy. Rather, they're in place because murder disrupts SOCIETY. Democracy may or may not be an element of a given society.And I'm saying it doesn't have to be a specific threat in order to be a threat to democracy.

I just want to know what you would tell the public that would actually get you elected.
Ah, so this isn't about actually dealing with any threat. This is about misleading the public into electing me based on whatever minor fears I intend to play upon to persuade them to vote for me?

Intersting, I thought this was to do with proposing an alternative to playing up a negligible threat in order to validate illegal and unconstitutional dealings on the part of your government. I must have mis-understood your post.
So, if you believe they are no threat, then unless you provide me some counterproposal, I can only assume you mean that we should do nothing.

Propose something.

Perhaps I could pick the economy?
Or immigration?
Or taxes?
Or Healthcare?
Or putting more police on the streets?
cOr cutting down deaths from motor vehicle accidents?
Or making petrol cheaper?
Or having a party that isn't up to its neck in corruption and illegality?
Or, in fact, any of the issues that have been brought up in the past by candidates seeking to get elected.
Many of the above actually have some basis in truth.

Or I could follow the current path?
In that case I think I will pick on freckled people as the greatest threat America has ever, ever faced.

Either way, I'll flood the media with backhanders, channel funds to supposedly 'independent' groups, attack my opponent and, if necessary, fabricate things for me to attack him on, plant evidence, rig the election, etc, etc, etc.

Ah, but don't we have a free press? Isn't a paper going to publish the government's plans and failures?
I believe they are accused of treason if they do.
And what power does a paper have, exactly?


And free speech - how are you going to get politicians to shut up?
I was thinking of not voting for them.
You don't hear politicians saying 'I think we should support the Nazi party' in the US these days. That's because no one voted for them.

I believe they are accused of treason if they do.
And what power does a paper have, exactly?
Quite a bit, otherwise there wouldn't be a First Amendment.

I was thinking of not voting for them.
You don't hear politicians saying 'I think we should support the Nazi party' in the US these days. That's because no one voted for them.
Well, that leaves out both Republicans and Democrats.

And I'm saying it doesn't have to be a specific threat in order to be a threat to democracy.
Not with the republicans in charge! Hell they'll fabricate threats to be a threat to democracy.

I could quote Cheney.

Quite a bit, otherwise there wouldn't be a First Amendment.
I don't understand.
What power do they have over democratically elected politicians?


Well, that leaves out both Republicans and Democrats.
So?
Wasn't your point initially?..

So, if you believe they are no threat, then unless you provide me some counterproposal, I can only assume you mean that we should do nothing.

Propose something.
Which I did.

Then you said

I just want to know what you would tell the public that would actually get you elected.
So I told you.

Then you said

Well, that leaves out both Republicans and Democrats.
I fail to see any logic to your arguement.

Not with the republicans in charge! Hell they'll fabricate threats to be a threat to democracy.

I could quote Cheney.
Well, the Democrats are busy saying that there are other threats we should be concerned with from terrorists, and we're not "doing enough".

Wow. What is "doing enough"? I was reading that over 30,000 shipping containers enter the US every day, and that it's probably an impossibility to thoroughly scan and search the contents of each at that pace - we would have to intentionally cripple our economy in order to "improve port security" to a greater degree.

Both parties seem anxious to outdo each other here.

Both parties seem anxious to outdo each other here.
Let's face it--doing almost anything at all would outdo the Republicans in charge right now.

Well, the Democrats are busy saying that there are other threats we should be concerned with from terrorists, and we're not "doing enough".

Wow. What is "doing enough"? I was reading that over 30,000 shipping containers enter the US every day, and that it's probably an impossibility to thoroughly scan and search the contents of each at that pace - we would have to intentionally cripple our economy in order to "improve port security" to a greater degree.

Both parties seem anxious to outdo each other here.

Never will you see me claiming the democrats are either intelligent or worth voting for. It's a choice between cripplingly stupid and blindingly moronic.

I agree, We have progressives tring to ensure Islam's survival in the 21st century, and we have Fundies trying to send Islam back into the 7th century.

That being said, what should we do about it?
They are not trying to send Islam back into the 7th century, this is a product of our time...
even of our Western society...

It has some analogies with the reformation of Protestantism, wanting to return to the roots...
Though their interpretation of the Qur'an and Hadith is extremely novel indeed, caused by the fact that they are seldom educated as Imam and often have an engineering degree…

Moreover they are fond of modern means of communication and technology…

Also note that most perpetrators of these attacks have lived or where born in the West, especially Europe... Note that most have abandoned Islam at some point… They subsequently became newborn Muslims, but did not revert to classical Islam, for they did not feel at home with the religion of their parents, nor in the West… Instead they reverted to this specific form of universal Islam, which is destabilizing and dangerous.

Now how can we help to stop this from happening and reduce the threat?


We must allow the strengthening of the bonds of our Muslim youth with the regional forms of Islam of their parents, especially in Europe.
We might strengthen the opposition within Islam to the Salafi ideology from Saudi Arabia that is flooding the internet and book markets, by subsidizing the other paths
We must stop providing these groups with images of repressed Muslims and dying children in the Middle East by promoting peace and stability in the region
Last but not least we must strive to make young Muslims more at home in our societies. Provide them with opportunities based on their abilities. For this reason Racial profiling is counter productive

-----

And I'm saying it doesn't have to be a specific threat in order to be a threat to democracy.
The whole reason I am talking about this is because you asked, "if indiscriminate killing is not a threat to democracy, why are there laws against murder?"

I have explained (I hope) why laws against murder would exist even if indiscriminate killer were absolutely no threat to democracy. Such laws exist for reasons beyond any threat to democracy. The fact that they may also happen to address a particular threat to democracy is an additional bonus, not the raison d'etre.

The fact that they may also happen to address a particular threat to democracy is an additional bonus, not the raison d'etre.
Agreed.

I'm not certain that "Militant Islam" is one homogenized group with one identifiable goal amongst it.

I'm not certain that "Militant Islam" is one homogenized group with one identifiable goal amongst it.
It certainly is not...

Most of the groups we label as militant islam have political goals that precede the Islamic goals, based on real griefs...

There is a Huge difference between Hizbu-llah, Hamas, al-akhwan al-muslimin and al-Qaida...

There is no monolithic evil in the Middle East, as is calling these organisations evil is a simplification that does not help our understanding and policies
---

I'm not certain that "Militant Islam" is one homogenized group with one identifiable goal amongst it.
Did anyone ever claim that it was a single group? It most certainly isn't, but it is a collection of related philosophies that could theoretically coalesce. Such a thing has happened in the past, and the potential threat that they should coalesce must be considered. To say that this aspect is a short term threat is a mistake, but it is a potential long term threat.

Did anyone ever claim that it was a single group? It most certainly isn't, but it is a collection of related philosophies that could theoretically coalesce. Such a thing has happened in the past, and the potential threat that they should coalesce must be considered. To say that this aspect is a short term threat is a mistake, but it is a potential long term threat.

I contest that the philosophies are related... I consider their philosophies and goals quite diverse... (with a few exceptions of course)

I contest that the philosophies are related... I consider their philosophies and goals quite diverse... (with a few exceptions of course)
In the early 1920's Germany had many varied organizations with right wing goals of varied sorts. Some were violent anti-communits, some were nationalists, some were anti-semitic, some were fascists, yet despite their wide array of philosophies they were able to coalesce into the Nazionalsozialisten in the space of ten years.

While their philosophies are not identical, they are broadly similar, and to claim otherwise is counterfactual.

Did anyone ever claim that it was a single group? It most certainly isn't, but it is a collection of related philosophies that could theoretically coalesce. Such a thing has happened in the past, and the potential threat that they should coalesce must be considered. To say that this aspect is a short term threat is a mistake, but it is a potential long term threat.

I think a lot of the radical islamic elements in Europe will die down with time, as 1st gen. immigrants from ME countries die off, and their children become comfortable in western society

For example, Mr. Nasrallah, Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Bin Laden all agree that it is the divine right of Islam to rule the entire world. They all agree that Sharia is the only law that is acceptable for governance. They all are extremely socially conservative. From these commonalities, it is likely that certain movements could coalesce, which ones might do so and when are up for debate, but as an analyst these potentialities must be considered.

I think a lot of the radical islamic elements in Europe will die down with time, as 1st gen. immigrants from ME countries die off, and their children become comfortable in western society
I sincerely hope so, and I do believe that with proper integrationalist policies this will happen. But the governments of certain nations aren't going out of their way to make integration any easier, and they risk inadvertently propagating extremism by demanding assimilation or isolation.

For example, to claim that these organizations are based around certain, specific short term goals is partially true, but one need not look any further than Hiz'bo'allah to show the adaptability of these groups. Hiz'bo'allah was founded for the sole purpose of driving Israel from Lebanon, yet, after the Israeli withdrawl, Hiz'bo'allah continued onwards, with new, grander goals. They currently strive to establish their dominance in Lebanese policies, and to replace the current set of laws with Sharia.

These groups are very patient, and are willing to work in steps that may not show loads of progress, but, they believe in the inevitability of their cause. Quite unlike westerners, I might add.

I think a lot of the radical islamic elements in Europe will die down with time, as 1st gen. immigrants from ME countries die off, and their children become comfortable in western society
It will die out in time if we do not feed it, but the problem lies in a part of the 2nd and 3rd generation. Those that do not feel at home in their parental society nor in Western society...

This is the group that is in dire need of recognition and therefore more suceptible to radical philosophies...

we might reduce this tention by not forcing them to assymilate, by strengthening their ties with the parental society, and by promoting their integration in Western Society through education and job opportunities, and by fighting racism.

It will die out in time if we do not feed it, but the problem lies in a part of the 2nd and 3rd generation. Those that do not feel at home in their parental society nor in Western society...

This is the group that is in dire need of recognition and therefore more suceptible to radical philosophies...

we might reduce this tention by not forcing them to assymilate, by strengthening their ties with the parental society, and by promoting their integration in Western Society through education and job opportunities, and by fighting racism.

we see how multiculturalism failed in Europe with Muslims...

For example, Mr. Nasrallah, Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Bin Laden all agree that it is the divine right of Islam to rule the entire world.

I agree with you here, but I think you pulled a bunny out of a hat there. I dont remember either Nasrallah or Ahmadinejad saying that.

we see how multiculturalism failed in Europe with Muslims...


doesn't make multiculturalism impossible does it?

a little less racism a little more affirmative action-like policies

For example, to claim that these organizations are based around certain, specific short term goals is partially true, but one need not look any further than Hiz'bo'allah to show the adaptability of these groups. Hiz'bo'allah was founded for the sole purpose of driving Israel from Lebanon, yet, after the Israeli withdrawl, Hiz'bo'allah continued onwards, with new, grander goals. They currently strive to establish their dominance in Lebanese policies, and to replace the current set of laws with Sharia.

These groups are very patient, and are willing to work in steps that may not show loads of progress, but, they believe in the inevitability of their cause. Quite unlike westerners, I might add.

You might be right, but still many of these goals were not entirely novel.

Moreover, any organisation (this includes western organisations ;)) has one primary goal and that is survival. Take NATO for example; following the end of the Warschau pact it found itself new goals and even incorporated former warschau pact states...

These groups are all Islamist. Still many of them have quite different intepretations what an Islamic state should look like. And like the Arab Nationalists before, they likely do not want to share power with other groups...

The lebanon based Shi'a Hisbu-llah, has little in common with the egyptian sunni Muslim brotherhood...

I agree with you here, but I think you pulled a bunny out of a hat there. I dont remember either Nasrallah or Ahmadinejad saying that.
I've got video of both of them saying that.

we see how multiculturalism failed in Europe with Muslims...

What multiculturalism?!!

You mean the lipservice to multiculturalism in Europe...

And even that is rare these days

For example, Mr. Nasrallah, Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Bin Laden all agree that it is the divine right of Islam to rule the entire world. They all agree that Sharia is the only law that is acceptable for governance. They all are extremely socially conservative. From these commonalities, it is likely that certain movements could coalesce, which ones might do so and when are up for debate, but as an analyst these potentialities must be considered.

Perhaps but their view of Islam is radically different...

Especially Bin Laden is an outlier there
;)

Perhaps but their view of Islam is radically different...

Especially Bin Laden is an outlier there
;)
You'd be surprised, espescially given the language they use to describe their goals. It's very nearly identical. The primary difference is that bin Laden is far more incompetent with long-term planning and media relations than the other two.

Nah ... not really a threat. The West will be alive and well for centuries to come. If you feel threatened, they've won.

You'd be surprised, espescially given the language they use to describe their goals. It's very nearly identical. The primary difference is that bin Laden is far more incompetent with long-term planning and media relations than the other two.
What goals do you mean exactly, could you elaborate?

I am speaking of an Islamic state

What goals do you mean exactly, could you elaborate?

I am speaking of an Islamic state
I believe I already elaborated on their common goals in a previous post. If you would like to reference that post, feel free.

It's a simple question.

That's the problem. It is a simple question for a complex problem. Is militant islam a threat to the west? What a vague question.

I would have asked: Do you believe that terrorists allegedly inspired by Islamic fundamentalism are a sufficient threat to the safety of civilians in the US and EU to merit the current levels of policing and armed conflict that these two countries are involved in?

Whenever Bush or Blair climb into a car, there is the threat of death by car accident. The death of either of these two men would disrupt the political processes of the two countries being discussed.

Now, are car accidents a threat to the West?

It's a simple question.

That's the problem. It is a simple question for a complex problem. Is militant islam a threat to the west? What a vague question.

I would have asked: Do you believe that terrorists allegedly inspired by Islamic fundamentalism are a sufficient threat to the safety of civilians in the US and EU to merit the current levels of policing and armed conflict that these two countries are involved in?

Whenever Bush or Blair climb into a car, there is the threat of death by car accident. The death of either of these two men would disrupt the political processes of the two countries being discussed.

Now, are car accidents a threat to the West?

It's a simple question.

Luckily many of us do not answer this simplified shallow question of dk, but try to touch the deeper issues... Why don't you answer your better question for us?
;)

I like the idea of this thread. Maybe fewer people would spew out emotionally charged BS rhetoric if they were actually made accountable on some small level for it.

I've noticed a lot of the replies to the thread include phrases like "define '[insert word here]'" or "Christians are a bigger threat."

Talk about trying to dodge the question... Geez. Isn't it fascinating how tight the terminology has to be when people are afraid to commit to something? Isn't it great the way they will do anything to keep from being pinned down by semantics? And yet, it's their favorite tactic when debating against someone who tries to argue common sense over semantics.

Deep Kimchi's question was straightforward enough. Either Radical Islam threatens the west or it doesn't. If you want to get hung up on what sort of threat, exactly, they represent, then vote on the poll and elaborate below. is that so hard? Quit being so paranoid.

"Define sex." Said one President as he collectively insulted the intelligence of an entire nation.

Is Islamic Fundamentalism a threat? Yeah it is. On what level? Well one look at the news reels from that autumn day 5 years ago ought to make that clear enough. Look at the details of the plot that was just foiled in England. If that isn't clear enough, you're wearing blinders, and just so you know, they're not flattering at all.

I love the idea that Christianity is a greater threat than Radical Islam. That one almost makes milk shoot out of my nose. Isn't it great how a few nutcases who call themselves Christians (Namely KKK, white supremacists, etc) suddenly make ALL of Christianity suspect, but people will bend over backward to make it crystal clear that Islamic Fundamentalists and normal Muslims are not to be considered the same.

I can't help but wonder what sort of fantasyland people live in where they've worked themselves up to be more afraid of Christians than Fanatical Muslims. I guess those folks don't ride in airplanes.

Is it true that some of the damage done is by the very governments that are threatened? Well yeah. The Bill of Rights has taken a real beating over the last 5 years. I still blame Radical Islam and people who refues to open their eyes about it. Say what you want, but Politicians do what they do to win elections. They don't really care about being leaders or setting an example, they just want to keep the constituents happy so they can keep their slacker jobs in Congress. You want to get mad at the Patriot Act? Want to get mad at the action in Iraq? Look at the US Congess, baby. The President can't do squat without it. Blame Bush all you want, but there'd BE no Patriot Act if Congress hadn't made it law, and the troops can't stay longer in Iraq than 90 days without Congressional approval.

So, yeah, it's a threat, because they know how to scare people. that's why we call them "terrorists." They're doing a fine job of it, too.

Because so many people who deny it's a threat to the West later come back in other threads and deny they've ever said it, we're going to have to find out once and for all who believes it and who doesn't.

This is a public poll because of the constant denials.

Let's say the West is the EU and US.

"Threat" means that they have the intent to destroy the West, and are trying to act on it.
I answered no because you didn't provide the "other" option, which would allow me to say that it is only a threat because of intrusive foreign policies which don't respect the choices of other nations.

Is it a threat? Sure. Is it the most pressing threat? Fuck no. Is it a threat that will be best dealt with through force of arms? Holy gosh golly wow fuck no.


BINGO!

For example, Mr. Nasrallah, Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Bin Laden all agree that it is the divine right of Islam to rule the entire world. They all agree that Sharia is the only law that is acceptable for governance. They all are extremely socially conservative. From these commonalities, it is likely that certain movements could coalesce, which ones might do so and when are up for debate, but as an analyst these potentialities must be considered.

Well, they are socially conservative and agree that it is the divine right of Islam to rule al human beings. However the analogy between Ahmadinejad and Bin Laden stops there.

They have different interpretations of Islam: Qur'an, Hadith and Shari'a. Moreover they do not, and will not agree on who is entitled to speak on behalf of God...

Khomeini said: the shari'a can wait, for the Islamic republic is of primary importance...

These groups are competitors rather than natural allies

we see how multiculturalism failed in Europe with Muslims...
I'm not saying I disagree with you but...

How, exactly, did multiculturalism fail in Europe?

we see how multiculturalism failed in Europe with Muslims...


"Multiculturalism is a divisive force. One cannot uphold two sets of ethics or be loyal to two nations, any more than a man can have two masters. It perpetuates ethnic divisions because nationality is, in the long term, more about culture than ethics”: said Lord Tebbit. It could be argued that the experience of USA, with its hyphenated nationalities such as Italian-Americans, Greek-Americans and African-Americans proves Lord Tebbit wrong. Do you believe that it is practically not possible to derive strength from both cultures and that you have to choose one or the other? (http://website.lineone.net/~kala_uk/CultureDebate.htm)

I'm not saying I disagree with you but...

How, exactly, did multiculturalism fail in Europe?
Because the European governments insisted on assimilation rather than integration, that they claimed cultural superiority and promptly moved to isolate the immigrants from the rest of the population. Not only that, but the welfare states of Europe treated them like they were worthless and incapable of advancing themselves. They put them on the dole, and they became accustomed to it and they're now quite often the structurally unemployed. It's the governments of places like France that have fucked up.

I'm not saying I disagree with you but...

How, exactly, did multiculturalism fail in Europe?
Europe being one single state, culture and entity obviously...

I ask because a few people post here without wanting to be pinned down on their answer. They would rather castigate me for choosing a position, and then not want to choose any position themselves, although by opposing my position, they are taking one (which they vigorously deny).

Perhaps some of us do not view the world in such a binary way. There is usually a vast number of positions that can be taken in debate, or in real life. Why stop considering possibilities after you have reached two?

I vote yes. Militant Islam does pose a threat. I suspect, however, that DK's idea of militant Islam is incredibly wide.

we see how multiculturalism failed in Europe with Muslims...

And succeeded in Canada and the USA with people from all over the world!:)

Did anyone ever claim that it was a single group? It most certainly isn't, but it is a collection of related philosophies that could theoretically coalesce. Such a thing has happened in the past, and the potential threat that they should coalesce must be considered. To say that this aspect is a short term threat is a mistake, but it is a potential long term threat.That's my point though, that they currently aren't a single group, and so it seems silly to speak of them as though they are as opposed to undertaking policies designed to keep them from becoming a single group.

I love the idea that Christianity is a greater threat than Radical Islam. That one almost makes milk shoot out of my nose. Isn't it great how a few nutcases who call themselves Christians (Namely KKK, white supremacists, etc) suddenly make ALL of Christianity suspect, but people will bend over backward to make it crystal clear that Islamic Fundamentalists and normal Muslims are not to be considered the same.

I can't help but wonder what sort of fantasyland people live in where they've worked themselves up to be more afraid of Christians than Fanatical Muslims. I guess those folks don't ride in airplanes. Currently in the U.S., there are more radical Christians than radical Muslims. Therefore, it stands to reason that radical Christians pose the bigger threat.
I can't help but wonder what sort of fantasyland people live in where they've worked themselves up to be more afraid of Muslims than Fanatical Christians. I guess those folks don't go to abortion clinics, gay bars, or have some color of skin other than white.

I love the idea that Christianity is a greater threat than Radical Islam. That one almost makes milk shoot out of my nose.

To me, personally, it is. I'm sure that it is not so in other countries.


Isn't it great how a few nutcases who call themselves Christians (Namely KKK, white supremacists, etc) suddenly make ALL of Christianity suspect, but people will bend over backward to make it crystal clear that Islamic Fundamentalists and normal Muslims are not to be considered the same.

I certainly do think all of Christianity is suspect, just as all of any organized superstition is suspect, but that doesn't mean I feel that every single Christian is a direct threat to me. I simply feel that there are more Christians who are direct threats to me than there are Muslims who are direct threats to me. This is due largely to the simple numbers: there are more Christians in positions of power over me, or in positions where they might potentially interfere with my life, than there are Muslims.


I can't help but wonder what sort of fantasyland people live in where they've worked themselves up to be more afraid of Christians than Fanatical Muslims. I guess those folks don't ride in airplanes.

Either that, or "those folks" realize that they're more likely to be hit by lightning than killed in a plane crash caused by fanatical Muslims.

There are lots of horrible things that might, theoretically, happen to me. I simply don't have the time to be scared of all of them. Instead, I conserve my worry, and focus it upon those things which actually occur or are very likely to occur.


So, yeah, it's a threat, because they know how to scare people. that's why we call them "terrorists." They're doing a fine job of it, too.
I'm significantly more terrified by what the people in my own government are doing. What shall I call them, I wonder?

Currently in the U.S., there are more radical Christians than radical Muslims. Therefore, it stands to reason that radical Christians pose the bigger threat.
I can't help but wonder what sort of fantasyland people live in where they've worked themselves up to be more afraid of Muslims than Fanatical Christians. I guess those folks don't go to abortion clinics, gay bars, or have some color of skin other than white.

Jello Biafra, I would like to sincerely thank you for making my point for me. I'd shake your hand if you were here.

Has there been a mass killing of abortion clinic patrons that I haven't heard of? No. Has there been a slaughter of thousands of homosexuals in acts of terrorism that somehow failed to make news? No. Do Christians systematically muder minorities, or is it just racists?

And yet you argue that somehow there is a greater threat to your personal safety from radical Christians than from radical Muslims, who have already killed thousands of Americans, on U.S. soil, in just the last five years, and were foiled from killing several hundred more on their way to U.S. soil.

now, because I kn ow how people love to twist argumens around, I'm going to add this paragraph to point out that I'm well aware that there are acts of violence against homosexuals, against the practicioners at abortion clinics, and against racial minorities. I point out, however, that the body count from all of those colelctively doesn't even begin to approach that of the victims of Islamo-terrorism. I would also point out that most such crimes are carried out by individuals who do not represent the majority, or aren't motivated by religion at all. (The majority of far-right Christians do oppose homosexuality and abortion, but do not support violence as a solution.)

And no, Timothy McVeigh did not act in the name of Christianity. His crime was political, not religious zealotry.

Jello Biafra, I would like to sincerely thank you for making my point for me. I'd shake your hand if you were here.

Has there been a mass killing of abortion clinic patrons that I haven't heard of? No. Has there been a slaughter of thousands of homosexuals in acts of terrorism that somehow failed to make news? No. Do Christians systematically muder minorities, or is it just racists?

And yet you argue that somehow there is a greater threat to your personal safety from radical Christians than from radical Muslims, who have already killed thousands of Americans, on U.S. soil, in just the last five years, and were foiled from killing several hundred more on their way to U.S. soil.

now, because I kn ow how people love to twist argumens around, I'm going to add this paragraph to point out that I'm well aware that there are acts of violence against homosexuals, against the practicioners at abortion clinics, and against racial minorities. I point out, however, that the body count from all of those colelctively doesn't even begin to approach that of the victims of Islamo-terrorism. I would also point out that most such crimes are carried out by individuals who do not represent the majority, or aren't motivated by religion at all. (The majority of far-right Christians do oppose homosexuality and abortion, but do not support violence as a solution.)

And no, Timothy McVeigh did not act in the name of Christianity. His crime was political, not religious zealotry.

your religion is more of threat than my religion. meh.

And no, Timothy McVeigh did not act in the name of Christianity. His crime was political, not religious zealotry.
He actually acted in the name of the Branch Davidians who were killed at Waco, a group that can only be called Christians in the most remote sense.

To me, personally, it is. I'm sure that it is not so in other countries.

Sounds like paranoia to me, or has a band of Christian militants threatened your life recently? On the other hand, there are terrorist leaders in the Middle East who have called upon you, as a westerner, to convert to Islam or die.


I certainly do think all of Christianity is suspect, just as all of any organized superstition is suspect, but that doesn't mean I feel that every single Christian is a direct threat to me. I simply feel that there are more Christians who are direct threats to me than there are Muslims who are direct threats to me. This is due largely to the simple numbers: there are more Christians in positions of power, or in positions where they might potentially interfere with my life, than there are Muslims.

What sort of threat do they represent? Threat to your life? Freedom? Safety? And are such threats based upon religious presmises, or a politician's thirst for control?


Either that, or "those folks" realize that they're more likely to be hit by lightning than killed in a plane crash caused by fanatical Muslims.


Lightning does not target them for failing to convert to Islam.


There are lots of horrible things that might, theoretically, happen to me. I simply don't have the time to be scared of all of them. Instead, I conserve my worry, and focus it upon those things which actually occur or are very likely to occur.
That's perfectly reasonable. Doesn't really address the issue, but okay.


I'm significantly more terrified by what the people in my own government are doing. What shall I call them, I wonder?
Call them whatever you want, then on Election Day, don't vote for them.

He actually acted in the name of the Branch Davidians who were killed at Waco, a group that can only be called Christians in the most remote sense.

yay, semantics! His crime was not based on zealotry, but in the name of a group of people whom he felt were murdered by a corrupt Government. Not the same thing, no matter how you parse it.

your religion is more of threat than my religion. meh.

A completely baseless remark, considering neither of us knows the others' religion.

A completely baseless remark, considering neither of us knows the others' religion.

I was referring to the mud slinging going on regarding which religion is responsible for terrorism, neither of them are

Jello Biafra, I would like to sincerely thank you for making my point for me. I'd shake your hand if you were here.

Has there been a mass killing of abortion clinic patrons that I haven't heard of? No. Has there been a slaughter of thousands of homosexuals in acts of terrorism that somehow failed to make news? No. Do Christians systematically muder minorities, or is it just racists? Why are you focused on one single instance of mass slaughter as opposed to the dozens of individual killings?

And yet you argue that somehow there is a greater threat to your personal safety from radical Christians than from radical Muslims, who have already killed thousands of Americans, on U.S. soil, in just the last five years, and were foiled from killing several hundred more on their way to U.S. soil.

now, because I kn ow how people love to twist argumens around, I'm going to add this paragraph to point out that I'm well aware that there are acts of violence against homosexuals, against the practicioners at abortion clinics, and against racial minorities. I point out, however, that the body count from all of those colelctively doesn't even begin to approach that of the victims of Islamo-terrorism. I disagree; the body count of gays, abortionists, and blacks murdered by Christians for religious reasons in the U.S. is greater than the number of people murdered by Muslims for religious reasons in the U.S.

I would also point out that most such crimes are carried out by individuals who do not represent the majority, or aren't motivated by religion at all. (The majority of far-right Christians do oppose homosexuality and abortion, but do not support violence as a solution.)The majority of Muslims aren't terrorists, either, what's your point?

I was referring to the mud slinging going on regarding which religion is responsible for terrorism, neither of them are

Ah. I misunderstood the meaning behind your statement. My bad.

I would also point out that most such crimes are carried out by individuals who do not represent the majority, or aren't motivated by religion at all. (The majority of far-right Christians do oppose homosexuality and abortion, but do not support violence as a solution.)


And you are suggesting that the majority of Muslims do support violence as a solution? Really?

Of course it's a threat! It's a backward, hateful, and repressive ideology whose sole purpose is to subject the world to their version of Islamic law and beliefs and eventually eradicate all other religions and people who oppose them. They will kill anyone who opposes them and will kill anyone who refuses to submit to their demands. They place no value on human life and have no compulsions against using the most brutal methods to achieve their ends and stand in opposition to anyone who believes in human dignity, religious freedom, or multiculturalism. They're as bad as the Inquisitors of the Middle Ages but with automatic weapons, modern technology and billions in funding to back them up.

Is it the biggest threat to the world? Absolutely not. But it is dangerous, and it does pose a threat not just to the West, but anyone who isn't a follower of militant Islam.

I feel the same about any militant group, but militant Islam is currently the most powerful and most widespread problem of religious militarism in the world today. They're all threats, but this one is the biggest.

Gosh, DK, do you feel much like a fool yet? Looks like I was right, and a majority of NSers DO NOT think (as you have tried to claim in other threads) that militant Islamic fundamentalism poses no threat to ... I'll say "us" for the moment, since your definition of "the West" is so open to question. At any rate, a majority of NSers are not, so far, jumping at the opportunity to claim that they do, so your claims that so many "others" go around declaring that there is no threat looks even more like BS than it did before.

Now that we've cleared that up, let's take a look at this so-called poll of yours:

(1) Your use of the term "militant Islam" is misleading, because everyone who has ever read your posts on the subject knows that you make no distinction between militant Islam and Islam in general. Just because people will say, quite honestly, that militant Islam poses a threat does not mean that any of us agrees with you in your bigotry and hatred against Muslims of all stripes.

(2) Your use of the term "the West" is misleading, too. Where the hell is "the West," eh? West of what? There is only one context in which you use "the West," and that is a cultural one. So what you are doing here is casting this as a cultural conflict, as if no one in "the West" is a Muslim, and as if all of Islam is not only somewhere else, but also militant and therefore a threat -- which is, of course, your true position which you are trying to hide with your misleading use of terms (see (1) above). Your problem is the same as it's always been -- that "the West" is not a homogeneous mass of cultural clones who all follow the same norms and who therefore can consistently identify themselves as being different from Islam.

(3) And finally, that "embarrassed" option is a flamebaiting attack on poll respondents, even before they respond, showing the shallow, childish petulance of your entire argument.

I voted yes, but that's because by belief is much broader.

I believe that any non Government Militant group is a threat to anyone. period.

Sounds like paranoia to me, or has a band of Christian militants threatened your life recently?

Well, I have been physically threatened by radical Christians, but that's actually not what I was talking about.

I consider radical Christians to pose much more of a potential threat to my way of life than radical Muslims. Of course, I feel that radical Muslims pose virtually no threat to me whatsoever, so I also feel that crazy postal employees are a greater threat to me than radical Muslims.


On the other hand, there are terrorist leaders in the Middle East who have called upon you, as a westerner, to convert to Islam or die.

Meh. There are Christian religious leaders in my country who call upon me to convert to Christianity or die. There are Christians in my own government who have openly stated that I should not be considered a citizen of my nation, that I should not have my civil rights respected by the government, and that I am not entitled to equal protection under the law.

The crazy Muslims can say what they want, and it has no impact on my life. When the crazy Christians in my government say these things, they have the power to actually influence my life and impose their beliefs on me.


What sort of threat do they represent? Threat to your life?

Sometimes, though very rarely. I've only felt my life was in danger on one occasion, when I was being physically threatened. Normally I do not feel that the radical Christians in my country are actively trying to kill me.


Freedom?

Absolutely. In my lifetime, radical Christians have taken freedoms from me several times. They continue to try to do so in many arenas.


Safety?

Absolutely. My health and safety have already suffered on several occasions due to the actions of radical Christians.


And are such threats based upon religious presmises, or a politician's thirst for control?

According to the radical Christians who have helped to take my freedoms and who have attempted to harm me, they are motivated by their religious beliefs. I have no more reason to doubt them than I have to doubt the religious motives behind the actions of radical Muslims.


Lightning does not target them for failing to convert to Islam.

So? Dead is dead. I'm more likely to be maimed and/or killed in a car accident than by radical Muslims, so I worry more about that. I'm more likely to be killed by a romantic partner than by a radical Muslim stranger, so I worry more about that. I'm more likely to be raped by somebody I know than I am to be attacked in any way by a stranger who is Muslim, so I worry more about that.


That's perfectly reasonable. Doesn't really address the issue, but okay.

It directly addresses the issue. Radical Muslims are, statistically, less of a danger to me than riding in a car to work. Radical Muslims are, statistically, less dangerous to me than lightning. Why should I be wetting my bed at the thought of the evil Muslims, when they are less threat to me than the weather?

It directly addresses the issue. Radical Muslims are, statistically, less of a danger to me than riding in a car to work. Radical Muslims are, statistically, less dangerous to me than lightning. Why should I be wetting my bed at the thought of the evil Muslims, when they are less threat to me than the weather?
Probably depends on where you live. If you lived in Tehran, or Lahore, your life wouldn't be worth a penny.

Why are you focused on one single instance of mass slaughter as opposed to the dozens of individual killings?
Because dozens of individual killings are committed by small groups or indepentent individuals whose motives and rationale are either unknown or vary wildly. They act alone, they act usually impulsively, and they aould be condemned by their neighbors and community for their actions.

By contrast, mass killings in the name of a religion are, by definition, acts of terrorism by religious extremists. They can't happen without a large amount of support, resources and knowledge of a large group of individuals who represent a belief system in these cases.

You just can't compare an attack like 9/11 to a long list of individual crimes. They're not the same.


I disagree; the body count of gays, abortionists, and blacks murdered by Christians for religious reasons in the U.S. is greater than the number of people murdered by Muslims for religious reasons in the U.S.
Is that so? I doubt that very much. There are 3,000 dead Americans thanks to Radical Islam in just the last 5 years. Beat that.

The majority of Muslims aren't terrorists, either, what's your point?
My point is that terrorists attacks of that nature can't be carried out without the assistance and complacency of a LARGE number of people who either support the action or are indifferent to it. Religious-bases crimes that are carried out in this country because of some version of Christian belief aren't even in that ballpark.

Probably depends on where you live. If you lived in Tehran, or Lahore, your life wouldn't be worth a penny.
Really? Wow, that's an insight, that is.

No shit, if any of us lived in Tehran, then fundamentalist Islam would be an issue for us. But since we live in the US, where fundamentalist Christians are trying to force their scripture into legislation, gosh, I guess fundamentalist Christianity more of an issue for us.

You seem to have a real problem with the concept of "relevance."

Is that so? I doubt that very much. There are 3,000 dead Americans thanks to Radical Islam in just the last 5 years. Beat that.Of course, if you're going to pick a time frame that's convenient for you, that's fine. How many have died in the U.S. due to radical Islam in the past 3 years? How about radical Christianity?

Because dozens of individual killings are committed by small groups or indepentent individuals whose motives and rationale are either unknown or vary wildly. They act alone, they act usually impulsively, and they aould be condemned by their neighbors and community for their actions.

By contrast, mass killings in the name of a religion are, by definition, acts of terrorism by religious extremists. They can't happen without a large amount of support, resources and knowledge of a large group of individuals who represent a belief system in these cases.

You just can't compare an attack like 9/11 to a long list of individual crimes. They're not the same.

My point is that terrorists attacks of that nature can't be carried out without the assistance and complacency of a LARGE number of people who either support the action or are indifferent to it. Religious-bases crimes that are carried out in this country because of some version of Christian belief aren't even in that ballpark.Why is one terrorist attack by 30 people somehow worse than 30 terrorist attacks each by one person? It seems to me that the latter is more of an example of an epidemic problem than the former.

Really? Wow, that's an insight, that is.

No shit, if any of us lived in Tehran, then fundamentalist Islam would be an issue for us. But since we live in the US, where fundamentalist Christians are trying to force their scripture into legislation, gosh, I guess fundamentalist Christianity more of an issue for us.

You seem to have a real problem with the concept of "relevance."

I guess you have a real problem with reading their plans, goals, and aspirations.

They want to destroy the West, or die trying.

I guess you have a real problem with reading their plans, goals, and aspirations.

They want to destroy the West, or die trying.

has anyone stated otherwise?

Why is one terrorist attack by 30 people somehow worse than 30 terrorist attacks each by one person? It seems to me that the latter is more of an example of an epidemic problem than the former.

I think it's the idea that 'there's more where that came from' that's the problem New Bretonnia is clarifying.

An organisation dedicated to killing/blowing things up is much more dangerous than a bunch of individual crazies dedicated to same; they can organise funding, resources, institute training, share intelligence, tactics, support one another - and recruit.

Is it a threat? Sure. Is it the most pressing threat? Fuck no. Is it a threat that will be best dealt with through force of arms? Holy gosh golly wow fuck no.
Bottle said all I had to say on the subject.

Well, I have been physically threatened by radical Christians, but that's actually not what I was talking about.
Oh okay you can change your story, then. Let's see...


I consider radical Christians to pose much more of a potential threat to my way of life than radical Muslims. Of course, I feel that radical Muslims pose virtually no threat to me whatsoever, so I also feel that crazy postal employees are a greater threat to me than radical Muslims.
Well maybe you live in the middle of nowhere, and aren't likely to ever be in the wrong place at the wrong time if Al Qaeda and their ilk get their way. I bet most of the folks who worked in the World Trade Center felt the same way you do on 10 September, 2001.

I work just outside of Washington, DC. (By just outside I mean I can walk outside and see the Capitol building clearly from here.) To me, the idea of a terrorist getting a nuke or a dirty bomb into this area and setting it off is a real consideration.


Meh. There are Christian religious leaders in my country who call upon me to convert to Christianity or die.
Yeah? Name one.

There are Christians in my own government who have openly stated that I should not be considered a citizen of my nation, that I should not have my civil rights respected by the government, and that I am not entitled to equal protection under the law.
Because of what you believe? Name him/her. What did he/she say?


The crazy Muslims can say what they want, and it has no impact on my life. When the crazy Christians in my government say these things, they have the power to actually influence my life and impose their beliefs on me.
You might not see the impact, but that's hardly proof against it. crazy people from all walks of life have the power to change our lives, all they need are a few people that listen to them.


Sometimes, though very rarely. I've only felt my life was in danger on one occasion, when I was being physically threatened. Normally I do not feel that the radical Christians in my country are actively trying to kill me.

Absolutely. In my lifetime, radical Christians have taken freedoms from me several times. They continue to try to do so in many arenas.


Absolutely. My health and safety have already suffered on several occasions due to the actions of radical Christians.

According to the radical Christians who have helped to take my freedoms and who have attempted to harm me, they are motivated by their religious beliefs. I have no more reason to doubt them than I have to doubt the religious motives behind the actions of radical Muslims.

Care to elaborate on any of these?


So? Dead is dead. I'm more likely to be maimed and/or killed in a car accident than by radical Muslims, so I worry more about that. I'm more likely to be killed by a romantic partner than by a radical Muslim stranger, so I worry more about that. I'm more likely to be raped by somebody I know than I am to be attacked in any way by a stranger who is Muslim, so I worry more about that.
All of which is perfectly reasonable and fine, and makes sense. However, does that change the worldwide reality of Islamic Extremism?


It directly addresses the issue. Radical Muslims are, statistically, less of a danger to me than riding in a car to work. Radical Muslims are, statistically, less dangerous to me than lightning. Why should I be wetting my bed at the thought of the evil Muslims, when they are less threat to me than the weather?
This thread isn't about making Islamic terrorism the #1 pritority for all individuals. It's about acknowledging that, from a worldwide frame of reference, it is a threat to the West. Don't confuse the issue. Statistically, I'm more likely to die in a car accident than I am to be killed by a lightning strike, but that doesn't mean I hang out in open fields during thunderstorms.

I think it's the idea that 'there's more where that came from' that's the problem New Bretonnia is clarifying.

An organisation dedicated to killing/blowing things up is much more dangerous than a bunch of individual crazies dedicated to same; they can organise funding, resources, institute training, share intelligence, tactics, support one another - and recruit.I don't know, it's not as though insanity (if that's what we're considering these Christian terrorists to be - insane) happens in a vacuum; something causes it. In addition, there certainly are Christian terrorist groups, such as the Army of God.

I think it's the idea that 'there's more where that came from' that's the problem New Bretonnia is clarifying.

An organisation dedicated to killing/blowing things up is much more dangerous than a bunch of individual crazies dedicated to same; they can organise funding, resources, institute training, share intelligence, tactics, support one another - and recruit.

Thank you, Maurisia. You put it way better than I did.

This thread isn't about making Islamic terrorism the #1 pritority for all individuals. It's about acknowledging that, from a worldwide frame of reference, it is a threat to the West. Don't confuse the issue. Statistically, I'm more likely to die in a car accident than I am to be killed by a lightning strike, but that doesn't mean I hang out in open fields during thunderstorms.

Exactly.

And, it appears that very few people who vote believe that there's no threat from militant Islam.

No party with any electable candidates can get up and say there's nothing to worry about and zero threat, because that would be the end of their political career. So, obviously, the vast majority of people agree in principle that militant Islam is a threat - however remote.

Of course, if you're going to pick a time frame that's convenient for you, that's fine. How many have died in the U.S. due to radical Islam in the past 3 years? How about radical Christianity?

Okay, I'll bite. In the last 3 years? Probably 0. How many would it be if the FBI, CIA, etc weren't ACTIVELY operating to prevent them? Hm. Dunno, but I bet it's a helluva lot higher than 0.

Longer timeframe? Sure. Go back 10 years. Go back as many as you want. How far back do you have to go before you finally manage to find over 3,000 clear-cut "in-the-name-of-Jesus" killings? Would you include the insane, or keep them in? Charles Manson count?

I don't know, it's not as though insanity (if that's what we're considering these Christian terrorists to be - insane) happens in a vacuum; something causes it. In addition, there certainly are Christian terrorist groups, such as the Army of God.
Are you asserting that Christianity itself is the source of the insanity?

How many aircraft has the Army of God hijacked? Oh, wait, maybe that frame of reference is too convenient for me. How many warships has it attacked? How many embassies has it destroyed? How many marine barracks has it blown up with a truck?

Or is the Army of God just a fringe group of loonies that drop pipe bombs off at abortion clinics?

Are you asserting that Christianity itself is the source of the insanity?

Are you asserting that Islam itself is the source of the insanity?

Are you asserting that Islam itself is the source of the insanity?
Yes.

Are you asserting that Islam itself is the source of the insanity?
Nice try. Read the posts.

Is it a threat? Sure. Is it the most pressing threat? Fuck no. Is it a threat that will be best dealt with through force of arms? Holy gosh golly wow fuck no.
I agree with you.

I'd imagine that black people, abortion doctors/patients, and homosexuals feel somewhat different about that.
It's not a matter of feeling. Attacks are documented so that their rates can be proven statistically.

If we're talking about threats, extreme Islam isn't even in my top ten. Extremist Christianity IS my top ten.
Extreme Christians are mostly disarmed. How are they any more than an annoyance?

Sorry, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince somebody that racism, anti-abortion violence, and homophobia still exist in America today and pose very real threats to the wellbeing of American citizens. I'm not going to waste my time listing all the specific ways in which racism, anti-choice fanaticism, and homophobia are directly linked to radical Christianity. If you can't be bothered to pick up a newspaper, you're certainly not going to bother to listen to me.
If you make facetious claims you have to prove them if someone calls you on it, or concede the point.

Racist rhetoric is not terrorism, and extreme Christians seem to deal almost exclusively in rhetoric these days.

Of course, it's not a credible threat.
DK said "trying" not "succeeding". Just because terrorists aren't and can't be successful, doesn't mean they're not a threat.

Oh I know your not I was just saying that if I had to assign blame that the West has brought a lot of it on themselves! Hence the threat.
You mean Iraq? I know, Bush is a good recruiting agent for Islamism.

The flip side is this--we can't destroy them either, unless we're willing to commit genocide and kill everyone in the area, militant or not.
Yes we can destroy them. By making their ideas look stupid and removing their raisons d'etre.

Because dozens of individual killings are committed by small groups or indepentent individuals whose motives and rationale are either unknown or vary wildly. They act alone, they act usually impulsively, and they aould be condemned by their neighbors and community for their actions.

By contrast, mass killings in the name of a religion are, by definition, acts of terrorism by religious extremists. They can't happen without a large amount of support, resources and knowledge of a large group of individuals who represent a belief system in these cases.

You just can't compare an attack like 9/11 to a long list of individual crimes. They're not the same.


Is that so? I doubt that very much. There are 3,000 dead Americans thanks to Radical Islam in just the last 5 years. Beat that.

My point is that terrorists attacks of that nature can't be carried out without the assistance and complacency of a LARGE number of people who either support the action or are indifferent to it. Religious-bases crimes that are carried out in this country because of some version of Christian belief aren't even in that ballpark.
Sorry to butt in, but I take exception to several of your points.

First of all, I cannot bring myself to ignore history and claim that just because large numbers of people have not been terrorized and murdered by Americans within America in the last 5 years, that means our violence is not comparable to that of terrorists motivated by Islam.

The fact is that racially motivated violence against blacks and, to a lesser extent, immigrants has, over just the post-slavery period, killed thousands of people -- way more than were killed on 9/11 -- in riots, lynchings, bombings, and individual attacks, most of which were, indeed, supported by "a LARGE number of people who either support the action or are indifferent to it." In fact, until the 1960s violence against blacks was supported, and the perpetrators protected, by various states' laws. You don't get much more public endorsement than that. Now consider the fact that most public advocates for racial segregation, and the violence that went with it, in the US claimed Christian and Biblical justification for it. Also consider that anti-immigrant violence was often religiously motivated, usually stemming from anti-Catholic prejudices among Protestants. Now consider that until very recently, and in some places still to this day, it was considered perfectly okay to discriminate on the basis of religion, so that Jews could be barred from joining sports clubs or getting teaching jobs. Now take this violence based on bigotry and justified by religious claims and apply it to gays, and you can easily see that both religiously motivated violence and publicly sanctioned violence are part and parcel of US culture. Just because no one in the US has so far attempted a demonstration of their hatreds on the scale of what al Qaeda likes to do, doesn't mean that their hatreds are not as great or as dangerous. Especially since they now have al Qaeda to show them how to pull off large attacks.

Second, your statement that "Religious-bases crimes that are carried out in this country because of some version of Christian belief aren't even in that ballpark" is disingenuous. The claimed justification for such crimes is exactly the same. To say that criminals who claim Christianity for their motivation are somehow less bad than criminals who claim Islam for their motiviation, just because the ones claiming Islam have been more successful recently, is short-sighted at best. As indicated above, the ones claiming Christianity have been that successful in the past and show no sign that they don't wish to be that successful again. Criminals who try to justify their crimes with religion are all the same, no matter who they are or what religion they are claiming. I say it's better to nip them all in the bud, before they get as successful as al Qaeda.

As for your implied argument that Islamic terrorists are so terrifyingly organized, more than any Christian criminals are or could ever be, I disagree as a factual issue. The fact is that Islamic terrorism is not a huge, organized, monolithic structure that spans all of the Muslim world like some kind of social agency. It is fragmented into many small groups, most of which pop in and out of existence, exchanging members back and forth with each other, faster than garage bands. Any five malcontents with a Whiz-Kid chemistry kit can make bombs and launch a terrorist "movement." They can do it even faster if at least one of the members is a trust fund kid. The success of al Qaeda in pulling off a large scale attack is unusual because bin Laden and his cohorts have been able to figure out how to herd all these gangs of cats while still letting them operate independently. This is why killing the al Qaeda leadership has had so little effect. Because the cells are not actually all part of one body run by one head. Now that they have established the model of how to do it, I am sure -- unhappily -- that we will see more of such attempts by different parties with varying agendas, including non-Muslim ones.

My point is that your whole understanding of what the enemy is and how it works is wrong. Thus, your whole understanding of the nature of the problem of terrorism and how to address it is also wrong. Al Qaeda is just the flavor of the moment on the terrorism menu. To identify it as The Problem and focus all our attention on them is to leave ourselves open and vulnerable to others, potentially much closer to home. In fact, right here at home and coming from among our own ranks. Timothy McVeigh is not an irrelevant example of what we should be mindful of, regardless of what his claimed motivations were. His methods are what count, not his excuses.

(1) Your use of the term "militant Islam" is misleading, because everyone who has ever read your posts on the subject knows that you make no distinction between militant Islam and Islam in general. Just because people will say, quite honestly, that militant Islam poses a threat does not mean that any of us agrees with you in your bigotry and hatred against Muslims of all stripes.

To be fair to DK, he is damned if he does and damned if he doesnt. If he had just put, "Is Islam a threat to the West",a much more revealing question in my opinion btw then as happened already, people would bitch and say what KIND of Islam? Therre are militant Muslims and non militant ones and the poll takers would demand a distinction to be made. Same with defining West. It would be better to let people decide for themselves what the words mean instead of trying to define them for them in my opinion. Just make a poll that says "Islam is a threat to the West" and "Islam is not a threat to the West" let people define those terms as they see fit. Polls are not discussion grps, they are made to be answered as stated and the interpretation of the question should be left to the poll taker and not debated.

Okay, I'll bite. In the last 3 years? Probably 0. How many would it be if the FBI, CIA, etc weren't ACTIVELY operating to prevent them? Hm. Dunno, but I bet it's a helluva lot higher than 0.And I highly doubt that nobody was killed in the U.S. in the name of Jesus in the past 3 years. Why aren't the FBI, CIA, working harder on that?

Longer timeframe? Sure. Go back 10 years. Go back as many as you want. How far back do you have to go before you finally manage to find over 3,000 clear-cut "in-the-name-of-Jesus" killings? Would you include the insane, or keep them in? Charles Manson count?I'm not sure. According to Wikipedia, in 1920, the KKK had an estimated 4,000,000 members. How many people could they kill?

Are you asserting that Christianity itself is the source of the insanity?No, but certain (incorrect) interpretations of it are, in the same way that certain (incorrect) interpretations of Islam are the source.

How many aircraft has the Army of God hijacked? Oh, wait, maybe that frame of reference is too convenient for me. How many warships has it attacked? How many embassies has it destroyed? How many marine barracks has it blown up with a truck?

Or is the Army of God just a fringe group of loonies that drop pipe bombs off at abortion clinics?And gay bars, and the Olympics...and there are similar groups that carry out lynchings in the name of Christianity, and there are other individuals who assault and murder for the same reason.
In addition, the pipe bombing of an abortion clinic isn't less important than the hijacking of aircraft, so I object to your usage of the word "just".

I don't know, it's not as though insanity (if that's what we're considering these Christian terrorists to be - insane) happens in a vacuum; something causes it.

I think you'll have to go into this in more detail for me - I'm not sure what relevance this has to the question 'is an organised group of extremists a bigger threat than an unaffiliated selection of lunatics?'

Are you saying that insanity originates from society? As a psychologist, I'll agree that there's an environmental/experiencial aspect to why people do the things they do, of course (including violent acts). But that's a very different proposition to an organised supportive group of people working together towards a goal - I don't think it's relevant at all, actually.

In addition, there certainly are Christian terrorist groups, such as the Army of God.

I can't say I've heard of them, but I'll certainly take it as read that they exist :) But what are their aims, and what is their capacity, where do they recruit from, how organised is their international funding, what is their support at home and abroad etc etc. I'm wondering if they can be said to be considered a global, international threat with global aims, in other words.

Thank you, Maurisia. You put it way better than I did.
Cheers!

This thread isn't about making Islamic terrorism the #1 pritority for all individuals. It's about acknowledging that, from a worldwide frame of reference, it is a threat to the West. Don't confuse the issue. Statistically, I'm more likely to die in a car accident than I am to be killed by a lightning strike, but that doesn't mean I hang out in open fields during thunderstorms.

Worth highlighting again.

/snipThank you, that's what I wanted to say, only you did it better than I did.

I guess you have a real problem with reading their plans, goals, and aspirations.

They want to destroy the West, or die trying.
Again, relevance?

Who cares what they say? Do you honestly think they could destroy "the West"? Give me a break. They might as well mean that they will destroy the compass direction "west" or die trying. :rolleyes:

I don't care what their so-called goals or aspirations are. They are just violent criminals, like all other violent criminals. I see no reason to treat them differently than I would treat isolated bands of abortion clinic bombers or, on the other organizational extreme, the Mafia. Their claims of why they commit their crimes mean no more to me than the buzzing of gnats.

I think you'll have to go into this in more detail for me - I'm not sure what relevance this has to the question 'is an organised group of extremists a bigger threat than an unaffiliated selection of lunatics?'

Are you saying that insanity originates from society? As a psychologist, I'll agree that there's an environmental/experiencial aspect to why people do the things they do, of course (including violent acts). But that's a very different proposition to an organised supportive group of people working together towards a goal - I don't think it's relevant at all, actually.But it is relevant; if insanity is at least partially the result of society, and there is a common trend of insanity that is Christian-motivated to kill people, then what does that say about that society?

I can't say I've heard of them, but I'll certainly take it as read that they exist :) But what are their aims, and what is their capacity, where do they recruit from, how organised is their international funding, what is their support at home and abroad etc etc. I'm wondering if they can be said to be considered a global, international threat with global aims, in other words.They don't need to be global and international to be a threat to the U.S.; a homegrown threat to the U.S. is sufficient.

Again, relevance?

Who cares what they say? Do you honestly think they could destroy "the West"? Give me a break. They might as well mean that they will destroy the compass direction "west" or die trying. :rolleyes:

I don't care what their so-called goals or aspirations are. They are just violent criminals, like all other violent criminals. I see no reason to treat them differently than I would treat isolated bands of abortion clinic bombers or, on the other organizational extreme, the Mafia. Their claims of why they commit their crimes mean no more to me than the buzzing of gnats.


Of course, then, you won't mind if they acquire nuclear weapons.

I guess those folks don't go to abortion clinics, gay bars, or have some color of skin other than white.
The fact that gay bars, abortion clinics and non-whites live and operate without constant fear of attack shows how impotent militant Christians are.

The fact that gay bars, abortion clinics and non-whites live and operate without constant fear of attack shows how impotent militant Christians are.

I'm trying to figure out how I've seen so many non-white Christians, including myself, actually...

Exactly.

And, it appears that very few people who vote believe that there's no threat from militant Islam.

No party with any electable candidates can get up and say there's nothing to worry about and zero threat, because that would be the end of their political career. So, obviously, the vast majority of people agree in principle that militant Islam is a threat - however remote.
Oh, so you're admitting that you were wrong, then, in acting as if a few nutters claiming that there is no threat somehow invalidates the arguments of those who think the Bush adminstration is addressing the threat in the wrong way?

Oh, so you're admitting that you were wrong, then, in acting as if a few nutters claiming that there is no threat somehow invalidates the arguments of those who think the Bush adminstration is addressing the threat in the wrong way?

Not admitting wrong, no. How did you arrive at that?

And I highly doubt that nobody was killed in the U.S. in the name of Jesus in the past 3 years. Why aren't the FBI, CIA, working harder on that?
Why do you doubt it?

Yes.
Bigot shows his colors yet again.

The fact that gay bars, abortion clinics and non-whites live and operate without constant fear of attack shows how impotent militant Christians are.I'm not suggesting that militant Christians aren't impotent; I am saying that I have even less fear of an attack from Muslims than I do from Christians. In other words, militant Islam is not strong enough to make me be in constant fear of an attack; I would say that anyone in the U.S. who feels that way is a bit paranoid.

Why do you doubt it?Because of the past history of Christian militants.

To be fair to DK, he is damned if he does and damned if he doesnt. If he had just put, "Is Islam a threat to the West",a much more revealing question in my opinion btw then as happened already, people would bitch and say what KIND of Islam? Therre are militant Muslims and non militant ones and the poll takers would demand a distinction to be made. Same with defining West. It would be better to let people decide for themselves what the words mean instead of trying to define them for them in my opinion. Just make a poll that says "Islam is a threat to the West" and "Islam is not a threat to the West" let people define those terms as they see fit. Polls are not discussion grps, they are made to be answered as stated and the interpretation of the question should be left to the poll taker and not debated.
Well, of course, he's damned both ways because his motivation for posing the question in the first place is deceptive. He is on record as a warmonger and a bigot against all Islam in general, without regard to actual guilt or innocence, so it is impossible for him to frame such a question in a truly objective way.

Bigot shows his colors yet again.
And how, precisely, does that make me a bigot?

it is impossible for him to frame such a question in a truly objective way.
Then it's impossible for you to frame any question you have an opinion on in any truly objective way.

QED.

But it is relevant; if insanity is at least partially the result of society, and there is a common trend of insanity that is Christian-motivated to kill people, then what does that say about that society?.

No, you're missing my point! Sorry, I should have been clearer.

In considering the problem 'is a lone crazy more or less of a risk than an extremist group', I'd argue that the mutual support in intelligence, funding, rseources etc. makes the organised group a much bigger threat. Where the extremism and insanity come from isn't relevent, it's their consequnses we're discussing.

Now, if you're going to talk about where the extremism and insanity respectively arise, that's a very different problem indeed. Insanity is partially genetic; but the form it takes is dependent on the culture the individual comes from. If you remove christianity from the mix, then the crazed person will still be crazed/violent, it's just that that craziness will be expressed differently, it will take a different form.

Extremism, on the other hand, is almost entirely dependent on the culture (or sub-culture, in the case of extreme islam and extreme christianity), no genetic component has been indicated.

They don't need to be global and international to be a threat to the U.S.; a homegrown threat to the U.S. is sufficient.

Well, yes, of course that's very true - I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about a threat to the West, though, not a minor internal threat to a single country within it - my bad :)

Of course, then, you won't mind if they acquire nuclear weapons.
Do you say such moronic things on purpose, or don't you realize how stupid you sound?

Would I care if isolated bands of abortion bombers got nukes? Would I care if the Mafia or a South American drug cartel got nukes? Would I care if a gang of terrorists got nukes?

Yes, of course, I would, you idiot, and for the exact same reasons.

:rolleyes:

Sorry to butt in, but I take exception to several of your points.
You're not butting in. Your post was serious and meant as an intelligent contribution to the discussion. That is always appreciated.


First of all, I cannot bring myself to ignore history and claim that just because large numbers of people have not been terrorized and murdered by Americans within America in the last 5 years, that means our violence is not comparable to that of terrorists motivated by Islam.

The fact is that racially motivated violence against blacks and, to a lesser extent, immigrants has, over just the post-slavery period, killed thousands of people ... Just because no one in the US has so far attempted a demonstration of their hatreds on the scale of what al Qaeda likes to do, doesn't mean that their hatreds are not as great or as dangerous. Especially since they now have al Qaeda to show them how to pull off large attacks.
You have some good points, but understand something... Nobody who advances the idea that Militant Islam is a clear and present threat to Western society is somehow ignoring the past. Of course racism and religious bigotry have been a serious problem in the U.S. (As it has been in virtually every country on earth.) We all know about slavery, the problems during the height of the civil rights movement, the bigotry against nationality as well as religion that was institutionalized during the 19th century... Yes, we know.

But all of that is a distraction from the main question: "Is radical Islam a threat to the West?" None of the facts of history referenced above impact this question. It is either true, or it is not(within whatever frame of reference you choose). The fact that lynch mobs operated unopposed in the South doesn't somehow reduce the level of evil or danger posed by Islamic terrorism. If you don't believe terrorism by Militant Islamics is a threat, fine. There's your opinion, but it's a mistake to confuse the issue by referencing mistakes of the past on the side of Christianity.

Otherwise, you may as well go all the way back to the Crusades and try to prove, somehow, that Radical Islam is somehow Christianity getting it's comuppance.

Now, you mention that now that Al-Qaeda has demonstrated how to commit acts of terrorism on a large scale, there's somehow a danger that militant Christians will now do it. Maybe, but until it happens, nothing is proven. If it does, we can revisit this conversation.


Second, your statement that "Religious-bases crimes that are carried out in this country because of some version of Christian belief aren't even in that ballpark" is disingenuous. The claimed justification for such crimes is exactly the same. To say that criminals who claim Christianity for their motivation are somehow less bad than criminals who claim Islam for their motiviation, just because the ones claiming Islam have been more successful recently, is short-sighted at best. As indicated above, the ones claiming Christianity have been that successful in the past and show no sign that they don't wish to be that successful again. Criminals who try to justify their crimes with religion are all the same, no matter who they are or what religion they are claiming. I say it's better to nip them all in the bud, before they get as successful as al Qaeda.

I never said that crimes in the name of Christianity are somehow "lwss bad" than those of Islam. My point is one of scale. You can compare the motivations all you want. They would be the same... But there is no precedent for 9/11 on the side of Christian fundamentalists. You said yourself that the methods count, not the motivations.


As for your implied argument that Islamic terrorists are so terrifyingly organized, more than any Christian criminals are or could ever be, I disagree as a factual issue.

Gotta interrupt you here. I never made such an assertion and I humbly submit that if it seems to be implied, then my point has been misunderstood. I know Islamic fundies aren't organized on that level. However, they are relatively consistent, and therefore more unified.[/quote]


Any five malcontents with a Whiz-Kid chemistry kit can make bombs and launch a terrorist "movement." They can do it even faster if at least one of the members is a trust fund kid.
And doesn't it say something about the nature of Christianity that because of this, there are no mass killings by militant Christians using such methods?
(Don't bother mentioning the IRA. That's a political movement, not a religious one. While it's true there is Catholic vs. Protestant fighting, the purpose of the IRA is to push away English power)


...I am sure -- unhappily -- that we will see more of such attempts by different parties with varying agendas, including non-Muslim ones.
That may be, but until it happens, it is purely conjecture.


My point is that your whole understanding of what the enemy is and how it works is wrong. Thus, your whole understanding of the nature of the problem of terrorism and how to address it is also wrong. Al Qaeda is just the flavor of the moment on the terrorism menu. To identify it as The Problem and focus all our attention on them is to leave ourselves open and vulnerable to others, potentially much closer to home.
Once again, the point of this thread isn't to suggest that it is THE problem we face, only that it is A problem. The magnitude of it is a matter of opinion to different people in different places, for obvious reasons.


In fact, right here at home and coming from among our own ranks. Timothy McVeigh is not an irrelevant example of what we should be mindful of, regardless of what his claimed motivations were. His methods are what count, not his excuses.
Of course he's irrelevant. He represents a group of people who are anti-Government based on more than just the incident at Waco. Ruby Ridge was an example of Government heavy-handedness that reulted in unjustified death, including that of a child. It is incidents like this that McVeigh intended to punish the Government for. The fact that the Branch Davidians killed at Waco were a religious sect is incidental.

I'm not suggesting that militant Christians aren't impotent; I am saying that I have even less fear of an attack from Muslims than I do from Christians. In other words, militant Islam is not strong enough to make me be in constant fear of an attack; I would say that anyone in the U.S. who feels that way is a bit paranoid.
The biggest attack ever in America by a militant Christian, if you can call McVeigh that, killed some 18 times less people than 9/11. Then why is it only a handful of people who believe that there is a greater threat from people like him than from militant Islamism? The latter has killed a far greater number of Americans in recent times than militant Christianity.

Because of the past history of Christian militants.
But if no cases have been reported, how is it logical to assume that attacks have happened? Do you think that fundies run like machines?

Not admitting wrong, no. How did you arrive at that?
Having trouble following your own argument? Let me walk you through it.

In another thread, you tried to invalidate my and others' arguments against Bush's anti-terror policies by bringing up someone else's supposed claim that terrorism poses no threat. No one in that thread had claimed that, and the person who you said did claim it was not participating in that thread, so there was no reason to bring it up, yet you tried to claim that it was a widespread viewpoint that mattered to the argument.

I challenged you on the claim that the viewpoint was widespread.

You set up this poll in this thread to prove the point.

The poll so far is proving that I am right and you are wrong.

And right here in this thread, in post you are so confused about, you are acknowledging that very few people hold the view that terrorism poses no threat.

Ergo, you admit you were wrong.

Well, of course, he's damned both ways because his motivation for posing the question in the first place is deceptive. He is on record as a warmonger and a bigot against all Islam in general, without regard to actual guilt or innocence, so it is impossible for him to frame such a question in a truly objective way.

Frankly i see as much bias from you in the last 2 sentences as i do in DK. A poll can ask a straight forward question and still get a semi valid and interesting answer regardless of DKs motivations or otherwise. How about stop worrying about his motivations and word the poll as i suggested, then people can debate thier own spins and interpretations till they explode. Id suggest making the poll "Islam is a threat to the West" "Islam is not a threat to the West" and for those that cant answer because in thier opinion there isnt enough information, "I dont know"

Do you say such moronic things on purpose, or don't you realize how stupid you sound?
Wow. You went pretty fast from methodical discussion to personal attacks.


Would I care if isolated bands of abortion bombers got nukes? Would I care if the Mafia or a South American drug cartel got nukes? Would I care if a gang of terrorists got nukes?

Are you suggesting that abortion bombers would use a nuclear device against an abortion clinic? Or the mafia to put out a hit? What would a drug cartel do with a nuke besides sell it?


Yes, of course, I would, you idiot, and for the exact same reasons.

:rolleyes:Don't call him an idiot. His question was valid.

And how, precisely, does that make me a bigot?
How does saying that Islam is the source of terroristic insanity make you a bigot? Remember, I am familiar with your arguments in favor of total war against Islam and forced sterilization of all Muslims. And here you are, yet again, identifying the religion as the target of your hostility. Yet you don't see how that makes you a bigot.

Wow. I'm starting to suspect that you may really be as dumb as you act.

Of course, if you're going to pick a time frame that's convenient for you, that's fine. How many have died in the U.S. due to radical Islam in the past 3 years? How about radical Christianity?


Does the daily deaths of US Soldiers in the fight against militant islamist in the last 3 years count?

(i hope this isnt double posted soemwhere else, forums buggy as hell and i cant figure out whats getting thru)

How does saying that Islam is the source of terroristic insanity make you a bigot? Remember, I am familiar with your arguments in favor of total war against Islam and forced sterilization of all Muslims. And here you are, yet again, identifying the religion as the target of your hostility. Yet you don't see how that makes you a bigot.

Wow. I'm starting to suspect that you may really be as dumb as you act.

Did I say, "Islam" or "Militant Islam"?

Oh, "Militant Islam".

But of course you are completely incapable of making the distinction.

Then it's impossible for you to frame any question you have an opinion on in any truly objective way.

QED.
A bigot who cannot follow long arguments would think that. But you are wrong, of course. Any opinionated person can easily frame a question in an objective way simply by acknowledging their own bias, stating it in advance of the question, defining their terms in advance of the question, and making an effort to include opposing views as options, without snarky remarks about people being "embarrassed" to have their beliefs known.

A bigot who cannot follow long arguments would think that. But you are wrong, of course. Any opinionated person can easily frame a question in an objective way simply by acknowledging their own bias, stating it in advance of the question, defining their terms in advance of the question, and making an effort to include opposing views as options, without snarky remarks about people being "embarrassed" to have their beliefs known.
I put that in there because some people said they couldn't answer for fear of being embarrassed.

And I highly doubt that nobody was killed in the U.S. in the name of Jesus in the past 3 years. Why aren't the FBI, CIA, working harder on that?
Because typically such episodes are investigated by local police, unless the crime crosses state lines, in which case teh FBI does become involved. Know why? because it's a hate crime/murder/assault, as opposed to terrorism. I trust you do know the difference.

I'm not sure. According to Wikipedia, in 1920, the KKK had an estimated 4,000,000 members. How many people could they kill?
If that number is accurate, then I am encouraged. There are a LOT more Islamic extremists than that in the world at large.

Doesn't it tell you something that there can BE 4,000,000 members of such an organization, and these days the only thing they do to get any media attention is appear on talk shows and hold rallies? I'd much rather have that than Jihad.


No, but certain (incorrect) interpretations of it are, in the same way that certain (incorrect) interpretations of Islam are the source.
Agreed


And gay bars, and the Olympics...and there are similar groups that carry out lynchings in the name of Christianity, and there are other individuals who assault and murder for the same reason.
In addition, the pipe bombing of an abortion clinic isn't less important than the hijacking of aircraft, so I object to your usage of the word "just".
Are you seriously telling me that you see no difference between the hijacking of an aircraft and a pipe bomb going off at an abortion clinic?

Again, relevance?

... Their claims of why they commit their crimes mean no more to me than the buzzing of gnats.

I'd like to see you walk up to a member of the FDNY and say that to his face.

Wow. You went pretty fast from methodical discussion to personal attacks.
Not a great leap when I talk to DK, sorry.

Are you suggesting that abortion bombers would use a nuclear device against an abortion clinic?
Christian religious lunatics are just as likely to use them as Islamic religious lunatics.

Or the mafia to put out a hit? What would a drug cartel do with a nuke besides sell it?
To someone who would use them.

Don't call him an idiot. His question was valid.
No, it was not valid. Only an idiot would imply, as DK did, that if I consider terrorists to be violent criminals, then I would be okay with them committing crimes and having weapons. It was a stupid comment, and that's how I called it.

No, you're missing my point! Sorry, I should have been clearer.

In considering the problem 'is a lone crazy more or less of a risk than an extremist group', I'd argue that the mutual support in intelligence, funding, rseources etc. makes the organised group a much bigger threat. Where the extremism and insanity come from isn't relevent, it's their consequnses we're discussing.

Now, if you're going to talk about where the extremism and insanity respectively arise, that's a very different problem indeed. Insanity is partially genetic; but the form it takes is dependent on the culture the individual comes from. If you remove christianity from the mix, then the crazed person will still be crazed/violent, it's just that that craziness will be expressed differently, it will take a different form.But that's the point, it isn't a lone crazy, it's dozens of crazies, operating independently, for the most part, of one another.

Well, yes, of course that's very true - I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about a threat to the West, though, not a minor internal threat to a single country within it - my bad :)Well, yes and no. I think the comment about Christianity being a bigger threat was intended solely for the U.S.; the thread itself does pertain to the West, though.

The biggest attack ever in America by a militant Christian, if you can call McVeigh that, killed some 18 times less people than 9/11. Then why is it only a handful of people who believe that there is a greater threat from people like him than from militant Islamism? The latter has killed a far greater number of Americans in recent times than militant Christianity.Perhaps because those handful of people are the people who tend to be targeted by militant Christianity?

But if no cases have been reported, how is it logical to assume that attacks have happened? Do you think that fundies run like machines?I didn't say that no cases were reported.

From Wikipedia:

"According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Hate Crime Statistics for 2004, there were 7,649 criminal hate crime incidents"
odds are that at least one of them was a murder that was Christian-motivated.

Does the daily deaths of US Soldiers in the fight against militant islamist in the last 3 years count?

(i hope this isnt double posted soemwhere else, forums buggy as hell and i cant figure out whats getting thru)It's hard to say. On one hand, if they weren't over there, they wouldn't be getting killed, however, they are over there and are being killed. With that said, not all of the soldiers are being killed by militant Muslims; the insurgency in Iraq is primarily motivated by something other than religion.

I'd like to see you walk up to a member of the FDNY and say that to his face.
Why? Do you think that the NY firefighter would be less broken up by the deaths of his colleagues if the planes had been crashed into the buildings for money rather than terrorism? Again, I maintain that I don't care why the crime was committed. Its heinousness stands independent of motive. There is no motive that could either add to or lessen the horror of the act.

Christian religious lunatics are just as likely to use them as Islamic religious lunatics.
Really? I find that remark fairly difficult to believe.

Militant Christians who bomb abortion clinics do it because they believe they're saving lives, and that if a couple practitioners, staff or patrons get hurt or killed in the process, the ends justify the means.

And you're suggesting that they would kill people by the thousands, and destroy a city to eliminate a couple of these.

I can't take this argument seriously.


To someone who would use them.
And who would use them? Militant Islamics! They have ALREADY SAID SO!

...or do you suppose they were just teasing?


No, it was not valid. Only an idiot would imply, as DK did, that if I consider terrorists to be violent criminals, then I would be okay with them committing crimes and having weapons. It was a stupid comment, and that's how I called it.
He was making a rhetorical point.

Because typically such episodes are investigated by local police, unless the crime crosses state lines, in which case teh FBI does become involved. Know why? because it's a hate crime/murder/assault, as opposed to terrorism. I trust you do know the difference.There's no difference between a hate crime and terrorism; what is the purpose of a hate crime if not to terrorize?

If that number is accurate, then I am encouraged. There are a LOT more Islamic extremists than that in the world at large.But not in the U.S.

Doesn't it tell you something that there can BE 4,000,000 members of such an organization, and these days the only thing they do to get any media attention is appear on talk shows and hold rallies? I'd much rather have that than Jihad.That was in 1920; you were asking for historical examples (you asked how many years one would have to go back to find 3,000 deaths by Christians.)

Are you seriously telling me that you see no difference between the hijacking of an aircraft and a pipe bomb going off at an abortion clinic?Other than the potential number of casualties, no.

Psst...in the post above this one, you are responding to Muravyets, not me.

It's hard to say. On one hand, if they weren't over there, they wouldn't be getting killed, however, they are over there and are being killed. With that said, not all of the soldiers are being killed by militant Muslims; the insurgency in Iraq is primarily motivated by something other than religion.

I was primarily thinking about Afghanistan, and the fact that we didnt have soldiers in Afghanistan EARLIER is what allowed terror camps to run rampant and allow the platform for the attacks on 9/11. So particularly in the case of Al Q and Afghanistan, its either soldiers killed there or citizens in the US. Pulling them out isnt a viable solution.

Why? Do you think that the NY firefighter would be less broken up by the deaths of his colleagues if the planes had been crashed into the buildings for money rather than terrorism? Again, I maintain that I don't care why the crime was committed. Its heinousness stands independent of motive. There is no motive that could either add to or lessen the horror of the act.

Less broken up? No. But that doesn't chance the relevance of the motive! Of COURSE the motive matters. How else can you work to prevent future occurances? Without looking at motive, how can you take steps to head off future crimes of that nature? Do you think the bombings of the planes leaving from London could have been foiled if the motivation were ignored?

There's no difference between a hate crime and terrorism; what is the purpose of a hate crime if not to terrorize?

A hate crime is the violent expression of an individual or a small group of individuals of their bigoted ideas.

terrorism is the act of killing groups of civilians in order to force political change.



But not in the U.S.
So what? How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Americans?


That was in 1920; you were asking for historical examples (you asked how many years one would have to go back to find 3,000 deaths by Christians.)

So there have been 3,000 deaths by Christian Militants in the US since 1920?


Other than the potential number of casualties, no.
As I said a couple posts ago... Christian militants who bomb abortion clinics believe they're saving lives by preventing abortions. Terrorists who hijack an airplane are killing for the sake of killing. And you see no difference. I find that unnerving.


Psst...in the post above this one, you are responding to Muravyets, not me.
Oops... sorry. I'll go back and correct it.:)

A hate crime is the violent expression of an individual or a small group of individuals of their bigoted ideas.

terrorism is the act of killing groups of civilians in order to force political change.I don't know of anyone who commits a hate crime who wouldn't like to see political change.

Nonetheless, DK's post said a threat, not a terrorist threat; the threat of hate crimes is still a threat.

So what? How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Americans?So the logistics of getting 4,000,000 militant Muslims over here are highly difficult.

So there have been 3,000 deaths by Christian Militants in the US since 1920?Most likely at least that, yes. As I said, how many people could 4,000,000 people kill?

As I said a couple posts ago... Christian militants who bomb abortion clinics believe they're saving lives by preventing abortions. Terrorists who hijack an airplane are killing for the sake of killing. And you see no difference. I find that unnerving.I don't believe that the terrorists are killing solely for the sake of killing. Osama bin Laden gave 3 reasons why he masterminded the Sept. 11th attacks. One of them was how the U.S. handled the first Gulf War. If the U.S. hadn't botched that, lives would have been saved.

Nonetheless, is killing someone because you believe they will possibly commit a crime in the future is not more noble than killing someone for the sake of killing them.

Perhaps because those handful of people are the people who tend to be targeted by militant Christianity?
So you're willing to abandon objective truth in order to highlight your victimhood? The majority of people are, or feel themselves to be, more of a target for extreme Islam than extreme Christianity. Thus, extreme Islam is a greater threat to society.

I didn't say that no cases were reported.

From Wikipedia:

"According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Hate Crime Statistics for 2004, there were 7,649 criminal hate crime incidents"
odds are that at least one of them was a murder that was Christian-motivated.
I agree. It still doesn't prove that extreme Christians pose a bigger threat. Mainly because these hate crimes were committed by individuals rather than groups.

the insurgency in Iraq is primarily motivated by something other than religion.
US soldier deaths don't count as Islamist terrorist victims. They're legitimate targets.

I don't know of anyone who commits a hate crime who wouldn't like to see political change.

Nonetheless, DK's post said a threat, not a terrorist threat; the threat of hate crimes is still a threat.
So how does that detract from the threat posed by militant Islam?


So the logistics of getting 4,000,000 militant Muslims over here are highly difficult.
So what? They obviously don't need to.


Most likely at least that, yes. As I said, how many people could 4,000,000 people kill?
They COULD kill a lot. But you don't know how many they DID. You're making an assumption and you want that to convince us?


I don't believe that the terrorists are killing solely for the sake of killing. Osama bin Laden gave 3 reasons why he masterminded the Sept. 11th attacks. One of them was how the U.S. handled the first Gulf War. If the U.S. hadn't botched that, lives would have been saved.
Whose lives were he trying to save by killing them, then?


Nonetheless, is killing someone because you believe they will possibly commit a crime in the future is not more noble than killing someone for the sake of killing them.
While I don't support murders for the sake of elimininating abortion, I'd much rather be surrounded by someone who thinks they're saving children than someone who kills them indiscriminately.

So you're willing to abandon objective truth in order to highlight your victimhood? The majority of people are, or feel themselves to be, more of a target for extreme Islam than extreme Christianity. Thus, extreme Islam is a greater threat to society.How is the truth objective if it's based upon what people 'feel themselves to be'?

I agree. It still doesn't prove that extreme Christians pose a bigger threat. Mainly because these hate crimes were committed by individuals rather than groups.How many of these individuals were Muslims committing hate crimes?
And again, I fail to see how several thousand crimes committed by individuals is not a threat.

As I said a couple posts ago... Christian militants who bomb abortion clinics believe they're saving lives by preventing abortions. Terrorists who hijack an airplane are killing for the sake of killing. And you see no difference. I find that unnerving.

Have to disagree with you here. Both groups are terrorists. Each group uses violence to promote thier own personal sets of beliefs. "Christian militants who bomb abortion clinics believe they're saving lives by preventing Abortions." strikes me as the classical,"We had to destroy the village to save it."
The only difference is there are very few abortion clinic bombers and potentially hundreds of thousands of Islamic suicide bombers.

How many of these individuals were Muslims committing hate crimes?
And again, I fail to see how several thousand crimes committed by individuals is not a threat.

Good question. how many?
And of those several thousand, how many were actually murders? A hate crime isn't necessarily one that results in death.

To the West? No, not particularly.

To the people in many Muslim-majority countries? Absolutely.

To the West? No, not particularly.

To the people in many Muslim-majority countries? Absolutely.
Well, I have to admit they excel at killing each other. Right now, in Iraq, they kill each other at a rate that far outstrips their killing of US soldiers.

So how does that detract from the threat posed by militant Islam?It doesn't detract from the threat posed by militant Islam, it's simply greater than it.

So what? They obviously don't need to.But there were 4,000,000 KKK members here.

They COULD kill a lot. But you don't know how many they DID. You're making an assumption and you want that to convince us?It's true that I am making an assumption, primarily because I don't see how it could possibly be less than 3,000, given that the most famous cases aren't isolated incidents.

Whose lives were he trying to save by killing them, then?Presumably it was meant to serve as a warning to not do it again in the future.

While I don't support murders for the sake of elimininating abortion, I'd much rather be surrounded by someone who thinks they're saving children than someone who kills them indiscriminately.<shrug> That's your preference; I see no difference. The ends do not justify the means, or make certain means more justifiable depending on what the ends are.

Good question. how many? And of those several thousand, how many were actually murders? A hate crime isn't necessarily one that results in death.The FBI's hate crime statistics don't say; are you arguing that there wasn't at least one murder done by a Christian for religious reasons?

Frankly i see as much bias from you in the last 2 sentences as i do in DK. A poll can ask a straight forward question and still get a semi valid and interesting answer regardless of DKs motivations or otherwise. How about stop worrying about his motivations and word the poll as i suggested, then people can debate thier own spins and interpretations till they explode. Id suggest making the poll "Islam is a threat to the West" "Islam is not a threat to the West" and for those that cant answer because in thier opinion there isnt enough information, "I dont know"
(A) DK's motivations in framing the poll the way he did are relevant, if only to serve to alert others to the bias they are dealing with.

(B) If we frame the question as you suggest, the results will be entirely different.

"Is Islam a threat to the West?" Answer: No.

"Do terrorists who have threatened the West pose an actual threat to western nations?" Answer: Yes.

"Is militant Islam a threat to the West?" Answer: Define your terms. What constitutes "militant Islam"? There are militant Islamic groups that pose no threat to "the West," such as the PLO, which kept its attacks within a set geographic area. The PLO never attempted to bomb the US or Europe, yet they are definitely militants, Islamic, and a terrorist group. Yet they do not pose a threat to the West.

DK fails to define his terms. His own answer of "Yes" to the question of whether it was implied that Islam is the source of the insanity [of terrorism] is evidence that he defines "militant Islam" to include all of Islam. This is why his bias matters.

Good question. how many?
And of those several thousand, how many were actually murders? A hate crime isn't necessarily one that results in death.

I personally know of one... a good friend of mine (A Sikh who ran a convenience store by my work) was shot in the back of the head a couple days after 9/11. It wasn't a robbery.

And in the news there were many instances of hate crimes being commited against middle easterners daily... remember hearing about those guys being run down by people in cars? Thats just one instance.

I worked with a few middle eastern men who were telling me of dirty looks and drive by threats they would get, years after 9/11.

So you're willing to abandon objective truth in order to highlight your victimhood? The majority of people are, or feel themselves to be, more of a target for extreme Islam than extreme Christianity.

Given that the majority of Americans are Christian, is that really surprising? I'm sure that Muslims feel a bit more put-off by radical Christianity than by fellow Muslims.

As somebody who is neither Muslim nor Christian, I regard radical Christians as more of a direct threat to me and my way of life than I do radical Muslims. I think that is a different matter than if you asked a Christian or a Muslim to rate their personal sense of threat from the radical fringes of the other religion.

Have to disagree with you here. Both groups are terrorists. Each group uses violence to promote thier own personal sets of beliefs. ...
Of course they do, I never said otherwise. I am saying, that they're not morally equivalent. As I said in a recent post, abortion clinic bombers believe they're saving children. Islamic terrorists don't mind killing children.


The only difference is there are very few abortion clinic bombers and potentially hundreds of thousands of Islamic suicide bombers.
Heck, that statement is a good support for my point, anyway.

DK fails to define his terms. His own answer of "Yes" to the question of whether it was implied that Islam is the source of the insanity [of terrorism] is evidence that he defines "militant Islam" to include all of Islam. This is why his bias matters.
Bullshit. The terms were defined.

And I do not define militant Islam as "all of Islam".

Go back and try again.

Of course they do, I never said otherwise. I am saying, that they're not morally equivalent. As I said in a recent post, abortion clinic bombers believe they're saving children. Islamic terrorists don't mind killing children.

Islamic terrorists often believe they are saving children. Abortion clinic bombers don't mind killing somebody's children, so long as those children happen to work at reproductive health clinics.

Both groups are willing to kill somebody else's children in order to protect their own.

Islamic terrorists often believe they are saving children. Abortion clinic bombers don't mind killing somebody's children, so long as those children happen to work at reproductive health clinics.

Both groups are willing to kill somebody else's children in order to protect their own.
Ummm.... yeah...
http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/mirror/jun2002/8/9/000DED6F-4642-1D1C-BF7580BFB6FAFE6C.jpg

It doesn't detract from the threat posed by militant Islam, it's simply greater than it.
You're stating the point of the debate.


But there were 4,000,000 KKK members here.

It's true that I am making an assumption, primarily because I don't see how it could possibly be less than 3,000, given that the most famous cases aren't isolated incidents.
That's pure conjecture.


Presumably it was meant to serve as a warning to not do it again in the future.

<shrug> That's your preference; I see no difference. The ends do not justify the means, or make certain means more justifiable depending on what the ends are.

Would an abortion clinic bomber kill you, right now, as you sit at that computer, if he could?

No.

Would an islamic terrorist?

You better believe he would.

US soldier deaths don't count as Islamist terrorist victims. They're legitimate targets.

What does legitimate target mean exactly? Anyone who is attacking a US Soldier who is in Afghanistan by the invite of a legitimate government is guilty of a crime. Not given a free pass cause hes a "legitimate target."

I personally know of one... a good friend of mine (A Sikh who ran a convenience store by my work) was shot in the back of the head a couple days after 9/11. It wasn't a robbery.

And in the news there were many instances of hate crimes being commited against middle easterners daily... remember hearing about those guys being run down by people in cars? Thats just one instance.

I worked with a few middle eastern men who were telling me of dirty looks and drive by threats they would get, years after 9/11.

Yes, public hysteria is an ugly thing, and there's no justification for it... But that doesn't mean they were crimes committed in the name of Christianity.

Islamic terrorists often believe they are saving children.

How do you figure? Islamic terorrists do what they do because they think they'll be rewarded by their god for their actions. They're not about saving their children. They SEND in their children as suicide bombers in Israel.

Ever hear about the specialist units in the Iran army when fighting against Iraq? They were composed entirely of youth whose job was to clear minefields to open the way for the soldiers.


Abortion clinic bombers don't mind killing somebody's children, so long as those children happen to work at reproductive health clinics.
You do understand that when I say "children" I mean kids, right? Or is this semantic quibble your idea of a valid argument?


Both groups are willing to kill somebody else's children in order to protect their own.
Militant Christians=kill adults to protect children
Militant Islamics=kill their own children, or your children to get into heaven

I wouldnt put it past the Phelps crowd to use a nuke in Hollywood or San Francisco. Or for Pat Robertsons followers to happily try to set off a nuke in Venezuela.


And when we say that militant muslims are "a threat to the west", do we mean that they are going to destroy the wests way of life or that we are in danger of extreemist muslims commiting some sort of violence even on a small scale?


Of course there is a chance of a terrorist attack in the US... we draw a lot of attention to ourselves with our foreign policies and presence in the middle east. But the greater majority of Muslims are generally not on a mission to make the whole world Muslim I am sure. And there is no way a few terror attacks are going to accomplish this - especially with the majority of Muslims condemning these acts pubically everytime it happens (and they do).

The west is under greater attack by driving under the influence, hate crimes based on race/sexuality, heart disease, cancer, hunting accidents (lol).

ANd lets make something clear (yet again as it never seems to sink in): Saying that we have more than just Muslim extreemists to worry about or that oru way of life is not threatened by Muslim extreemists, is not to say that we shouldnt take action against them (although I don't think bombing a country back to the stone age is going to accomplish anything positive).

OH and I read earlier someone saying that Tim McVeigh may be a christian but he was did what he did for political reasons so it cannot be compared in any way to what Muslim terrorists are doing then several posts later they go on to say that terrorism is done in the name of making political change. So which is it? Religious goals or political change? You seemed to be saying it has to be one or the other.

Of course they do, I never said otherwise. I am saying, that they're not morally equivalent. As I said in a recent post, abortion clinic bombers believe they're saving children. Islamic terrorists don't mind killing children.


Your also trying to do something that is impossible. How do you weigh the moral equivelence of an islamic guy saying im doing X because allah told him and Christian guy saying im doing Y because god told him. The list of victims, children, innocents or otherwise is irrelevant. To Islamic guy, he is doing the 100% morally right thing and to the Christian guy he is doing the 100% morally right thing. They are both terrorists in the exact same way. To try to rate one as a greater or lesser terrorist or one having a greater or lesser morality because one flavor of what god told them is different is a lesson in utter futility.

You're stating the point of the debate.I said that militant Christians pose a greater threat than militant Muslims; this doesn't mean that the threat of certain militant Muslims is nonexistent, or that the threat of either group is significant.

That's pure conjecture.No more conjecture than it is to say that fewer than 3,000 people in the U.S. were killed by militant Christians because of Christianity.

Would an abortion clinic bomber kill you, right now, as you sit at that computer, if he could?

No.

Would an islamic terrorist?

You better believe he would.Possibly to the former, and not necessarily on the latter, depending on the circumstances. If the abortion clinic bomber knew that I was going to pay for my sister to have an abortion, for instance, then ze might. If the Islamic terrorist knew that there was nothing to gain by killing me, then ze might not.

Given that the majority of Americans are Christian, is that really surprising? I'm sure that Muslims feel a bit more put-off by radical Christianity than by fellow Muslims.

As somebody who is neither Muslim nor Christian, I regard radical Christians as more of a direct threat to me and my way of life than I do radical Muslims. I think that is a different matter than if you asked a Christian or a Muslim to rate their personal sense of threat from the radical fringes of the other religion.


Also I think that those of middle eastern origin (I won't say Muslims because I don't think most US Americans can tell the difference) are in more danger from whites in the US than vice versa.

How do you figure? Islamic terorrists do what they do because they think they'll be rewarded by their god for their actions. They're not about saving their children. They SEND in their children as suicide bombers in Israel.

Some do, yes. And some anti-abortionists use children as human shields, recruit children to their militant cause, and put children directly in harm's way for the sake of their agenda. So?

You also have to keep in mind that many religious people believe that the physical body is less important than the soul. For them, "saving children" may be as much about saving the souls of children as it is about saving physical living beings. Granted, this sounds like lunatic bullshit to me, but from their perspective they could very well be "saving" a child even if they kill its physical body.

I'm not saying I agree with these people, remember, I'm just saying that from each group's perspective they are "saving" their children.


Ever hear about the specialist units in the Iran army when fighting against Iraq? They were composed entirely of youth whose job was to clear minefields to open the way for the soldiers.

Yes, yes. I've heard horrid stories from all over the world. Assholes the world 'round will use children for terrible purposes. Muslims didn't invent this kind of crap, and they're certainly not the only ones doing it today.

Is it disgusting? You fucking bet. But, sadly, it's not remotely unique to radical Islam.


You do understand that when I say "children" I mean kids, right? Or is this semantic quibble your idea of a valid argument?

I understand that you were refering to children. However, you also said that radical anti-abortionists believe they are saving children. Human embryos and fetuses are not infants, toddlers, or young children, any more than human adults are. If embryos and fetuses can be dubbed "children," why not adult human beings who (in reality) actually are somebody's children?


Militant Christians=kill adults to protect children

The Christians we are talking about are not protecting children. Their actions do not save any lives at all, and actually cost the lives of many human beings. They may BELIEVE they are saving children, but they are incorrect in their belief. Even if you accept their assumption that an embryo or fetus is a human child, their actions actually increase the number of abortions that occur and thereby increase the number of "children" who are killed.


Militant Islamics=kill their own children, or your children to get into heaven
Everybody is somebody's child. I don't see why it should be acceptable to blow up an 18 year old because you believe it will save a 3 year old, if the opposite is not true. The value of a human life does not decrease the moment the human hits the age of majority.

I think a lot of the radical islamic elements in Europe will die down with time, as 1st gen. immigrants from ME countries die off, and their children become comfortable in western society

It's not the 1st gen. that are typically the radicals/fundamentalists. It's the 2nd and 3rd gen.

Did I say, "Islam" or "Militant Islam"?

Oh, "Militant Islam".

But of course you are completely incapable of making the distinction.
I already pointed out how you are being misleading when you use that phrase because you do not actually make a distinction between Islam and militant Islam.

Really? I find that remark fairly difficult to believe.

Militant Christians who bomb abortion clinics do it because they believe they're saving lives, and that if a couple practitioners, staff or patrons get hurt or killed in the process, the ends justify the means.

And you're suggesting that they would kill people by the thousands, and destroy a city to eliminate a couple of these.

I can't take this argument seriously.
I don't really care if you take it seriously or not. My point is that religious lunatics are all alike. Most radicals of all stripes, including religious ones, are not crazy enough to commit suicide, nor to think that they are immune to radiation. But lunatics are lunatics, and if they are religious -- well, let's just say that my personal experience with religious lunatics is such that I do think crazy religious people would nuke a city to accomplish whatever they think god wants them to. God telling you to stop [insert heinous sin here] is a pretty strong motivator, especially for a crazy person.

And who would use them? Militant Islamics! They have ALREADY SAID SO!

...or do you suppose they were just teasing?
You just insist on missing the point. Okay, let's flip DK's remark and put it to you this way: Would you be okay with a Mafia gang or Central American drug cartel getting a nuclear weapon?

No? Neither would I.

Would you be happy to see a nuclear weapon in the hands of a Mafia don or a drug cartel leader, just so long as he's not a radical Muslim?

No? Neither would I. In fact, I would dislike the idea of either a criminal gang or a terrorist gang having a nuke equally.

He was making a rhetorical point.
A dumb one.

Less broken up? No. But that doesn't chance the relevance of the motive! Of COURSE the motive matters. How else can you work to prevent future occurances? Without looking at motive, how can you take steps to head off future crimes of that nature? Do you think the bombings of the planes leaving from London could have been foiled if the motivation were ignored?
You haven't explained why you seemed to be trying to challenge me about something with that "say it to a FDNY firefighter" remark.

I'll ask you the same question in different words:

Would you be more upset to be blown up by a radical Islamic terrorist suicide bomber or a deranged non-suicide bomber who had no agenda other than the voices in his head?

Or

Would you be more upset to have your throat cut by an Islamic terrorist or to be shot in the back of the head by an organized crime hitman who mistook you for someone else?

Getting blown up is horrible. Getting murdered is horrible. I don't care about the motive of the one who does it to people. I would not prosecute them for their opinions. I would prosecute them for their actions, and considering those actions, I think that would be enough. 3000 died that day. Worrying about the excuses of the killers seems somehow meaningless to me. I'm with the judge who responded to Massaoui's rantings by telling him to sit in his cell for the rest of his life and shut up. (I think I've already forgotten how to spell that bastard's name. I'm glad of that. Who gives a shit what his name was?)

Bullshit. The terms were defined.

And I do not define militant Islam as "all of Islam".

Go back and try again.
Okay, second attempt: You're a liar. Go read your own posts in this very thread.

Okay--that's a pretty shitty definition of threat, but under those terms, then sure, militant Islam is a threat to the west. But for me, threat has to extend way past intent--there has to be some ability to make that threat come to fruition, and frankly, I don't think militant Islam has the power necessary to topple and subjugate the west, or to destroy it. I doubt that they have the power to control their own area, much less extend into the rest of the world. Most of Islam, after all, is not militant, no matter how much you try to argue it is.

how completely.....correct

radical islam is a "threat" and an adbomination(sp) to our collective world...western,arab,muslim...whatever..as they are usurping a religion to further their own twisted agenda..and painting islam into a corner that most in the west..unfortunately..will assocciate with islam..further polarizing the average westener against them..as i suspect is the goal.
we will villafy islam,and create enemies we dont have.
while the assholes that kill innocents,laugh and tell their own people..i told you the west hates us.
eventually forcing a clash between islam and the west...whilst the majority of the west,and the majority of islam just want to live their lives.
the radical elements of both sides..are getting what they want now...an us verse them mentality.

to answer the op..yes i fear radical islam as much as i fear our responce to it.

...
Getting blown up is horrible. Getting murdered is horrible. I don't care about the motive of the one who does it to people. I would not prosecute them for their opinions. I would prosecute them for their actions, and considering those actions, I think that would be enough. 3000 died that day. Worrying about the excuses of the killers seems somehow meaningless to me. I'm with the judge who responded to Massaoui's rantings by telling him to sit in his cell for the rest of his life and shut up. (I think I've already forgotten how to spell that bastard's name. I'm glad of that. Who gives a shit what his name was?)

What was Zacarias Moussaoui convicted through if it wasn’t his beliefs and his opinions? His opinions were the only real solid evidence against him. He hadn’t actually ‘done’ anything yet that would warrant a conviction or even a charge if it wasn’t for his ‘expressed opinions’ that he wanted Americans dead (in so many words).

Your statement is not untruthful, not even bad in it’s conclussion so much as it is simply erroneous in how it got there. We, including you, DO care about opinions and beliefs. Your own example is proof that we can and should convict based on beliefs and opinions and intent, we don’t have to actually wait for the action to be carried out. Belief and opinion is simply one way of measuring who is a threat…

What was Zacarias Moussaoui convicted through if it wasn’t his beliefs and his opinions? His opinions were the only real solid evidence against him. He hadn’t actually ‘done’ anything yet that would warrant a conviction or even a charge if it wasn’t for his ‘expressed opinions’ that he wanted Americans dead (in so many words).
I actually have problems with his conviction, but since he's such a detestable little worm, I've decided that's a technical injustice I can live with.

Your statement is not untruthful, not even bad in it’s conclussion so much as it is simply erroneous in how it got there. We, including you, DO care about opinions and beliefs. Your own example is proof that we can and should convict based on beliefs and opinions and intent, we don’t have to actually wait for the action to be carried out. Belief and opinion is simply one way of measuring who is a threat…
Look, "caring" is a subjective and variable term.

Do I care that militant fundamentalism has taken over a large segment of Islamic leadership and teaching and is promoting a message of violence and nihilism? Yes, of course I care about that. It is a phenomenon that requires close monitoring. Btw, it is happening in many religions, not just Islam. Islam is just farther along than the others, but even Buddhism is showing signs of it (as, indeed, it has in the past too).

Do I feel that this increases the general level of danger in the world? Yes, of course I do. It is obviously so. This particular brand of violent fundamentalism specifically calls for acts of terrorism against the general public and specifically targets the USA, where I live (in a major port city, btw; may as well buy that bull's eye t-shirt).

So, how can I care about those issues but say that I don't care about the motives of terrorists? Here's how:

Knowing that these changes are taking place within a major world religion and that a concerted effort to commit terrorism is being carried out around the world is important for the exact same reason as it is important to track tropical storms and outbreaks of bird flu and to know which neighborhoods in a city are the bad ones and which vacation destinations are having civil wars or famines at the moment. When we move about our world and go about our business, we want to be able to avoid danger as much as possible. It's a practical concern. I am not afraid of terrorists, but that doesn't mean I don't think they are dangerous. I'm not afraid of sharks, either, but I don't swim with them. I recognize that they could hurt me, and I do what I can to avoid being hurt by them. That does not imply fear of them, just self-interest.

As for caring about the motives of terrorists -- what possible use to me is there in such information? The only people who need to care about this are the spies and cops trying to infiltrate their groups, and the politicians trying to come up with counter-propaganda to feed to Muslim nations. Those people most certainly do need to care about the claimed reasons and justifications for these murders.

But as the potential target of the terrorists' crimes, no, I do not have to care why they want to kill me. I know their reasons are bullshit, and even if I am a godless whore, that in no way threatens them, nor does it justify them killing 3000 of my fellow citizens. Just like my wearing a nice dress and going out for drinks does not justify some drunk asshole trying to rape me. Screw their motives and screw them, too.

EDIT: BTW, almost forgot to mention: Your remark about how we can and should convict on beliefs and opinion alone and not wait for action is something I so totally disagree with, it is the basis for my frequently stated belief that many who claim to be trying to "protect" me from terrorists are just as dangerous and loathsome as the terrorists themselves. Osama bin Laden wants to kill people for what he thinks is in their mind. Apparently, so do you.

Let's say the West is the EU and US.

"Threat" means that they have the intent to destroy the West, and are trying to act on it.

If this is your definition, then I would say yes.

I voted no.

I do believe that there is a threat. But I don’t believe that there is a threat to western society as such.

Of far greater importance, in my mind, is the mass hysteria that seems so prevalent now. We’re letting the terrorists dictate the political agenda. And every time we call for war on Islam, every time we discriminate against those of Arabic origin, every time we give in to our fears…

… the terrorists become that little bit stronger.

Because so many people who deny it's a threat to the West later come back in other threads and deny they've ever said it, we're going to have to find out once and for all who believes it and who doesn't.

This is a public poll because of the constant denials.

Let's say the West is the EU and US.

"Threat" means that they have the intent to destroy the West, and are trying to act on it.

Yep. Deal with it. The hard way.

Check of the 'yep'
Ask 'em: willing to submit to doing things OUR way?
If answer is negative, threat exists.

Probably depends on where you live. If you lived in Tehran, or Lahore, your life wouldn't be worth a penny.
ABSOLUTELY! And I have said as much, multiple times. But, as I understand it, the question was about whether "militant Islam" is a danger to "the West," as defined as Europe and the US. My geography is, admittedly, not up to par, but I didn't think Pakistan and Iran counted in "the West."

If this is your definition, then I would say yes.
I find that definition to be pretty obnoxious, though, since I don't think "threat" should be defined as "wants to hurt you and is prepared to try." I think it also MUST include some element of "has significant potential to succeed."

For instance, I'm reasonably certain there are radical Muslims who would like to hurt me (if they knew I existed). I am also relatively certain there are radical American Christians who would like to hurt me (if they knew I existed). In my opinion, the radical Muslims are essentially no threat to me at all because there is pretty much no chance whatsoever that their desire to hurt me will actually be realized. On the other hand, radical Christians already succeed in harming me, and have significant potential to hurt me more in the future. Hence, the radical Christians constitute a threat, while the radical Muslims do not.

ABSOLUTELY! And I have said as much, multiple times. But, as I understand it, the question was about whether "militant Islam" is a danger to "the West," as defined as Europe and the US. My geography is, admittedly, not up to par, but I didn't think Pakistan and Iran counted in "the West."


Er, welcome to Bradistan, Yorkshire, England, UK?

Bullshit. The terms were defined.

And I do not define militant Islam as "all of Islam".

Go back and try again.
But you do seem to hint that you believe that it's the majority of Islam--otherwise why would you be so gung ho for segregation of Muslims? And why would you be so certain that they pose an imminent threat to the west? I mean, if militant Islam is only 10K crazy guys in the region, that's not much of a threat, now, is it, not when compared to 1 billion adherents total.

But you do seem to hint that you believe that it's the majority of Islam--otherwise why would you be so gung ho for segregation of Muslims? And why would you be so certain that they pose an imminent threat to the west? I mean, if militant Islam is only 10K crazy guys in the region, that's not much of a threat, now, is it, not when compared to 1 billion adherents total.

Show me where in my OP I say "imminent". Or "majority".

You're trying to put words in my mouth by implying that I'm hinting.

The hints you see are your own thoughts.

But you do seem to hint that you believe that it's the majority of Islam--otherwise why would you be so gung ho for segregation of Muslims? And why would you be so certain that they pose an imminent threat to the west? I mean, if militant Islam is only 10K crazy guys in the region, that's not much of a threat, now, is it, not when compared to 1 billion adherents total.
If, indeed, the "militant" qualification is important, then why focus on the "Muslim" part of the label? Instead of asking questions about Islam or Muslims, why aren't we lumping together "militants" of any stripe?

I think the general consensus on this and another thread is that fanatics tend to be dangerous no matter what their cause or religion may be. It's not Islam that makes radical Muslims dangerous, it's the fact that they are radicals. Being Christian isn't what makes radical Christians dangerous, it's the fact that they are radicals.

Militant ANYTHING is going to be a threat to something, pretty much by definition.

Militant ANYTHING is going to be a threat to something, pretty much by definition.
Unless you happen to be the "militant". In which case, it may be argued that your militancy is a threat to your own longevity.

Unless you happen to be the "militant". In which case, it may be argued that your militancy is a threat to your own longevity.
Well, yeah, I tend to think that militants are dangers to themselves as often as not.

(And yes, once again, I do include myself in that. I know that my radical and extreme beliefs do put my in greater danger than if I were a blander sort of person.)

Militant anything is a threat, you Deep Kimchi have on occasion called all Islam a threat.

Militant anything is a threat, you Deep Kimchi have on occasion called all Islam a threat.
Not in this thread.

Show me where in my OP I say "imminent". Or "majority".

You're trying to put words in my mouth by implying that I'm hinting.

The hints you see are your own thoughts.Oh quit trying to play coy, DK. Your position toward Muslims is clear from your post history on this and multiple other threads, and anyone who's spent any time in those threads for the last week knows where you stand. What was that whole "would you hide a Muslim" thread but a way of excusing your own fear of Muslims by acting as though any one of them, at any time, could be a suicide bomber, and so we need to lock them all up?

Oh quit trying to play coy, DK. Your position toward Muslims is clear from your post history on this and multiple other threads, and anyone who's spent any time in those threads for the last week knows where you stand. What was that whole "would you hide a Muslim" thread but a way of excusing your own fear of Muslims by acting as though any one of them, at any time, could be a suicide bomber, and so we need to lock them all up?

Extrapolating much? It's a simple question in this thread, and I am not saying or implying "all Muslims".

Extrapolating much? It's a simple question in this thread, and I am not saying or implying "all Muslims".
So if you didn't say it in this thread, it doesn't count? What are you, four?

So if you didn't say it in this thread, it doesn't count? What are you, four?
I think what you're upset about is the current vote count.

And yes, what is asked in this thread is a very specific, very narrow question.

You seem to think it's some sort of semantic trap, which it is not.

I think what you're upset about is the current vote count.

And yes, what is asked in this thread is a very specific, very narrow question.

You seem to think it's some sort of semantic trap, which it is not.
Actually, I haven't even looked at the vote count, since the question is the equivalent of a push poll. You phrased that question--and when pushed, defined the terms--in such a way that very few people would vote against your position, and those who did likely did so just to give you the rhetorical finger. No one was fooled by that shit, DK, and I forced you to define the terms just so that would be clear to all.

Not in this thread.

This does not change the facts that I have never seen anyone disagree with MILITANT Islam being a threat only with your bigotry when you call all Islam a threat.