I know that the majority of Muslims are just like anyone else and want to live their life, but I yet to see mass demonstration of anti-terrorism/extremism by the different Muslim communities around the world, only deafening silence or weak condemnation to fulfil one's obligation.
I've seen strong condemnation of terrorist attacks from Muslims. Maybe you're not looking in the right places?
Scroll down to "How do Muslims feel about groups like ISIS?" You'll see how many Muslims actually support terrorist acts vs. how many say they are not justified by Islam.
So it happens the 99% of Muslims are just like anybody else, but also 99% of the terrorist acts around the world are done by Muslims. And this is not just in Manchester, it also happens in ON DAILY BASIS in Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, India, Yemen, The Philippines, Cameron, Pakistan, Nigeria, to name a few...
In a recent study, we found that the news media do not cover all terrorist attacks the same way. Rather, they give drastically more coverage to attacks by Muslims, particularly foreign-born Muslims — even though those are far less common than other kinds of terrorist attacks.
If the media gives more attention to terrorist attacks by Muslims than terrorist attacks by members of other groups, how can you really get an accurate view of just how much Islamic terrorism is happening as opposed to any other kind? You have to dig a little bit to see that the real picture is not quite so black and white.
I have paid thousands into SS. As regards SSI, to quote a commercial, 'It's MY money and I want it NOW!'
As far as Trump's cuts go, esp. here in the Appalachian region of the US, he is turning out to be a complete jackwagon. I was pleasantly surprised at some of the language he has used so far on his overseas trip, too bad he will come home to a real storm of his own making.
On healthcare, it still amazes me how some folks go on and on about how a socialized health system like much of the rest of the world is tantamount to communism but say 'They better not touch my SS benefits'. It's like those same folks don't know how that program started and what it is.
As far as training for ppl out of work for so long, I do not believe for one instance that there are enough jobs now in this country for the many that are NOT counted as unemployed, because of the idiotic way it is calculated(not counting those that dropped out of the labor force), to find a job easily. Manufacturing started going in the eighties and 90's big time. Partly because of the value of every single $ and a cent, using the rest of the world as a cheaper labor force and partly because of technological changes coming so fast that often a real person is just not needed.
I see firsthand what amts to dead towns in the south in partly because of this. Some look like they are right out of an apocalyptic movie scene.
To those that have not experienced long unemployment, the use of food pantries and food banks, forced bankruptcy, divorce, home foreclosure, loss of long term careers, etc. People are committing suicide over this crap since 2008 in particular (I know first hand). It is harder and involves more, psychologically, than just saying ' here is some training you can do to find a job'. Confidence is lost, there is actual fear and anxiety in even going back to work after so long that it is hard to say yes even when one wants to. Many things need to be addressed, as there is no quick and easy solution.
So I say to ANYONE 'try it first, for real, and then get back to me'.
I would just about like to put all of the senate and congress out on the street, practically broke and destitute, with no hope of returning(that would be the hardest part to simulate). THEN let them get back in their positions, out of the blue, to see if THAT might be enough to change their minds at LEAST for a little while before they went back to 'self-interest rules, to keep my position in office'.
I often think that the government is letting the 'system' of both unbridled capitalistic 'Do whatever you want' and the government itself not taking care of people properly in general, tantamount to murder.
Another thing that really gets me down is how attacks like Manchester continue to tar the cultural reputation of the 99% of Muslims who are just like anyone else. I work with them, I buy my Gyros from the restaurant downtown from them. This isn't them, as I'm sure @Balrog99 (who mentioned his daughter becoming good friends with a Muslim girl from down the street) can attest to. But if you go to nearly any Youtube video about this, you will see THOUSANDS of comments about how Islam is a disease and that Muslims need to be eradicated. It's depressing that anyone thinks that would work, but more depressing anyone thinks that way at all.
I know that the majority of Muslims are just like anyone else and want to live their life, but I yet to see mass demonstration of anti-terrorism/extremism by the different Muslim communities around the world, only deafening silence or weak condemnation to fulfil one's obligation.
So it happens the 99% of Muslims are just like anybody else, but also 99% of the terrorist acts around the world are done by Muslims. And this is not just in Manchester, it also happens in ON DAILY BASIS in Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, India, Yemen, The Philippines, Cameron, Pakistan, Nigeria, to name a few...
So yeah, maybe Muslims in western countries are more liberal, but the fact remains that half of the world is suffering from groups who daily mass murder and perform ethnic cleansing, with the banner of Islam.
As I see it, all the three monotheistic religions are violent, if you take them by the book. But while all of the Christian countries are democratic/secular/or non-theocratic, and Judaism doesn't believe in 'by the book' but in the 'Halacha' - much later Interpretation of bible which is more liberal and adopted to the modern world, I don't sure that the Islam has gone such process.
I continue to push back against this absurd standard that Muslims around the world be required to condemn something they have nothing to do with, and take responsibility by default, because this isn't asked of ANY OTHER religious or demographic group. Many of them do condemn, hell, most of the victims ARE Muslim, but the problem you have here is the word "obligation". They have no such obligation. They didn't do anything wrong.
I'm trying to imagine how ridiculous it would have been if I had walked into work today and said "hey x and x, before we get started, I'm gonna need you guys to condemn the bombing in Manchester". And let's say they do condemn it. What, exactly, has been accomplished?? What magical properties does this possess?? How many Muslims need to condemn something before it takes effect??
Muslim leaders condemn terrorist attacks constantly. Just because it doesn't show up in your inbox or your preferred news sites doesn't mean it's not happening. Here in the West as well as in the Middle East, Muslim clerics have been pretty vocal about their anti-terrorism.
I don't remember Trump condemning any terrorist attacks, either. But do I draw the conclusion that he's secretly tolerant of Islamic terrorism? Of course not. I've never heard him condemn the Ku Klux Klan, either, but I also never heard Clinton condemn them. Do I demand that they start proving their opposition to the Ku Klux Klan? Of course not.
That's not "their silence." It's "my ignorance." I don't know everything they've ever said; I haven't looked.
Most terrorist attacks in the United States are indeed committed by radical white militants rather than Muslims. In the Middle East, of course, it would be the other way around. I don't know about Europe or other places.
I do think Islam as a whole has a stronger violent streak than most religions, but I don't think that's intrinsic to Islam or Muslims. I'm pretty sure the reason is simply because the places where Islam spread hundreds of years ago happen to be very poor, dry, land-locked countries that lagged behind during the critical growth period of the Industrial Revolution. And if there's one thing that violence is most definitely correlated with, it is poverty. Plus poverty's good friend, government corruption.
Besides, even if Islam is the problem, what is the solution? Getting rid of it? How?
For some people I know terrorism is almost synonymous with violent acts attributed to Muslims, especially in western countries. This is often how the word is used in the media.
For some people I know terrorism is almost synonymous with violent acts attributed to Muslims, especially in western countries. This is often how the word is used in the media.
Exactly. Most of time terrorist acts committed by anyone else aren't even referred to as such. It's become a word devoid of meaning.
Scroll down to "How do Muslims feel about groups like ISIS?" You'll see how many Muslims actually support terrorist acts vs. how many say they are not justified by Islam.
ISIS is the extreme of the extreme of Islam, But not supporting ISIS doesn't make Islam a peaceful religion. From the same link you posted, you can see a staggering number of support in applying Sharia law in their countries. What does sharia law includes??
-Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand (above). -Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death. -Criticizing Muhammad or denying that he is a prophet is punishable by death. -Criticizing or denying Allah is punishable by death. -A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death. -A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
I yet to see a Jewish who suicide bomb inside a dance club. Plus the focus of this article on "Jewish Terrorist Attacks" makes me suspicious, I'll pass thank you.
For some people I know terrorism is almost synonymous with violent acts attributed to Muslims, especially in western countries. This is often how the word is used in the media.
Exactly. Most of time terrorist acts committed by anyone else aren't even referred to as such. It's become a word devoid of meaning.
@jjstraka34 Hmm, interesting comment. I think that they often are, well I know at least in federal law enforcement and state departmental terms, BUT in the mainstream media and public mindset I agree, it is often overshadowed in a way by international terrorism. Now many more attacks are thought of right off the bat as terrorism, as it is forefront in peoples minds. Even in Dilon Roof's case (although that one is a little trickier to classify, even when analyzing his manifesto) he wanted to promote political change, but I think the hate crimes aspect took precedence in poeple's and the courts minds.
No surprise Tides Foundation is at the heart of it. Using this 'service' they have been a front for big corporations to organize protest against competitors or governments.
I do think Islam as a whole has a stronger violent streak than most religions, but I don't think that's intrinsic to Islam or Muslims. I'm pretty sure the reason is simply because the places where Islam spread hundreds of years ago happen to be very poor, dry, land-locked countries that lagged behind during the critical growth period of the Industrial Revolution. And if there's one thing that violence is most definitely correlated with, it is poverty. Plus poverty's good friend, government corruption.
Besides, even if Islam is the problem, what is the solution? Getting rid of it? How?
I agree, and that's what I was trying to talk about in my last paragraph of my last post. While western countries had the Industrial Revolution, And Judaism is evolved around the Halacha, I don't sure that the Islam in most part of the world has passed any of such process of moderation.
The solution??
Ultimately - forbid all religions for all I care..
Realistically - mostly time, moderation and modernization, which might lead to secularism.
Muslims may not commit the majority of terrorist attacks in america but the most deadly mass shooting- Pulse- and the most deadly terrorist attack ever- 9/11- were both islamic extremist attacks.
And we dont have the sort of immigration levels from islamic cultures that Europe does at all. And there, islamic terrorism is the majority.
Scroll down to "How do Muslims feel about groups like ISIS?" You'll see how many Muslims actually support terrorist acts vs. how many say they are not justified by Islam.
ISIS is the extreme of the extreme of Islam, But not supporting ISIS doesn't make Islam a peaceful religion. From the same link you posted, you can see a staggering number of support in applying Sharia law in their countries. What does sharia law includes??
-Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand (above). -Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death. -Criticizing Muhammad or denying that he is a prophet is punishable by death. -Criticizing or denying Allah is punishable by death. -A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death. -A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
Uh huh.
Back in the real world, support for sharia law does not mean support for terrorism. You're not establishing a connection. Also, you're misrepresenting the data:
In other areas, however, there is less unity. For instance, a Pew Research Center survey of Muslims in 39 countries asked Muslims whether they want sharia law, a legal code based on the Quran and other Islamic scripture, to be the official law of the land in their country. Responses on this question vary widely. Nearly all Muslims in Afghanistan (99%) and most in Iraq (91%) and Pakistan (84%) support sharia law as official law. But in some other countries, especially in Eastern Europe and Central Asia – including Turkey (12%), Kazakhstan (10%) and Azerbaijan (8%) – relatively few favor the implementation of sharia law.
I yet to see a Jewish who suicide bomb inside a dance club. Plus the focus of this article on "Jewish Terrorist Attacks" makes me suspicious, I'll pass thank you.
It's not anti-semitic to point out these attacks happen, and the article doesn't focus on "Jewish terrorist attacks." It focuses on "terrorist attacks" and defines them according to who committed them. This includes Jewish perpetrators of a whole 6% vs. the other 94% committed by other groups.
Now, I find that the infographic is a bit dodgy as it doesn't include extreme right wing terrorist attacks (such as shootings and bombings of clinics by right wing anti-choicers), but it does make the point that Muslims are not the source of the majority of terrorist attacks in the US.
I suppose if you ideologically believe that Muslims support and commit terrorist attacks at a high rate (like you seem to do) facts are inconvenient and to be rejected
Lest we get into a whole big thing about this, I will remind everyone that this thread is not here for us to speculate about the minds of other commenters.
Lets say for the sake of argument that all the "radical islamic terrorists" changed their minds and decided to stop believing in a warped version of islam.
They're still "Radical terrorists". That's still a problem, right? Presumably there are other fundamental underlying issues that are causing these folks to act out.
One other element in the Manchester attack may have been misogyny. The victims are primarily female I believe.
My assumption about this attack as soon as I heard about it was that it was committed by a British citizen of Arab descent. As the Americans appear to have been gracious enough to spread the word on this without British permission- not something that has been appreciated over here- this seems to have been confirmed. These problems are less matters for immigration than creating an accessible society which welcomes integration by all its citizens. Unfortunately post-Brexit more and more people are in a more transient and uncertain existence. 3,000,000 Europeans don't know if they can stay, minority groups feel more insecure, Brits abroad feel estranged and are unwilling to bring their families home etc. etc. One flipside of rising nationalism is that citizens are encouraged to subscribe to certain kinds of mainstream identities, or swim against the rising tide.
The last statues of Confederate military figures just got removed from city parks in New Orleans. That isn't going to have whatever effect the people who wanted them removed will think it will have--the past still happened and the present situation will not improve because of it.
Letting things which happened in the past bother you robs you of being able to enjoy the present and will prevent you from being able to enjoy the future. The past happened--you cannot change it so the wise course of action is to accept it for what it was and move on.
Incidentally, it will be interesting to see what happens when these people want things like the Washington Monument or Jefferson Memorial renamed, or their faces removed from Mount Rushmore. If you are going to push for removing statues from New Orleans you should follow your course of action to its logical conclusion, after all.
*************
Islam's problem right now is that it is where Christianity was during the Counter-Reformation--two slightly different theologies which are violently opposed to one another. Eventually they will reconcile--or one group will so totally decimate the other that it will cease to exist--but until then they are the ones suffering and committing atrocities against each other. Groups who adhere to the very extremist version of Islam the IS purport to represent (Wahhabism) go so far as to think that other Muslims who are not as extremist as they are cannot be "real" Muslims, a variation of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy taken too far. This would be like some deep-South fundamentalist evangelical telling me "you aren't Christian enough" because I don't believe everything exactly the same way they do.
I'm fairly ambivalent to the removing of the Confederate statues. On the one hand, they were ancestors of some of the people there. On the other hand, they lost and presumably supported owning people as property. Overall, I think it's time to let it go, yes it happened, but lets all move on.
And at any rate, there's not exactly a shortage of racist monuments, enjoy--
I am seeing alot of posts recently about Islam, as someone who has studied the religion, been deeply involved in the communities and pretty much have the religious texts on my bookshelf I see alot of common inaccurate arguments floating around.
One clear sign that people probably don't know much about a topic is over-use and over-reliance on statistics (no offense), I'll explain the modern situation with Islam and the (somewhat unique) problems it has especially around terrorism.
1. There is no modern mainstream moderate 'branch' of Islam, I am not talking about 'is there some people who live mundane lives and consider themselves Muslim', There is no modern mainstream competing alternative branch to the mainstream Sunni/Shia interpretation of Islam both of which support Jihad in doctrine. There is a few extraordinarily fringe interpretations that sort-of places less emphasis on Jihad such as the mystical interpretation but thats less then 1% of Muslims worlwide.
2. The sheer weight of religious texts and doctrines built over hundreds of years (Quran, Sahih Hadith, Tafsirs etc) all strongly support Jihad in what you consider its 'extreme' form (ie subjugation of all under Islam). Islamic texts, Islamic jurisprudence for the mainstream branches of Islam (Sunni/Shia) support Jihad fairly explicitly.
3. Islam's situation is not comparable to any other of the Abrahamic religions. Christianity has the benefit of its Messiah not being a war-figure, not being involved in any mass war, mass violence and by majority material on Jesus displays a non-violent figure.
The Pauline Doctrine (letter of the law no longer binding because the spirit has been fulfilled) is popular and gives a good way out for Christians to not follow the Old Testament (which is actually quite close to many Islamic laws).
Judaism is in fact closer to Islam in terms of doctrine, but its community history is far different from Islam. Jews never really had a centralized order to constrain Jews in their practices or interpretations, Jews were a nomadic religious group for most of history, It is not until Israel that they had a Jewish Government somewhere and by that time we had entered the modern age.
4. Therefore we see the unique problems with Islam and terrorism, that is, Jihad is in fact a very central theme in Islamic religious texts, Its Prophet actually encouraged and explicitly laid it down, it is in fact probably the most highlighted aspect of the religion in the Sahih Hadiths.
This is why virtually every Islamic terrorist organization, while it has modern geo-political influences for its actions (ie anger at American military intervention) it universally specifies and quotes very mainstream religious passages in regards to its out-dated practices and beliefs.
In my years of observing the various strategies on how to modernize the Islamic world, I sadly have to conclude that you cannot modernize the religion by itself, We have tried to cherry pick obscure passages in the Quran that are 'vague' on such things as women and try to convince Muslims 'AHHA see your religion doesn't necessarily say to treat women such and such' but this has been doomed to failure because the SHEER WEIGHT of religious texts in Islam on these troubling aspects is so great and mainstream it cannot be ignored, there's just too much of it.
The only alternative is to change peoples approach to problems, approach it not from a religious angle (what i think your religion says) but from an economic one. Say that women have to be able to work regardless because in todays world you just cannot sustain a family by the fathers income alone.
As to Statistics, completely useless in most cases where they are used for an argument, often we hear 'majority of Muslims are peaceful', yes i would agree most humans would choose not to be violent because they want a quiet life. But the same majority of humans/Muslims may also not necessarily raise any complaint if they also live under oppressive regimes or there is wholesale slaughter of some ethnic group, because they don't want to get in trouble either.
@semiticgod As I have mentioned, technology is both good and bad, with respect to serious conversations. Limitations. It IS hard, and draws one 'in' very often. Such is life these days though.
@smeagolheart I believe there certainly ARE other reasons, the Middle East is not as 'cut n dried' as it is(/was?) in the western world. Speaking with those with a 'closer' view of this has led me to believe it is true. Culturally and socially and religiously there are issues intertwined that are difficult to address from a western perspective.
@vanatos Nice post. I had to study a bit myself, not as much as you I imagine but there were some eye opening viewpoints for me that were harder to understand from an American point of view. Several years ago, I studied with a professor, PhD in Islam, a non native but loved the region emmensely and taught arabic and visited there often. It seemed very complex. It sounds like the economic way to change might have merit but even then it would I hard row to hoe as long ingrained ways of thinking are tough to change, not impossible , just tough.
@BelleSorciere those other groups ARE left out on some reports, on purpose I think sometimes. On the other things you pointed out, Im hearin ya.
On another point, many in the south celebrate their heritage and want to show some kind of support and remembrance to their dead soldiers and relatives (mine were as well), and not for any reference to slavery, a dark point of history in the south. I even have wills from my ancestors that list out the names of slaves to be given to next of kin. Lawd, that was a real eye opener, I can tell you that, dark indeed. I can only imagine but I would think many just wanted to defend their homeland and the right to be separate. If I had a time machine I would like to get first hand stories from as many people as possible. Just me wondering here.
We have a Vietnam memorial where all sorts of atrocities were committed but we now, as opposed to many during the war, remember our soilders with a monument. Maybe relevant here, maybe not, just a thought.
I can understand why many might want certain things removed but everything should not be forgotten and covered up. Some things maybe yes, but not everything, just my opinion as a southerner. It was and still is tough listening to some folks here, where the racist talk and slurs still abound, bothers me greatly.
The last statues of Confederate military figures just got removed from city parks in New Orleans. That isn't going to have whatever effect the people who wanted them removed will think it will have--the past still happened and the present situation will not improve because of it.
Letting things which happened in the past bother you robs you of being able to enjoy the present and will prevent you from being able to enjoy the future. The past happened--you cannot change it so the wise course of action is to accept it for what it was and move on.
Incidentally, it will be interesting to see what happens when these people want things like the Washington Monument or Jefferson Memorial renamed, or their faces removed from Mount Rushmore. If you are going to push for removing statues from New Orleans you should follow your course of action to its logical conclusion, after all.
*************
Islam's problem right now is that it is where Christianity was during the Counter-Reformation--two slightly different theologies which are violently opposed to one another. Eventually they will reconcile--or one group will so totally decimate the other that it will cease to exist--but until then they are the ones suffering and committing atrocities against each other. Groups who adhere to the very extremist version of Islam the IS purport to represent (Wahhabism) go so far as to think that other Muslims who are not as extremist as they are cannot be "real" Muslims, a variation of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy taken too far. This would be like some deep-South fundamentalist evangelical telling me "you aren't Christian enough" because I don't believe everything exactly the same way they do.
Some of the Confederate monuments may be older, but the Confederate Flag being implemented into the State Flag of many states in the South was done in the 60s as a SPECIFIC reaction to Civil Rights. Furthermore, beyond being symbols of the greatest act of treason in American history, and the battle-flag of straight up traitors, the Confederacy and it's slave economy was only a step-down in evil from Nazi Germany (and you'll notice that the torch-burning protest about them coming down was full of Neo-Nazis). If anything, these monuments ALREADY distort history by lionizing monsters as stoic heroes. And many people here may not care, but African-Americans taking their kids to a park with a statue of Jefferson Davis or sending their kids to Robert E. Lee elementary probably care a great deal.
Where is the line between praising or honoring an atrocity and merely noting that it happened? I guess that depends upon the atrocity in question and the character or nature of the monument.
I visited New Orleans several times but I never went for Confederate monuments, only food, architecture, music, and morbid sightseeing in the cemeteries.
As I said, if people wish to continue being upset over the past then they have every right to do so; however, I maintain that being upset over the past is a waste of one's emotional energy. At this point, even if you are around my age (late 40s) the people who would have been alive at that time are 5 generations back, so that means at least 6 generations for college students and probably 7 generations for those in junior high or high school.
*************
Meanwhile, Representative Al Green (D, TX) is moving ahead with his plans to draft articles of impeachment against Trump, citing "obstruction of justice" as his reasoning for doing so. He doesn't know exactly when he will file the article, according to the transcript of his interview with Amy Goodman over at Democracy Now!, but he affirms that it will happen. All we can do is wish him luck--it is highly unlikely that such a filing will be adopted by the majority vote required to bring impeachment charges but we certainly cannot fault Mr. Green for following through on what he said he would do.
So (and this was inevitable) Trump has now praised Duterte for doing an "unbelievable job" with the drug problem in his country. That's one way of putting it. The other way would be to state the fact that he is havng drug users extrajudicially murdered on the streets (users mind you, not dealers). Thousands of them. Executed on the spot in the streets.
So (and this was inevitable) Trump has now praised Duterte for doing an "unbelievable job" with the drug problem in his country. That's one way of putting it. The other way would be to state the fact that he is havng drug users extrajudicially murdered on the streets (users mind you, not dealers). Thousands of them. Executed on the spot in the streets.
Apparently he also told Dueterte of the location of two U.S. nuclear subs in Korean waters while he was at it. This guy has no poker face and no idea how to keep secrets or tell the truth.
We found the leaker ladies and gentlemen that the GOP has been looking for instead of focusing on the collusion between Trump campaigners and Russia. The leaker is Donald Trump.
New CBO shows virtually no change from Trumpcare 1.0 and 2.0. 23 million lose insurance in the next decade, including 14 million by NEXT YEAR. At 119 billion in savings. You now know the price-tag of the lives of those people. American Carnage.
Furthermore, the recent problems with state exchanges can easily be attributed to the threats from Trump and Tom Price to sabotage the ACA from within. The moment the House GOP voted on the bill scored today, they bought any negative electoral side-effects of American Health Care lock, stock, and barrell. Almost anyone from now until November 2018 who loses coverage is going to blame the GOP.
The Medicaid cuts in this bill and in the proposed budget are absolute disasters, a level of intentional government inflicted pain and cruelty that is almost unprecedented in modern American politics.
The modern Republican Party views how much your life is worth based upon your wealth. This Calvinist philosophy, the Ayn Rand wet dream of every college freshman who discovers "Atlas Shrugged" for the first time, will eat away at the fabric of any civilized society.
Ummmm.....the GOP candidate for the Montana House Seat Special Election tomorrow just body-slammed a reporter and fled the scene. No, that isn't a typo or a joke.
For the record, Trump and Pence did robocalls for this guy the last few days, which, in Montana, is, in and of itself, illegal. All indications are that he flipped out when Jacobs asked him to defend the CBO score. Must have been another one of those "gotcha" questions, don'cha know.
Chicken-shit, cowardly statement from a spokesman, directly contradicted by the audio. Let's see if Paul Ryan will bother to even criticize this:
Mark my words, there are going to be PLENTY of people out defending this guy. A candidate for one of the 468 seats in the US House of Representatives. Then again, our President admitted to sexual assault on tape, so whether or not this even matters in this day and age is entirely up for debate.
Politics, huh. If I was a Cherokee Indian, in the reservation near where I live in NC I would still be at least slightly upset myself I think. And granted not all are of course, it is just new to me so I have greater reactions probably, that is a given I recognize in myself. Some monuments endorsed by many Americans would seem to be a disgrace from that point of view as well. Just having Jackson on the $50 bill is bad enough.
So as a southerner I would not miss the past but not everyone in the south during the civil war was a complete jerk, family against family even, it was a tough time. I enjoy the sites and re-enactments we have there as well. I had living grandparents when I was very young with grandparents of their own that lived near that time. I can remember speaking to them and many were also against slavery but fought for what they saw as their land. Many get into playing both sides in those re-enactments as well. It is a remembrance of times with not (to many of them) an endorsement that slavery was fine. Would hate to see all that history disappear for some political reasons.
Even now, looking back at that time I can honestly not say what I would have done, it is easy to look at something from hindsight and modern viewpoints tinging our minds. To actually have lived during that time WITHOUT benefit of our knowledge now, would be a very different thought process to go through, on several different issues and levels I think.
South Carolina took down their flag from the capital after Dylan Roof went buckwild. I can see that, VERY public, but an attemot at reconciliation, at least on a small level. I know, history is often tinted from a winners perspective, but still.
Even with time we must take into consideration of the past, no matter the time, in dealing with folks and referring to them, or making generalizations.
It is a tough issue for sure. I just cant help but think there just needs to be more of an attempt to understand everyone's point of view and not one group alone, whether that be white, black or indian, etc., etc. This country has been through a lot of change in a relatively short period of time compared to the rest of the world(at least I THINK so), with a highly varied demographic. Just thoughts here and not arguments against anyone in particular. The viewpoints brought up in this thread are often of great interest to me, the different perspectives in ages and nationalities.
Comments
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/27/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/
Scroll down to "How do Muslims feel about groups like ISIS?" You'll see how many Muslims actually support terrorist acts vs. how many say they are not justified by Islam. In the US this is very far from true:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619
I'd love to see a citation of "99% of all terrorist attacks are committed by Muslims."
I mean check this out: Here's a link to the study.
If the media gives more attention to terrorist attacks by Muslims than terrorist attacks by members of other groups, how can you really get an accurate view of just how much Islamic terrorism is happening as opposed to any other kind? You have to dig a little bit to see that the real picture is not quite so black and white.
As far as Trump's cuts go, esp. here in the Appalachian region of the US, he is turning out to be a complete jackwagon. I was pleasantly surprised at some of the language he has used so far on his overseas trip, too bad he will come home to a real storm of his own making.
On healthcare, it still amazes me how some folks go on and on about how a socialized health system like much of the rest of the world is tantamount to communism but say 'They better not touch my SS benefits'. It's like those same folks don't know how that program started and what it is.
As far as training for ppl out of work for so long, I do not believe for one instance that there are enough jobs now in this country for the many that are NOT counted as unemployed, because of the idiotic way it is calculated(not counting those that dropped out of the labor force), to find a job easily. Manufacturing started going in the eighties and 90's big time. Partly because of the value of every single $ and a cent, using the rest of the world as a cheaper labor force and partly because of technological changes coming so fast that often a real person is just not needed.
I see firsthand what amts to dead towns in the south in partly because of this. Some look like they are right out of an apocalyptic movie scene.
To those that have not experienced long unemployment, the use of food pantries and food banks, forced bankruptcy, divorce, home foreclosure, loss of long term careers, etc. People are committing suicide over this crap since 2008 in particular (I know first hand).
It is harder and involves more, psychologically, than just saying ' here is some training you can do to find a job'. Confidence is lost, there is actual fear and anxiety in even going back to work after so long that it is hard to say yes even when one wants to. Many things need to be addressed, as there is no quick and easy solution.
So I say to ANYONE 'try it first, for real, and then get back to me'.
I would just about like to put all of the senate and congress out on the street, practically broke and destitute, with no hope of returning(that would be the hardest part to simulate). THEN let them get back in their positions, out of the blue, to see if THAT might be enough to change their minds at LEAST for a little while before they went back to 'self-interest rules, to keep my position in office'.
I often think that the government is letting the 'system' of both unbridled capitalistic 'Do whatever you want' and the government itself not taking care of people properly in general, tantamount to murder.
I'm trying to imagine how ridiculous it would have been if I had walked into work today and said "hey x and x, before we get started, I'm gonna need you guys to condemn the bombing in Manchester". And let's say they do condemn it. What, exactly, has been accomplished?? What magical properties does this possess?? How many Muslims need to condemn something before it takes effect??
I don't remember Trump condemning any terrorist attacks, either. But do I draw the conclusion that he's secretly tolerant of Islamic terrorism? Of course not. I've never heard him condemn the Ku Klux Klan, either, but I also never heard Clinton condemn them. Do I demand that they start proving their opposition to the Ku Klux Klan? Of course not.
That's not "their silence." It's "my ignorance." I don't know everything they've ever said; I haven't looked.
Most terrorist attacks in the United States are indeed committed by radical white militants rather than Muslims. In the Middle East, of course, it would be the other way around. I don't know about Europe or other places.
I do think Islam as a whole has a stronger violent streak than most religions, but I don't think that's intrinsic to Islam or Muslims. I'm pretty sure the reason is simply because the places where Islam spread hundreds of years ago happen to be very poor, dry, land-locked countries that lagged behind during the critical growth period of the Industrial Revolution. And if there's one thing that violence is most definitely correlated with, it is poverty. Plus poverty's good friend, government corruption.
Besides, even if Islam is the problem, what is the solution? Getting rid of it? How?
-Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand (above).
-Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
-Criticizing Muhammad or denying that he is a prophet is punishable by death.
-Criticizing or denying Allah is punishable by death.
-A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
-A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
.... I yet to see a Jewish who suicide bomb inside a dance club. Plus the focus of this article on "Jewish Terrorist Attacks" makes me suspicious, I'll pass thank you.
Even in Dilon Roof's case (although that one is a little trickier to classify, even when analyzing his manifesto) he wanted to promote political change, but I think the hate crimes aspect took precedence in poeple's and the courts minds.
It seems our last election was influenced by foreign money:
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/millions-in-foreign-funds-spent-in-2015-federal-election-to-defeat-harper-government-report-alleges
No surprise Tides Foundation is at the heart of it. Using this 'service' they have been a front for big corporations to organize protest against competitors or governments.
The solution??
Ultimately - forbid all religions for all I care..
Realistically - mostly time, moderation and modernization, which might lead to secularism.
And we dont have the sort of immigration levels from islamic cultures that Europe does at all. And there, islamic terrorism is the majority.
Back in the real world, support for sharia law does not mean support for terrorism. You're not establishing a connection. Also, you're misrepresenting the data: Also back in the real world:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/muslims-raise-money-manchester-suicide-bombing-explosion-salman-abedi-a7752256.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/manchester-arena-attack-muslim-leaders-condemn-suicide-bombing-ariana-grande-explosion-a7751576.html
https://muslimscondemn.com/ - this is a search engine that will find you any and all recorded Muslim condemnations of terrorist attacks. Have a list of Jewish terrorist attacks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_terrorism#Individuals
It's not anti-semitic to point out these attacks happen, and the article doesn't focus on "Jewish terrorist attacks." It focuses on "terrorist attacks" and defines them according to who committed them. This includes Jewish perpetrators of a whole 6% vs. the other 94% committed by other groups.
Now, I find that the infographic is a bit dodgy as it doesn't include extreme right wing terrorist attacks (such as shootings and bombings of clinics by right wing anti-choicers), but it does make the point that Muslims are not the source of the majority of terrorist attacks in the US.
They're still "Radical terrorists". That's still a problem, right? Presumably there are other fundamental underlying issues that are causing these folks to act out.
My assumption about this attack as soon as I heard about it was that it was committed by a British citizen of Arab descent. As the Americans appear to have been gracious enough to spread the word on this without British permission- not something that has been appreciated over here- this seems to have been confirmed. These problems are less matters for immigration than creating an accessible society which welcomes integration by all its citizens. Unfortunately post-Brexit more and more people are in a more transient and uncertain existence. 3,000,000 Europeans don't know if they can stay, minority groups feel more insecure, Brits abroad feel estranged and are unwilling to bring their families home etc. etc. One flipside of rising nationalism is that citizens are encouraged to subscribe to certain kinds of mainstream identities, or swim against the rising tide.
Letting things which happened in the past bother you robs you of being able to enjoy the present and will prevent you from being able to enjoy the future. The past happened--you cannot change it so the wise course of action is to accept it for what it was and move on.
Incidentally, it will be interesting to see what happens when these people want things like the Washington Monument or Jefferson Memorial renamed, or their faces removed from Mount Rushmore. If you are going to push for removing statues from New Orleans you should follow your course of action to its logical conclusion, after all.
*************
Islam's problem right now is that it is where Christianity was during the Counter-Reformation--two slightly different theologies which are violently opposed to one another. Eventually they will reconcile--or one group will so totally decimate the other that it will cease to exist--but until then they are the ones suffering and committing atrocities against each other. Groups who adhere to the very extremist version of Islam the IS purport to represent (Wahhabism) go so far as to think that other Muslims who are not as extremist as they are cannot be "real" Muslims, a variation of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy taken too far. This would be like some deep-South fundamentalist evangelical telling me "you aren't Christian enough" because I don't believe everything exactly the same way they do.
And at any rate, there's not exactly a shortage of racist monuments, enjoy--
RACIST MONUMENT SING-A-LONG
One clear sign that people probably don't know much about a topic is over-use and over-reliance on statistics (no offense), I'll explain the modern situation with Islam and the (somewhat unique) problems it has especially around terrorism.
1. There is no modern mainstream moderate 'branch' of Islam, I am not talking about 'is there some people who live mundane lives and consider themselves Muslim', There is no modern mainstream competing alternative branch to the mainstream Sunni/Shia interpretation of Islam both of which support Jihad in doctrine.
There is a few extraordinarily fringe interpretations that sort-of places less emphasis on Jihad such as the mystical interpretation but thats less then 1% of Muslims worlwide.
2. The sheer weight of religious texts and doctrines built over hundreds of years (Quran, Sahih Hadith, Tafsirs etc) all strongly support Jihad in what you consider its 'extreme' form (ie subjugation of all under Islam).
Islamic texts, Islamic jurisprudence for the mainstream branches of Islam (Sunni/Shia) support Jihad fairly explicitly.
3. Islam's situation is not comparable to any other of the Abrahamic religions.
Christianity has the benefit of its Messiah not being a war-figure, not being involved in any mass war, mass violence and by majority material on Jesus displays a non-violent figure.
The Pauline Doctrine (letter of the law no longer binding because the spirit has been fulfilled) is popular and gives a good way out for Christians to not follow the Old Testament (which is actually quite close to many Islamic laws).
Judaism is in fact closer to Islam in terms of doctrine, but its community history is far different from Islam.
Jews never really had a centralized order to constrain Jews in their practices or interpretations, Jews were a nomadic religious group for most of history, It is not until Israel that they had a Jewish Government somewhere and by that time we had entered the modern age.
4. Therefore we see the unique problems with Islam and terrorism, that is, Jihad is in fact a very central theme in Islamic religious texts, Its Prophet actually encouraged and explicitly laid it down, it is in fact probably the most highlighted aspect of the religion in the Sahih Hadiths.
This is why virtually every Islamic terrorist organization, while it has modern geo-political influences for its actions (ie anger at American military intervention) it universally specifies and quotes very mainstream religious passages in regards to its out-dated practices and beliefs.
In my years of observing the various strategies on how to modernize the Islamic world, I sadly have to conclude that you cannot modernize the religion by itself, We have tried to cherry pick obscure passages in the Quran that are 'vague' on such things as women and try to convince Muslims 'AHHA see your religion doesn't necessarily say to treat women such and such' but this has been doomed to failure because the SHEER WEIGHT of religious texts in Islam on these troubling aspects is so great and mainstream it cannot be ignored, there's just too much of it.
The only alternative is to change peoples approach to problems, approach it not from a religious angle (what i think your religion says) but from an economic one.
Say that women have to be able to work regardless because in todays world you just cannot sustain a family by the fathers income alone.
As to Statistics, completely useless in most cases where they are used for an argument, often we hear 'majority of Muslims are peaceful', yes i would agree most humans would choose not to be violent because they want a quiet life.
But the same majority of humans/Muslims may also not necessarily raise any complaint if they also live under oppressive regimes or there is wholesale slaughter of some ethnic group, because they don't want to get in trouble either.
@smeagolheart I believe there certainly ARE other reasons, the Middle East is not as 'cut n dried' as it is(/was?) in the western world. Speaking with those with a 'closer' view of this has led me to believe it is true. Culturally and socially and religiously there are issues intertwined that are difficult to address from a western perspective.
@vanatos Nice post. I had to study a bit myself, not as much as you I imagine but there were some eye opening viewpoints for me that were harder to understand from an American point of view. Several years ago, I studied with a professor, PhD in Islam, a non native but loved the region emmensely and taught arabic and visited there often. It seemed very complex. It sounds like the economic way to change might have merit but even then it would I hard row to hoe as long ingrained ways of thinking are tough to change, not impossible , just tough.
@BelleSorciere those other groups ARE left out on some reports, on purpose I think sometimes. On the other things you pointed out, Im hearin ya.
On another point, many in the south celebrate their heritage and want to show some kind of support and remembrance to their dead soldiers and relatives (mine were as well), and not for any reference to slavery, a dark point of history in the south. I even have wills from my ancestors that list out the names of slaves to be given to next of kin. Lawd, that was a real eye opener, I can tell you that, dark indeed.
I can only imagine but I would think many just wanted to defend their homeland and the right to be separate. If I had a time machine I would like to get first hand stories from as many people as possible. Just me wondering here.
We have a Vietnam memorial where all sorts of atrocities were committed but we now, as opposed to many during the war, remember our soilders with a monument. Maybe relevant here, maybe not, just a thought.
I can understand why many might want certain things removed but everything should not be forgotten and covered up. Some things maybe yes, but not everything, just my opinion as a southerner.
It was and still is tough listening to some folks here, where the racist talk and slurs still abound, bothers me greatly.
Where is the line between praising or honoring an atrocity and merely noting that it happened? I guess that depends upon the atrocity in question and the character or nature of the monument.
I visited New Orleans several times but I never went for Confederate monuments, only food, architecture, music, and morbid sightseeing in the cemeteries.
As I said, if people wish to continue being upset over the past then they have every right to do so; however, I maintain that being upset over the past is a waste of one's emotional energy. At this point, even if you are around my age (late 40s) the people who would have been alive at that time are 5 generations back, so that means at least 6 generations for college students and probably 7 generations for those in junior high or high school.
*************
Meanwhile, Representative Al Green (D, TX) is moving ahead with his plans to draft articles of impeachment against Trump, citing "obstruction of justice" as his reasoning for doing so. He doesn't know exactly when he will file the article, according to the transcript of his interview with Amy Goodman over at Democracy Now!, but he affirms that it will happen. All we can do is wish him luck--it is highly unlikely that such a filing will be adopted by the majority vote required to bring impeachment charges but we certainly cannot fault Mr. Green for following through on what he said he would do.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-submarines-idUSKBN18K15Y
We found the leaker ladies and gentlemen that the GOP has been looking for instead of focusing on the collusion between Trump campaigners and Russia. The leaker is Donald Trump.
https://www.rt.com/news/389601-suicide-bombing-jakarta-dead/
Furthermore, the recent problems with state exchanges can easily be attributed to the threats from Trump and Tom Price to sabotage the ACA from within. The moment the House GOP voted on the bill scored today, they bought any negative electoral side-effects of American Health Care lock, stock, and barrell. Almost anyone from now until November 2018 who loses coverage is going to blame the GOP.
The Medicaid cuts in this bill and in the proposed budget are absolute disasters, a level of intentional government inflicted pain and cruelty that is almost unprecedented in modern American politics.
The modern Republican Party views how much your life is worth based upon your wealth. This Calvinist philosophy, the Ayn Rand wet dream of every college freshman who discovers "Atlas Shrugged" for the first time, will eat away at the fabric of any civilized society.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/24/theresa-may-to-tackle-donald-trump-over-manchester-bombing-evidence
Eyewitness account in thread:
Audio....we have a straight-up fascist thug running in Montana. Sad thing is, Trump voters will LOVE this:
For the record, Trump and Pence did robocalls for this guy the last few days, which, in Montana, is, in and of itself, illegal. All indications are that he flipped out when Jacobs asked him to defend the CBO score. Must have been another one of those "gotcha" questions, don'cha know.
Chicken-shit, cowardly statement from a spokesman, directly contradicted by the audio. Let's see if Paul Ryan will bother to even criticize this:
Mark my words, there are going to be PLENTY of people out defending this guy. A candidate for one of the 468 seats in the US House of Representatives. Then again, our President admitted to sexual assault on tape, so whether or not this even matters in this day and age is entirely up for debate.
Some monuments endorsed by many Americans would seem to be a disgrace from that point of view as well. Just having Jackson on the $50 bill is bad enough.
So as a southerner I would not miss the past but not everyone in the south during the civil war was a complete jerk, family against family even, it was a tough time. I enjoy the sites and re-enactments we have there as well. I had living grandparents when I was very young with grandparents of their own that lived near that time. I can remember speaking to them and many were also against slavery but fought for what they saw as their land.
Many get into playing both sides in those re-enactments as well. It is a remembrance of times with not (to many of them) an endorsement that slavery was fine. Would hate to see all that history disappear for some political reasons.
Even now, looking back at that time I can honestly not say what I would have done, it is easy to look at something from hindsight and modern viewpoints tinging our minds. To actually have lived during that time WITHOUT benefit of our knowledge now, would be a very different thought process to go through, on several different issues and levels I think.
South Carolina took down their flag from the capital after Dylan Roof went buckwild. I can see that, VERY public, but an attemot at reconciliation, at least on a small level.
I know, history is often tinted from a winners perspective, but still.
Even with time we must take into consideration of the past, no matter the time, in dealing with folks and referring to them, or making generalizations.
It is a tough issue for sure. I just cant help but think there just needs to be more of an attempt to understand everyone's point of view and not one group alone, whether that be white, black or indian, etc., etc.
This country has been through a lot of change in a relatively short period of time compared to the rest of the world(at least I THINK so), with a highly varied demographic.
Just thoughts here and not arguments against anyone in particular. The viewpoints brought up in this thread are often of great interest to me, the different perspectives in ages and nationalities.