What's the right way for UK Muslims to persuade extremists to stop being extremists?

"This is why we can't have nice things" is a saying. cooterhein, I suggest you familiarize yourself with it. I thought it was common knowledge on the internetz. You understood it wrongly, and thus your reply is to a large extent past the point.

There was a lot going on in this particular post, but I think we can boil it down to just this.

format_quote Originally Posted by Search

Foreign policy, as much as you might want to bury your head in the sand, is the MAIN CULPRIT behind the modern-day context of terrorism and extremism.

Okay, explain something to me. As I understand it, significant minority groups in Iraq and Syria (and a few other places over the years) are Christian. Not Protestant or Catholic, but Oriental Orthodox, and they've been there forever. It's their homeland. They are very protective of it. Moreover, these Christians that are native to these lands are worried about drone strikes collateral damage violence and instability just like everyone else, and they are some of the most vulnerable people because the climate of war has turned their Muslim neighbors against them like never before. There was already a mass exodus of Christians leaving Iraq if they were able to get out, and unlike their Muslim countrymen, they probably won't ever be able to return. Syria used to be 10% Christian, but in the coming years that's going to drop like a rock and it will never come back up. Christians in the region see all of this coming, they feel powerless, and even more than their Muslim neighbors, they feel like they are going to lose their lives or their homeland or both. It's not because of conflict between them and their Muslim neighbors either, it's really all because of foreign incursions.

Those people seem like great candidates for a terror group. Stand up and fight for their way of life, right? Violent resistance that allows them to stay and live in the land, forcing the Western war machine out. And please don't tell me a minority group can't form a terror network, because they are formed almost exclusively by minority groups that seek to take more power for themselves than they would ever be able to do with their numbers alone.

So. While noting that there are (and to a greater extent, were) a fair number of Christians in these same lands that are being invaded, and also noting that they are likely to lose even more than their Muslim neighbors, where are the Christian terrorists? Can you name any Christian terror groups that are fighting against the Western policies that are so damaging to them? Can you name a single terror group in the region that is specifically Christian, or even a non-religious one, or for that matter a terror group that is open to membership outside of Islam?

Foreign policy is the main culprit, you say. Because of the way it affects all people in these countries, you're sure to get a fair amount of terrorism, you say. Not out of a calculus of "bad foreign policy plus Muslims," let's leave Islam out of it, it's mainly about the foreign policy and it just happens to be Muslims that are being unfairly targeted. So you say.

Well, there's plenty of Christians being targeted, and they're losing even more ground than the Muslims are, and they're losing it permanently. There's more than enough Christians in the region that they could have formed some sort of terror network by now, but it hasn't happened. There isn't a single bit of organized non-state violence being carried out in the region by any of these Christians, or any other non-Muslim group for that matter. They are being hurt by this just as much as the Muslims, the MAIN CULPRIT as you say is more harmful to them than it is to anyone else. So why aren't they getting organized, why aren't they securing funding for an armed resistance?

It really is quite interesting, just to see several types of religious groups all experiencing these really awful things together, but then the only type of terrorist organization that you'll Ever see in Any of these countries is of the Islamic variety. If the main culprit is affecting everyone in pretty much the same way- and in the long term, it's generally harder on religious minorities than anyone else- why is Islam the only religion of the violent non-state actors in the region? How is it that the MAIN CULPRIT was able to be so precisely discriminatory in its terror-inciting effects?

How do you explain that? There's more than enough Christians in the region to do something at least a little bit like terrorism. It's almost like a science experiment, and the results just won't stop coming up Muslim. Every. Single. Time.

format_quote Originally Posted by cooterhein

There was a lot going on in this particular post, but I think we can boil it down to just this.

Okay, explain something to me. As I understand it, significant minority groups in Iraq and Syria (and a few other places over the years) are Christian. Not Protestant or Catholic, but Oriental Orthodox, and they've been there forever. It's their homeland. They are very protective of it. Moreover, these Christians that are native to these lands are worried about drone strikes collateral damage violence and instability just like everyone else, and they are some of the most vulnerable people because the climate of war has turned their Muslim neighbors against them like never before. There was already a mass exodus of Christians leaving Iraq if they were able to get out, and unlike their Muslim countrymen, they probably won't ever be able to return. Syria used to be 10% Christian, but in the coming years that's going to drop like a rock and it will never come back up. Christians in the region see all of this coming, they feel powerless, and even more than their Muslim neighbors, they feel like they are going to lose their lives or their homeland or both. It's not because of conflict between them and their Muslim neighbors either, it's really all because of foreign incursions.

Those people seem like great candidates for a terror group. Stand up and fight for their way of life, right? Violent resistance that allows them to stay and live in the land, forcing the Western war machine out. And please don't tell me a minority group can't form a terror network, because they are formed almost exclusively by minority groups that seek to take more power for themselves than they would ever be able to do with their numbers alone.

So. While noting that there are (and to a greater extent, were) a fair number of Christians in these same lands that are being invaded, and also noting that they are likely to lose even more than their Muslim neighbors, where are the Christian terrorists? Can you name any Christian terror groups that are fighting against the Western policies that are so damaging to them? Can you name a single terror group in the region that is specifically Christian, or even a non-religious one, or for that matter a terror group that is open to membership outside of Islam?

Foreign policy is the main culprit, you say. Because of the way it affects all people in these countries, you're sure to get a fair amount of terrorism, you say. Not out of a calculus of "bad foreign policy plus Muslims," let's leave Islam out of it, it's mainly about the foreign policy and it just happens to be Muslims that are being unfairly targeted. So you say.

Well, there's plenty of Christians being targeted, and they're losing even more ground than the Muslims are, and they're losing it permanently. There's more than enough Christians in the region that they could have formed some sort of terror network by now, but it hasn't happened. There isn't a single bit of organized non-state violence being carried out in the region by any of these Christians, or any other non-Muslim group for that matter. They are being hurt by this just as much as the Muslims, the MAIN CULPRIT as you say is more harmful to them than it is to anyone else. So why aren't they getting organized, why aren't they securing funding for an armed resistance?

It really is quite interesting, just see several types of religious groups all experiencing these really awful things together, but then the only type of terrorist organization that you'll ever see in any of these countries is of the Islamic variety. If the main culprit is affecting everyone in pretty much the same way- and in the long term, it's generally harder on religious minorities than anyone else- why is Islam the only religion of the violent non-state actors in the region? How is it that the MAIN CULPRIT was able to be so precisely discriminatory in its terror-inciting effects?

How do you explain that?

There are and have been plenty of terrorists groups like Maronite Chrstian militia in Lebanon, The Lords resistence army in Uganda, National Liberation Front of Tripura - The Bosinian genocide. Bush calling the Iraq war a "crusade" (not good PR for Christianity especially in Iraq) etc etc.

You also like to case study Iraq - you do know that under Saddam Hussein the Christians were well off (much better then the shia) same thing with Assad in Syria - the destruction of there regimes is and has been bad for them - who created that situation again??

Non religious terror groups like the FSA that western powers directly support - they have been found executing Kids and eating there victims heart.

All terrorists groups operate similar be they the IRA or Al qeada or the Lords resistance army.

format_quote Originally Posted by Search

(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)



You do realize that Nazi Germany didn't happen over just a day, right? Things build up over time. They don't happen overnight. History is a very wise teacher; we must heeds its lessons, if for no other reason than that we shouldn't be doomed to repeat it.

Also, keep on reading; I have written very long posts in answers to your questions.

Okay then. Speaking of history, this isn't the first time that Muslims have gradually come into a previously not-at-all Islamic country and formed a substantial religious minority. There's been lots of violence in the past, plenty of partitions and civil wars. It's happened between Muslims and every conceivable religious groups. Muslims have fought with Hindus and Buddhists, Muslims have fought with several different kinds of Christians, Muslims fight other Muslims, other Muslims fight more Muslims, Muslims fight with a different type of Christian, Muslims fight and Muslims fight some more. There's always a violent struggle, and it always seems to be the fault of everyone but the Muslims.

Any chance that you're going to learn from some of your own history? You're not exactly negotiating from a position of strength, you know. I'm not entirely sure if that's really being understood. Violent uprisings by large numbers of Muslims will absolutely not lead to any of the things you want, it will only lead to large numbers of dead Muslims, along with much less of what you want. Violence is off the table, because the West has a bit of a global monopoly on violence. So what's your fallback?

format_quote Originally Posted by cooterhein

Okay then. Speaking of history, this isn't the first time that Muslims have gradually come into a previously not-at-all Islamic country and formed a substantial religious minority. There's been lots of violence in the past, plenty of partitions and civil wars. It's happened between Muslims and every conceivable religious groups. Muslims have fought with Hindus and Buddhists, Muslims have fought with several different kinds of Christians, Muslims fight other Muslims, other Muslims fight more Muslims, Muslims fight with a different type of Christian, Muslims fight and Muslims fight some more. There's always a violent struggle, and it always seems to be the fault of everyone but the Muslims.

Any chance that you're going to learn from some of your own history? You're not exactly negotiating from a position of strength, you know. I'm not entirely sure if that's really being understood. Violent uprisings by large numbers of Muslims will absolutely not lead to any of the things you want, it will only lead to large numbers of dead Muslims, along with much less of what you want. Violence is off the table, because the West has a bit of a global monopoly on violence. So what's your fallback?

So have Christians, secularists, Communists, Hindus and Buddhists? Last time i checked Saddam Hussein and Assad were secular and the FSA??

Your black and white approach to history in the mid east shows that you share very similar views with Anjum Chuodery - He just thinks all non muslims are bad end of - you think the same thing about Muslims.

format_quote Originally Posted by cooterhein

You got anything for Syria and Iraq? Who are the Christian terrorists in either of those countries?

why were the Uganda Lord resistance army any better then Isis? was the IRA any better then al qeada?? what about the Marointe Christians any better then siph Sahaba?? or the Buddists monks in Myanmar or the Israeli settlers???

format_quote Originally Posted by cooterhein

I'm talking about a particular region in which there is a fair amount of religious diversity, everyone is being adversely affected by US foreign policy, and the only terrorists that you can see in the region are Muslims. Why aren't the Christians in Syria and Iraq becoming terrorists? Why is it happening to such a large extent with their Muslim neighbors, but absolutely not at all among the Christian minority?

That is the question I'm asking you. I know what it is I'm asking about, you're not going to distract me from that.

Its funny because you seem to think that some people join shia militias and the sunni terrorists groups so therefore all the Muslims are becoming terrorists in Iraq and Syria - Its like me asking you Why are Christians in Ireland Terrorists when only some Christians joined the IRA against the UK - the same applies to Christians Serbian genocide against Bosnia or the lords resistence army in Uganda.

Lets just forget about the Iraqi Government and the countless innocent muslims in Iraq and syria because according to you all of them are responding to US Aggression wih terrorism. As I said its not black and white - Just like trump doesn't represent all of the US neither do terrorists groups.

However if a country did destroy the infrastructure , the police and the health care of the US then I can guarantee you that all the crazy gun toting right wingers would have a field day with killing Muslims and anybody they disagreed with.

format_quote Originally Posted by cooterhein

I'm talking about a particular region in which there is a fair amount of religious diversity, everyone is being adversely affected by US foreign policy, and the only terrorists that you can see in the region are Muslims. Why aren't the Christians in Syria and Iraq becoming terrorists? Why is it happening to such a large extent with their Muslim neighbors, but absolutely not at all among the Christian minority?

That is the question I'm asking you. I know what it is I'm asking about, you're not going to distract me from that.

Plus, I was initially asking someone else about it, and now you're butting in without any actual answers and trying to change the subject. Answer clearly or get out.

Not realy your getting answers, you just dont like the responses because some of us dont view the world in black white and can see a strawman from a mile away. Your like the millionth person on this forum trying the same boring dull arguments.

format_quote Originally Posted by Search

(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

This is an open discussion platform; naturally, others answer and interject just as a person does in normal everyday conversation when everyone's involved in a discussion. No need to be rude or an a-hole. How about if you don't like what you hear that you feel free to leave the discussion as well?

Leaving this thread would be a little more realistic if I wasn't the OP on this thread. To a certain extent, the OP of any thread can be expected to be the most consistently engaged and the most interested in ensuring that questions are actually being answered. To your larger point though, I should be nice and that is well taken.

And let me just say I don't appreciate your tone with our brother @Zafran.

Okay. I'm sure he doesn't like the tone either, and there is a certain part of me that wants to see that he checks himself because of it. But on the whole, I'm sure you're right and I should try to be less combative.

Also, I believe the only reason you're asking this is because you haven't been exposed to formal logic. First and foremost, every area and territory in Middle East has its own history. The reason that Christians weren't becoming terrorists because they were supporting Assad and his armed forces; also, if you take the definition of terrorism that would include Assad and his armed forces, then Christians were supporting state-sponsored terrorism and if any of them were part of the armed forces, then they were part of terrorizing Muslims in the region.

Thank you for this, I appreciate that you are making an effort and staying on topic. For what it's worth, my understanding of the situation is that "terrorism" as a word by itself is generally understood to involve violent non-state actors, with somewhat separate categories of less-direct responsibility for the state funding of terrorism, and then there is another category of state terrorism or state-sponsored terrorism (which comes back to direct responsibility) which, as far as I'm aware, involves the intentional and/or indiscriminate killing of civilian non-combatants, and there's also a bit of a sub-category that involves false flag operations by a state under the guise of not belonging to that state and again we're talking about killing civilian non-combatants, and that may include the possibility of a state's military killing its own civilians.

Basically, I'm anticipating that you will come at this with a rather broad definition of state terrorism that involves any state but mostly the US poking its nose where it doesn't belong, and if you don't like what the US military is doing then it's terrorism. But I'm reminding you that the more broadly accepted definition of state terror is far more limited than that, and it's primarily limited to the killing of civilian non-combatants. At present, it seems to me that the US has relatively little in the way of boots on the ground, it's mostly special forces that are embedded with the Kurdish Peshmerga, and the main opportunities for invoking charges of state terror would have to do with the overwhelming air support and with drone strikes. On the whole though, the US currently has far less of a ground presence than it did just a short while ago and it could easily be argued that with Iran and Russia both in the neighborhood, the US is acting in a way that prevents them from engaging in state sponsored terror as much as they otherwise would, provided that we're on the same page with the emphasis on the targeting of civilian non-combatants.

Also, I don't know what version of Iraqi history you've been reading, but there was armed resistance and retaliation against Iraqi Muslims as well, maybe not your definition of terrorism since only apparently Muslims can commit terrorism.

I'm not arguing that only Muslims can commit terrorism, just that in this particular region where there is some religious diversity, Muslims are the only ones with well-funded terror organizations, or terror organizations of any kind really.

I will go on to say one other thing with regard to terror in a broader context. I do acknowledge that there are non-Muslim terror groups, there are even a couple that have a separatist Christian motivation and a couple that involve cults somewhat related to Christianity. And then there's a few that are not particularly religious in nature, and a few that involve Eastern religions. If I could bring this back to your point about US foreign policy though, there is something that I'd like to point out.

Consider for a moment all the different ways in which a terrorist organization could direct its violent tendencies. One thing they could certainly do is spread hatred for the US and for the West, they could promote armed struggle against the US military and even against US civilians or anything that's broadly West-affiliated. One thing they could care about more than anything else is the armed presence of the US military in various countries all around the world, especially if it's acting as a destabilizing force.

Now let me ask you something. As you think about which terrorist groups choose that as their main reason for existing, how many of those groups are Islamic? Think back for a second on those non-Muslim terror groups, and I did just acknowledge that they exist in quite a few places throughout the world. How many of those non-Muslim terror groups are committed to a broad, long-term fight against the US military? You probably know the names of most of these non-Muslim groups, go ahead and tick them off real quick then let me know if any of them are super committed to fighting back the US military wherever it happens to be. The IRA, in its various forms and incarnations- did it ever make a point of fighting the US military, and of removing its presence and/or influence from a certain part of the world? Yes of course they're terrorists, and that whole situation might just reignite in the current environment, but let's ask if This Particular terror group has adopted hatred of the US and its military presence as any one of its various reasons for existing and operating. Then let's repeat this for any other non-Muslim terror group and find out how many of them hate the US military, in keeping with your working hypothesis- namely, that the US military and US foreign policy is the MAIN CULPRIT

Yes indeed, you sure did say the MAIN CULPRIT

in causing terrorism to happen. Let's just do a quick comparison, okay? I can obviously name all sorts of Islamic terror organizations that hate the US military and who cite US foreign policy as the MAIN CULPRIT for what they are trying to do. But how often is that true of non-Muslim terror groups?

Now, before you say the US military is only guilty of incursions on Muslim countries, I'll remind you once again that there tends to be a fair amount of religious diversity in those Muslim-majority countries. The US has done quite a bit of destabilizing, and with all these different regions taken together, there has certainly been ample opportunity for non-Muslims to form terror groups and name the US as their main enemy and prime target, all while saying the destabilizing chaos of its terrible foreign policy is the MAIN CULPRIT for what they're doing. Now, to your knowledge, is that something that's ever happened when we're speaking of non-Muslim terror groups?

Go ahead and run those numbers, and please let me know what you find out. I'm curious to see if I've really discovered a trend that is fairly common among Muslim terror networks while also being not-at-all common in non-Muslim terror networks. I'm feeling good about it so far, but I would like to know what you think.

format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran

However if a country did destroy the infrastructure , the police and the health care of the US then I can guarantee you that all the crazy gun toting right wingers would have a field day with killing Muslims and anybody they disagreed with.

Nah. Never happen. Oh, a few would, to be sure, but the vast majority are just blowhards, farting through their mouths. Believe me, I know; I hang out with a lot of them.

format_quote Originally Posted by cooterhein

Okay, here's the situation. Person A is asking a specific question of Person B, pertaining to a particular place where there is some diversity. Person C interjects to answer the question that wasn't directed at him, and this is okay in the abstract, it's a normal part of open forums of discussion.

However, when the nature of that interjection is "I don't want to talk about your question, I need to direct your attention to here here here and over here, I want you to answer for all of these different (and they really are quite different) things," my answer is

No.

I won't answer all of those things, I'm trying to do something else right now. Interjections should help someone besides just you, they should not derail.

By the way, did you notice how I described what just happened? That really is what just happened. And it's odd that you would bring up the straw man accusation, you might not know what a straw man actually is. The reason I raise that possibility is because you began this response with a straw man. You just don't like the responses, and this is your mental reasoning as I see fit to describe it. That is an actual straw man.

Asking why a diverse group of people responds in very different ways to their similar circumstances is not the same thing as a straw man argument. It's a legitimate question that arises from things that are obviously happening. I didn't characterize any particular position or thought process on the part of the person I was talking to, I requested one. There's a difference.

You were building a straw man - I broke it down - Now you want someone to play the game - Your upset that I didnt play the game. - You want people to answer in a specific way - the answer you agree with. Thats not a discussion its just you validating your own conclusion.

As I said on this forum we've seen this straw man time, time again. Of course If you want @Search to take the strawman down as well be my guest.

The whole terrorism is Islamic but when other religious people do exactly the same thing (which I gave examples of Uganda, IRA and Bosinia- nah thats different. Yeah good game.

Open forum anyone can reply dont like it take it with mods.

format_quote Originally Posted by cooterhein

I'm not arguing that only Muslims can commit terrorism, just that in this particular region where there is some religious diversity, Muslims are the only ones with well-funded terror organizations, or terror organizations of any kind really.

Like this - But lets forget the diversity of Lebanon and Meronite christian terrorists or the Bosnia genocide which was another religiously diverse place. Lets just forget about those "well funded terrorists". You never know they might have a lot in common with Isis but of course thats not the conclusion "Its only Islam".

Indeed why did the Bosnian not become terrorists or the Ugandan Muslims but the Christians did?