Religious extremism or political motivation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-05-2013, 07:55 PM
RE: Religious extremism or political motivation
(05-05-2013 07:42 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Death.

I was in the army for four years. I know what an objective is.

Here's an open question to anyone in this forum that has served in the armed forces, any rank, any branch, any country. Have you ever been tasked with protecting an idea?

An objective is something measurable that you can achieve. "Religion" is neither measurable nor achievable. "Protecting an idea" is neither measurable nor achievable.

Flying a plane into a building is.
Forcing an army to withdraw from your territory is.
Killing people is.
Knocking out an electrical grid is.
Assassinating someone is.
Raising/stealing/counterfeiting ten million dollars is.
Destroying the USS Cole is.
Striking civilian centres with ground to ground missiles is.
Maiming any Irishman that is discovered collaborating with the British is.
Massacring a different ethnic, religious, or racial group is.
Disrupting a supply line by destroying a rail bridge is.

The people who fought the Crusades would not object because they had CLEAR military objectives. The people that died did so as a direct result of the pursuit of those objectives.

Now look at this quote again. "There is no such thing as protecting an ideology. There is only undermining others that can exercise power against you."

Undermining others can take many forms. But what's important is that those forms are ACTIONABLE. Protecting an ideology is NOT actionable.

I live in Quebec. The French nationalist movement has said, "We want to protect French," for decades. But when you look at the list of things they have DONE, bill 101, bill 14, legislation restricting English education, the list goes on, they have not ONCE "protected French". They have ONLY ever UNDERMINED the English population.

Do you understand a bit better the distinction I am making?

Quote:Now while I'm inclined to believe that the men who hijacked the plane did so for religious reasons, I'm not fully convinced that the heads of the operation (mainly Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban) were motivated by means other than political power.

ALL human systems exercise power. Anyone who tells you otherwise has no fucking clue what they're talking about. Doctor's Without Borders, UNICEF, the Shriners, SAG, the Boy Scouts, all exercise power. Power only exists in the context of it being exercised. The exercising of power has a single purpose, to achieve an objective.

Religious extremism isn't an objective. Conquering the world and making it into a global Caliphate is.

Hey, Starcrash.

You libelously accused me of something (and it needs to be pointed out that this is NOT the first time you have done so). I called you a liar. You've got some fucking stones to say that I attacked you. Some big fucking stones.

You saw what you wanted to see, not what I wrote.

Quote:You called it a "team jersey" and a "means to an end" rather than a motive.

Do you always speak from authority when you don't understand what someone wrote? I know you didn't understand what I wrote because if you did, you wouldn't have written this sentence. That sentence shows, categorically, that you don't have a clue what I said. Not a fucking clue. How about, and call me crazy, you ask questions about something you don't understand instead of making slanderous pronouncements?

What you're talking about is true for a Professional Army however in the case of the Crusades or Al Qaeda Ideals are the objective. Anything they do is a step towards the ideal. Reclaiming the Holy Lands was an means to an end not the end goal. Remember we are not dealing with fully rational players here.

[Image: Hitchhikersguide_zps7678fbae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2013, 08:13 PM
RE: Religious extremism or political motivation
Hey, Rev.

I reject your distinction because it ignores the principles that I outlined. An objective is measureable and achievable. You have failed to demonstrate, on any level, how an ideal is an objective. You've also stated that some groups are different than others but provided zero support for why that is, thus they are arbitrarily exempted from principles that you yourself recognised as correct.

Also, for the record, the Crusades were fought by professional armies and reclaiming the Holy Lands was a clear military objective.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2013, 08:28 PM
RE: Religious extremism or political motivation
(05-05-2013 08:13 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Rev.

I reject your distinction because it ignores the principles that I outlined. An objective is measureable and achievable. You have failed to demonstrate, on any level, how an ideal is an objective. You've also stated that some groups are different than others but provided zero support for why that is, thus they are arbitrarily exempted from principles that you yourself recognised as correct.

Also, for the record, the Crusades were fought by professional armies and reclaiming the Holy Lands was a clear military objective.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Actually The crusades were mostly a disorganised private affair with little to no overall command structure. Most of the Private armies were raised by knights and other nobles in exchange for a remission of sin. As such yes a religious motivation was an objective for a good many of the crusaders.

As far as Al Qaeda goes have you ever heard the term Mujahideen this again is what I was referring too as a non-professional combatant. This is in direct opposition to the Professional Army where the individual soldier is part of a highly trained and disciplined division.

Does this clear up what I meant Ghost? (and btw it tickles me that we are using the same Screen name (mine is just in Latin))

[Image: Hitchhikersguide_zps7678fbae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2013, 09:48 PM
RE: Religious extremism or political motivation
Hey, Rev.

You're arguing a strawman.

I've made very clear, very specific distinctions. You're telling me that what I'm saying is incorrect by redefining what I said. Clearly, based on what I said, a religious motivation cannot be an objective. It is neither measurable nor achievable. You're ignoring the criteria that I have laid out and saying that there is a special case because something that cannot be considered an objective according to those criteria is in fact an objective. It's the equivalent of me saying that triangles aren't squares, squares are, and you saying, I agree, triangles aren't squares, but circles are.

You've also decontextualised this one small issue from my larger argument and you are trying to defeat that larger argument by confusing this one small issue. I said very clearly that ALL human systems exercise power. All of them. Not some. Not just professional armies. All of them. Power is exercised for one reason and one reason only, to achieve an objective, military or otherwise. Reducing teenage recidivism rates by 50% is an objective. Feeding 10 000 homeless people for a week is an objective. Converting 500 people a week to your religion is an objective. Increasing your approval ratings in public opinion poles by 5% is an objective. Decreasing global carbon emissions by a million tons a month by 2021 is an objective. This is why power is exerted, to achieve an objective. If you can suggest something else that power is exerted for, I'd like to hear it.

My argument is simple and straight forward. The issue with my argument is that it challenges the hegemonic ideological position that people fight for religion. Not true. People fight in order to achieve an objective regardless of if they're religious, secular, a state, a corporation, a marriage partner, a squirrel or a finch. Fighting is a significant expenditure of energy that carries with it significant risk. There isn't an organism in existence that will expend that energy an take that risk unless there is something to gain more valuable to them than doing nothing. When it comes to human systems, they all have their beliefs and preferences but what they are doing is extending their ability to exert power by undermining the ability of competitors to exert counter-power.

As for your two points, you said it yourself. Armies. Doesn't matter who raised them or why. They're an army.

Also, if you think that the Mujaheddin did not pursue military objectives, then you don't understand what a military objective is and you never saw Rambo III.

Both of those things being said, these two points are red herrings. What constitutes and army is irrelevant. What is relevant is your argument that somehow, certain human systems are exempt from the mechanics that govern all human systems equally. You are special pleading and you haven't offered a shred of an argument to support why.

Defend your statement.

How is an ideal an objective? How is it measurable and achievable?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2013, 09:59 PM
RE: Religious extremism or political motivation
(05-05-2013 09:48 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Rev.

You're arguing a strawman.

I've made very clear, very specific distinctions. You're telling me that what I'm saying is incorrect by redefining what I said. Clearly, based on what I said, a religious motivation cannot be an objective. It is neither measurable nor achievable. You're ignoring the criteria that I have laid out and saying that there is a special case because something that cannot be considered an objective according to those criteria is in fact an objective. It's the equivalent of me saying that triangles aren't squares, squares are, and you saying, I agree, triangles aren't squares, but circles are.

You've also decontextualised this one small issue from my larger argument and you are trying to defeat that larger argument by confusing this one small issue. I said very clearly that ALL human systems exercise power. All of them. Not some. Not just professional armies. All of them. Power is exercised for one reason and one reason only, to achieve an objective, military or otherwise. Reducing teenage recidivism rates by 50% is an objective. Feeding 10 000 homeless people for a week is an objective. Converting 500 people a week to your religion is an objective. Increasing your approval ratings in public opinion poles by 5% is an objective. Decreasing global carbon emissions by a million tons a month by 2021 is an objective. This is why power is exerted, to achieve an objective. If you can suggest something else that power is exerted for, I'd like to hear it.

My argument is simple and straight forward. The issue with my argument is that it challenges the hegemonic ideological position that people fight for religion. Not true. People fight in order to achieve an objective regardless of if they're religious, secular, a state, a corporation, a marriage partner, a squirrel or a finch. Fighting is a significant expenditure of energy that carries with it significant risk. There isn't an organism in existence that will expend that energy an take that risk unless there is something to gain more valuable to them than doing nothing. When it comes to human systems, they all have their beliefs and preferences but what they are doing is extending their ability to exert power by undermining the ability of competitors to exert counter-power.

As for your two points, you said it yourself. Armies. Doesn't matter who raised them or why. They're an army.

Also, if you think that the Mujaheddin did not pursue military objectives, then you don't understand what a military objective is and you never saw Rambo III.

Both of those things being said, these two points are red herrings. What constitutes and army is irrelevant. What is relevant is your argument that somehow, certain human systems are exempt from the mechanics that govern all human systems equally. You are special pleading and you haven't offered a shred of an argument to support why.

Defend your statement.

How is an ideal an objective? How is it measurable and achievable?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Did you miss the part where I also said that we were not dealing with fully rational players? You have also divorced tactics from motivation. That list you described are all military tactics but what we are discussing is motivation. BTW where did I ever claim that the groups had no power? Religion is all about power, and in the 3 Abrahamic religions that power is derived by syphoning off the sexual drive.

As for "People fight in order to achieve an objective regardless of if they're religious, secular, a state, a corporation, a marriage partner, a squirrel or a finch." this is a red herring because it has nothing to do with the topic. So if I missed something you stated I apologise but what I was talking about was motivation not tactics.

Also please explain Martyrdom in your view since that is an objective used by Al Qaeda. It makes no sense for you list and only works for those motivated by religion.

[Image: Hitchhikersguide_zps7678fbae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2013, 10:30 PM
RE: Religious extremism or political motivation
If someone who doesn't care who has power over them, so long as that power is held by a muslim, wants the entire world to be ruled by Islam & all infidels everywhere to die, then the distinction between the means to the end & the end doesn't seem worth mentioning. In answer to DNA's question: If it is this kind of fundamentalist that perpetrates the terrorism, as not all countries of the world are yet Islamic Theocracies, EVERY terrorist act he/she makes is both religious & political in motivation, simultaneously!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2013, 11:12 PM
RE: Religious extremism or political motivation
(04-05-2013 04:03 PM)DeathsNotoriousAngel Wrote:  With all the recent acts of terrorism from the Islamic world, one of the big questions is are individual acts ones of religious extremism or political motivation (or both).

One such example is 9/11. Now while I'm inclined to believe that the men who hijacked the plane did so for religious reasons, I'm not fully convinced that the heads of the operation (mainly Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban) were motivated by means other than political power.

What do you think? Which acts of terrorism do you think were driven by religious extremism and which were driven by political means? Which do you think were a combination of both?

All of the above.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2013, 05:25 AM
RE: Religious extremism or political motivation
Rev.

I made an argument. You made a counter argument. You haven't provided any support for your counter argument.


Tactics and motivation are not objectives. A tactic is HOW someone pursues an objective. A motivation is WHY someone pursues an objective.

I didn't just list military tactics (unless reducing teenage recidivism is somehow a military tactic) and you, just now, are discussing motivation. The argument that I made is clear.

I never said that you said groups had no power. I said that I said that all groups exercise power and that the reason they do is to achieve an objective.

It's not a red herring and has everything to do with the "why do people fight" topic.

You were not speaking of motivation, you were countering my argument. And I have never once spoken of tactics in this thread.

Martyrdom is not an objective.

So look. You've taken all kinds of indiscriminate shots at my argument but you haven't said anything concrete. So unless you want to seriously discuss the core of my argument, my patience is wearing thin.

You've made two counter arguments; that rationality somehow separates certain groups for some unknown reason and that an ideal is somehow an objective. I'd like for you to explain what you mean.

As for motivation, like I said, it's a separate issue. It's not an irrelevant issue, but it is separate.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2013, 05:50 AM
RE: Religious extremism or political motivation
(05-05-2013 07:42 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Starcrash.

You libelously accused me of something (and it needs to be pointed out that this is NOT the first time you have done so). I called you a liar. You've got some fucking stones to say that I attacked you. Some big fucking stones.

You saw what you wanted to see, not what I wrote.

Quote:You called it a "team jersey" and a "means to an end" rather than a motive.

Do you always speak from authority when you don't understand what someone wrote? I know you didn't understand what I wrote because if you did, you wouldn't have written this sentence. That sentence shows, categorically, that you don't have a clue what I said. Not a fucking clue. How about, and call me crazy, you ask questions about something you don't understand instead of making slanderous pronouncements?

It takes "big fucking stones" to say that you attacked me? You called me a liar, and I said that was an attack because it was, by definition, an attack on me and not my argument (which would go something along the lines of "this quote right here is a lie", not "this guy making this quote is a liar"). And you still haven't quoted my "lie" because it wasn't one. I did accuse you of making a poor argument, and that would be a "misrepresentation" if you thought I was wrong, not a "lie". A lie is deliberate, but a misrepresentation is a mistake in interpreting you. I'm pretty sure you know the distinction, and you purposely chose the word "liar" because you wanted to put me in a bad light.

And you continue to do it, because instead of clarifying your argument or actually arguing against mine, you keep up the attack by arguing against my ability to interpret you by implying that I am "clueless", "making slanderous pronouncements", and "falsely speaking from authority", a list of things that have zilch to do with the argument at hand.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2013, 06:45 AM
RE: Religious extremism or political motivation
For the Islamicist, religion and politics are one. There is no either/or. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Videos Of Religious Ignorance? WiltedFigTree 10 166 12-07-2014 02:06 PM
Last Post: goodwithoutgod
  Educational, unbiased religious info smileXsmileXsmile 11 231 10-07-2014 12:43 AM
Last Post: Hamsaka
Video Religious Nut (doesn't trust sunglasses) Raptor Jesus 10 193 03-07-2014 07:55 AM
Last Post: natachan
  Arguments to convince religious people Mozart Link 11 290 02-07-2014 02:22 AM
Last Post: JONES
  Celebrating Religious Based Holidays for celebratory not religious value worblewatch 15 201 28-06-2014 04:38 AM
Last Post: JONES
  Your religious score Shadow Fox 35 587 27-06-2014 11:11 PM
Last Post: CindysRain
  A Perfect Example Of Religious Hate And The Bullshit Free Pass Our Society Gives It WindyCityJazz 87 1,151 24-06-2014 08:30 PM
Last Post: WindyCityJazz
Forum Jump: