Sydney Terrorist Airplane Plot: ISIS Bomb Attack Thwarted
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-08-2017, 05:23 PM
RE: Sydney Terrorist Airplane Plot: ISIS Bomb Attack Thwarted
(05-08-2017 02:48 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Except the Australian flag is not offending SYZ like a ham sammich would the Jews Mr Alinsky is referring to. What is offending him is who is adopting it -- who is wearing it.
A fair point, if not unprecedented.

In the US there was a time when some "America: love it or leave it" types would beat a hippie within an inch of his life for sewing a US flag on the seat of his pants as a war protest. Yet some of those same types had no problem with having motorcycle seats and helmets adorned with the same stars and stripes.

My reference to Alinsky wasn't directed at SYZ, however; it was intended as a comment on the effectiveness of the Australian girls' choice of mode for their intended political comment.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dr H's post
08-08-2017, 05:28 PM
RE: Sydney Terrorist Airplane Plot: ISIS Bomb Attack Thwarted
(05-08-2017 05:52 PM)epronovost Wrote:  At the same time, their lack of financial power and weak social connectivity leads them to occupy low pay jobs and poor neighborhoods, making them ''the face of poverty'' in Australia.
When you say "weak social connectivity", do you mean within Australia?

Because, in my experience, Indonesians in Indonesia, have some of the strongest, most complex social interconnectedness on the planet.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2017, 05:41 PM
RE: Sydney Terrorist Airplane Plot: ISIS Bomb Attack Thwarted
(08-08-2017 12:41 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  I like nuance. I think that in most stories both sides have a voice. On this forum, given the rarity of Muslim voices, and with my experiences living five years in Muslim countries -- without a single kidnapping! -- I think I have a little to offer that way, egotistical as that might sound.
Which Muslim countries, if I may ask?

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dr H's post
08-08-2017, 05:41 PM
RE: Sydney Terrorist Airplane Plot: ISIS Bomb Attack Thwarted
(08-08-2017 05:16 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(05-08-2017 02:44 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  I disagree. It is not fair to hold one Christian to account for another Christian's cherry-picking. You and I both know that Quakers and WBC can both found their sects on biblical verse. The same holds true with Islam as well, and any other religion, because when you have such an innately subjective thing as religious faith, every holy book is a Rorschach blot.

Let me be clear: my quarrel is not with any particular religion, but with religion itself.

Yes, you can cherry pick religious texts and found both benevolent and malevolent sects based on your pickings.
All that proves is that the pickings are rich and complex.

By the same token, you can find some incidental good in most egregious situations.
World War II ended the Great Depression, and resulted in an extended period of post war economic boom, that raised a lot of people out of poverty and established a middle class. The German Nazis created game preserves that may have ended up saving endangered species.

I don't see that this means that WWII was a good thing, or that we should be more tolerant of Nazis. There are other, less egregious ways to achieve similar ends. The same is true for whatever good religion has done. Religion served a purpose in the social evolution of humanity, but that purpose was done centuries ago; religion now works to our detriment far more than to our advantage. It is time to give it up.

Make no mistake; I am not defending any religion. Religion has had some good and many bad effects, no matter which faith it is we care to discuss. I won't defend the evils of religions or its many various permutations.

But I think that different believers view their faiths in different ways, which is exactly why I referenced cherry-picking, and exactly why I reject broad-brushing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2017, 06:04 PM
RE: Sydney Terrorist Airplane Plot: ISIS Bomb Attack Thwarted
(08-08-2017 05:41 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Make no mistake; I am not defending any religion. Religion has had some good and many bad effects, no matter which faith it is we care to discuss. I won't defend the evils of religions or its many various permutations.

But I think that different believers view their faiths in different ways, which is exactly why I referenced cherry-picking, and exactly why I reject broad-brushing.

And I maintain that I have not broad-brushed; I, also, reject that.

Nowhere have I ever suggested that every Muslim is a terrorist, nor that every Muslim should be viewed as a potential terrorist.

But I have recognized the connection: Muslim believer -- Islam -- jihad.
Just as I have recognized the connection: Catholic believer -- Vatican hierarchy -- child abuse cover-up.

To go back to my original analogy, an army doesn't exist in a vacuum. It needs a society to support it, either actively or passively, and usually both. There are various possible levels of participation in this structure, with varying levels of responsibility: one could volunteer to serve; one could wait to be drafted, then go willingly; one could serve in a non-combatant capacity; one could engage in any number of non-military activities that support the military #the defense industry, for example#; one can willingly pay taxes that support the military budget; one could grudgingly pay taxes that go to the same end; one could simply ignore the fact that we have a military, while doing nothing to try to change that situation; etc.

The bottom line is: in my country, we seem to have decided as a society that, at least for now, we need a military. That makes us responsible as a society for the continued existence of that military and for its actions.
Not the same level of responsibility as the president or congress that starts a war, but responsibility nonetheless.

This applies to religion as well. Contrary to morondog's protest that I was making religion "suddenly different", religion is, in fact, exactly the same as any other institution which exists only by virtue of the fact that it continues to have constituent members.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2017, 06:21 PM
RE: Sydney Terrorist Airplane Plot: ISIS Bomb Attack Thwarted
(08-08-2017 05:41 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 12:41 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  I like nuance. I think that in most stories both sides have a voice. On this forum, given the rarity of Muslim voices, and with my experiences living five years in Muslim countries -- without a single kidnapping! -- I think I have a little to offer that way, egotistical as that might sound.
Which Muslim countries, if I may ask?

Iran, in the 70s, and Saudi Arabia, in the 90s.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2017, 06:28 PM
RE: Sydney Terrorist Airplane Plot: ISIS Bomb Attack Thwarted
(08-08-2017 06:04 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 05:41 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Make no mistake; I am not defending any religion. Religion has had some good and many bad effects, no matter which faith it is we care to discuss. I won't defend the evils of religions or its many various permutations.

But I think that different believers view their faiths in different ways, which is exactly why I referenced cherry-picking, and exactly why I reject broad-brushing.

And I maintain that I have not broad-brushed; I, also, reject that.

Nowhere have I ever suggested that every Muslim is a terrorist, nor that every Muslim should be viewed as a potential terrorist.

But I have recognized the connection: Muslim believer -- Islam -- jihad.
Just as I have recognized the connection: Catholic believer -- Vatican hierarchy -- child abuse cover-up.

To go back to my original analogy, an army doesn't exist in a vacuum. It needs a society to support it, either actively or passively, and usually both. There are various possible levels of participation in this structure, with varying levels of responsibility: one could volunteer to serve; one could wait to be drafted, then go willingly; one could serve in a non-combatant capacity; one could engage in any number of non-military activities that support the military #the defense industry, for example#; one can willingly pay taxes that support the military budget; one could grudgingly pay taxes that go to the same end; one could simply ignore the fact that we have a military, while doing nothing to try to change that situation; etc.

The bottom line is: in my country, we seem to have decided as a society that, at least for now, we need a military. That makes us responsible as a society for the continued existence of that military and for its actions.
Not the same level of responsibility as the president or congress that starts a war, but responsibility nonetheless.

This applies to religion as well. Contrary to morondog's protest that I was making religion "suddenly different", religion is, in fact, exactly the same as any other institution which exists only by virtue of the fact that it continues to have constituent members.

That's fair enough. However, unlike nations, which execute one foreign policy with one intended result, you and I both know that faiths are not only fractured into schisms, but that (unlike nations) have very little objective definition.

I am American; I was born here and carry our passport. I live here. There is no question that I live under American law and break it at my own risk.

But for this or that believer: their birth-religion may be important, but because it is subjective (for being based on subjective interpretations of texts), you cannot say that there is objective equivalence. "The Nation of Islam", indeed, is rejected by most Muslims. Smile

They do have constituent members, religions. But there's no getting around the fact that John Doe's take on Southern Extraneous Baptist doctrine may well be different than Jane Does's ... and that is my point. If John goes and shoots up an abortion clinic, what good does it do yelling at Jane when she was just treated there four months ago?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
09-08-2017, 06:20 PM
RE: Sydney Terrorist Airplane Plot: ISIS Bomb Attack Thwarted
(08-08-2017 05:28 PM)Dr H Wrote:  When you say "weak social connectivity", do you mean within Australia?

Because, in my experience, Indonesians in Indonesia, have some of the strongest, most complex social interconnectedness on the planet.

Yes, I meant that immigrants have a weaker social connectivity within their new country, not the one from which them come.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2017, 08:29 PM
RE: Sydney Terrorist Airplane Plot: ISIS Bomb Attack Thwarted
(07-08-2017 10:15 PM)epronovost Wrote:  
(07-08-2017 09:38 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  If I'm a Catholic and I go to communion and eat the little cracker and drink the little juice is it safe to say religion had nothing to do with it? I was just...satisfying my need for in-group solidarity with ritualistic etc. etc.

Name any action that a person of any religion can do that you would describe as being done for religious reasons. You choose the religion and the action. Or is there no such thing?

Heading off to bed...won't be sleeping but will be satisfying my species' need for eyelid-descending temporary unconsciousness. (sorry I'm in full dickhead mode right now)

In my opinion, there is, very broadly, two great types of religious people. There are the belief motivated religious people and the culturaly motivated group of people. basically, it's the difference between the priests, the theologians and the apologists vs the simple believers. Simple believers aren't religious because they believe in mythology. They believe because it gives them a group identity and rituals to reinforce it. In those circomstances, religion isn't only or mostly a belief, it's an identifier and a practice. Some, usually those exposed to heavy indoctrination or facing trauma, might shift to the other group.

Priests and especially apologists see religion as much more than a bunch of rituals, poorly defined morality and practices, but as an actual vehicle to a fundamental truth about the world we live in. To them religion is much more than an identifer and a practice, it's a path to knowledge and truth. They are the one's who firmly believe in the mythological claims and narrative and are motivated by it. To them God isn't just this fuzzy, ill defined, feel-good, nebulous, semi-present, superfriend. He is something very real, with very precise goals and desires.

Of course, the vast majority of religious people sit in the first category. They will ''Cherry Pick'' their belief and practice in religion to various extend, will respect the ritual, but won't formalise themselves to much with all of the mythology and might even outright reject some part of it (example: ''I am Christian, but I think it's perfectly OK to be LGBTQ and feminist'' or ''My God isn't a warmonger violent God, he is a God of peace and love''). For a Catholic of that type, the communion is nothing more than a social ritual. They might not even understand what's transubstantiation or absolutly don't care about it. For the Catholic priest or apologist, transubstantiation is extremely important as it's a fundamental way to commune with the Holy Spirit and thus perceive God.

Amongst you Islamist terrorists, it's the same thing. Most of them adopt the codes and the rituals of radical Islam as it gives them a sense of identity and self worth (a thing they lacked before), while others, almost systematically their leaders or completly indoctrinate self deluded veterans, are genuine believers who are truly motivated by religious belief.

How do you make the difference between the two? Beside asking them and getting to know them, I have absolutly no clue.

Sorry for the delay.

You seem to be contradicting yourself, or at least making things unnecessarily complicated. You have gone from: "According to psychiatrist working to reabilitate and de-indoctrinate terrorist, the answer is no, religion is mostly a cosmetic" to a fairly detailed four-paragraph explanation of types of religious people. Religion seems to be in there somewhere.

I agree with you that it's complicated to say a motivation for an action is "religious" because that can be broken down and subdivided and analyzed into "real" motives and "underlying" causes but religion was clearly interwoven, inevitably, into your descriptions. Yes, on a person to person basis "religion"- let's say literally sincerely held beliefs- may be 22% for this guy, 52% for that lady, 12% for that inam. But it all overlaps and cant be surgically removed from the question of causation. With enough verbal dexterity, it could be argued that someone who beats you to death with a copy of the Koran while screaming "Allah Akbar" didn't do it at all for religious reasons.

No one on this forum would hesitate for a second to say the anti-abortion impulse from the US is not either partly or primarily driven by religion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2017, 08:57 PM
RE: Sydney Terrorist Airplane Plot: ISIS Bomb Attack Thwarted
(09-08-2017 08:29 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  Sorry for the delay.

You seem to be contradicting yourself, or at least making things unnecessarily complicated. You have gone from: "According to psychiatrist working to reabilitate and de-indoctrinate terrorist, the answer is no, religion is mostly a cosmetic" to a fairly detailed four-paragraph explanation of types of religious people. Religion seems to be in there somewhere.

Indeed religion, and more precisely Radical Islamism, has a role to play on terrorist violence by providing said terrorist with a group identifier on which they can build and justify their action. Islamist terrorists aren't violent because they are religious, but their religion is a fundamental part of how they organise themselves as well as an integral part of their social project should they triumph. Thus, if you want to address Islamist terrorism, it's mostly useless to address Islam, even their particular vision of Islam, but you need to address their sense of utter humiliation, powerlessness and desire of vengeance against those they perceived have wronged them.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: