Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Chad, CAR, etc. Southeast Asia has had its share of Jihadi groups too. — Count Timothy von Icarus

As I asked previously, why should we get involved with those areas? What possible good could we do?

There is very little reason to think the problem would have just "gone away." — Count Timothy von Icarus

:up:

I don't have much to offer to this complex problem. What I would say is that we need to hold Islamic groups responsible for Islamic individuals, such that this pressure causes Islamic groups to eschew Jihadism.

I don't have much to offer to this complex problem. What I would say is that we need to hold Islamic groups responsible for Islamic individuals, such that this pressure causes Islamic groups to eschew Jihadism. — Leontiskos

Fair enough. I do think that it cannot be accomplished by people external to Islam, however, and some progressive Muslims need to take a stand. In fact, I would say that a coalition of progressive, open-minded Muslims pushing for reform would be worth far more than anything any of us could ever do or say from the outside to change attitudes and influence Muslims not to be radicalized.

And surely the way to go about empowering any reformers does not contain committing war crimes, like droning people all over the place or supporting the genocide of the Palestinians.

You’ll note the caveat “…so long as he doesn’t transgress another’s right to do the same”. When that happens all bets are off. — NOS4A2

NOS, they literally aim to set up a state governed by Islamic principles, probably through armed conflict. Jihadists must transgress others' rights by definition or they are just cosplaying. That should be obvious to anyone with a big wrinkly libertarian brain such as yourself.

Islamic extremism is almost entirely a US-Israeli creation - the product of decades of meddling, interventions (and assorted war crimes) and the intentional spreading of chaos, so that the US would maintain control of the oil in the Persian Gulf, and Israel would not have to worry about a potential rival in the region.

NOS, they literally aim to set up a state governed by Islamic principles, probably through armed conflict. Jihadists must transgress others' rights by definition or they are just cosplaying. That should be obvious to anyone with a big wrinkly libertarian brain such as yourself.

Neo-nazis aim for a white-ethno state governed by Hitlerian principles. Commies aim for a a totalitarian state and the abolition of property. Republicans aim for a state governed by a piece of paper. Greens want the state to control the economy and the weather. Every power-seeker and politico from fringe to establishment seeks to transgress your rights. That’s how politics works. That should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. What isn’t obvious is that we need to reform one and not the other.

We need to beat the Islamists into submission. Then they will realize that Allah has granted this, and that they need to self-reflect on their approach and tactics. Defeat sows doubt, moderation, humility, and self-reflection. Victory emboldens and strengthens the notions that Allah is on their side, that the prophets are correct, and that end times are near. It serves as confirmation of their holy books and strengthens their case within the Islamic community. It is easy and exciting to follow a victor. Defeat discredits and moderates.

Islamic extremism is almost entirely a US-Israeli creation - the product of decades of meddling, — Tzeentch

I'm skeptical this is true. As I've mentioned in a previous post, I think your statement would be correct about the Middle East and our own status as a target for terrorism, but Islam has enough internal discord to explain a lot of other conflicts.

I do think that it cannot be accomplished by people external to Islam — ToothyMaw

Right. That seems like a key point.

Neo-nazis aim for a white-ethno state governed by Hitlerian principles. Commies aim for a a totalitarian state and the abolition of property. Republicans aim for a state governed by a piece of paper. Greens want the state to control the economy and the weather. Every power-seeker and politico from fringe to establishment seeks to transgress your rights. That’s how politics works. That should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. What isn’t obvious is that we need to reform one and not the other. — NOS4A2

First off, neo-Nazis are indeed to be fought, just not with rifles or bombs because they don't usually commit to armed warfare against any ideologies or people who oppose them - at least in the US. That is because they would get stomped. So, they scuttle around on the fringes of the internet only coming into the light to seize political opportunities like a mouse might seize upon a rotten bit of cheese to safely further their idiotic agenda and sate their appetites for relevancy. That is very different from Jihadis. They will just cut your head off for disagreeing, stone your wife to death, and take your daughters as sex slaves. One of those two things is a much more overt threat to one's liberty, as anyone with half a brain would be able to tell.

As for the rest of those groups: yes, sometimes those groups seek to transgress one's rights. But there is something to be said for the degree to which freedoms are transgressed, and the reasons for transgressing those freedoms. "Greens", for instance, clearly have no desire to curtail certain freedoms for the sake of curtailing freedoms, but rather to maintain organized life on Earth. Which you should view as absolutely justified if you aren't psychotic. As for communists: yes, communism undoubtedly lends itself to the curtailment of freedoms, I grant that. But you seem to think everyone except for big-brain NOS is being scammed out of their rations by a bunch of grifting idealogues.

That, I would argue, is largely not the case, especially for the groups you just mentioned. One isn't a nazi if one doesn't hate, one isn't a communist if one doesn't want property to be publicly owned, and one isn't a Republican if one doesn't support King Donald when the rubber meets the road. One also doesn't care about the environment if one opposes measures to stop destroying the environment - even if that means curtailing some freedoms in (probably) relatively mild ways. Those are essential qualities that are required for membership of those groups and that inform those groups' ideologies. That is to say, most of those people in those groups understand what they are supporting. If anyone is being misled by ideology, it is the person who would equate the potential for transgressing freedoms between all those groups because they can't understand the limitations of looking at the world in such stark terms as you do, NOS.

So, I would argue that certain ideologies should be reformed over others, largely because the degrees to which freedoms would be transgressed and the reasons for transgressing those freedoms, are, once again, not identical across the ideologies, and the people who support the ideologies know it - just like you do, NOS. A Nazi is not equivalent to a "Green", and you know it. If that still doesn't make sense, here is a quick thought experiment:

Would you rather live in a white, Nazi ethnostate predicated on Hitlerian principles (whatever the fuck a Hitlerian principle is), or a United States that has made some economic sacrifices and sacrifices of personal freedom to support not destroying the environment? Which of those two worlds transgresses more of one's freedoms in all likelihood?

I go for the world where no one transgresses another’s freedoms so long another doesn’t transgress theirs. And those ideologies fall squarely into the category that would. I require no other distinguishing categories because the instinct and behavior to coerce and force others to speak, act, and to believe in certain ways is inherent in each, in the Islamist just as it is in you. Their ideologies ought to inform their own beliefs and behaviors, how they live their own lives, not ours.

Unfortunately it is without irony that the reasons you would seek to reform Jihadism, to purge them of their evil beliefs, is the same reasons why they seek to purge you of yours. In the mean time your defence of power furnishes them precisely with the means to do so.

You and I don't agree very often, but this is exactly right.

I go for the world where no one transgresses another’s freedoms so long another doesn’t transgress theirs. — NOS4A2

So, there is never a justification for transgressing other's freedoms unless one's own freedoms are directly being transgressed. That isn't what you were saying earlier, which was basically that all of the ideologies you listed are equally injurious to our freedoms, which is clearly not the case. You say they all fall into the same category, but does intent actually mean so little to you? Is there no such thing as a greater good worth compelling or limiting people's actions for ever?

I mean, if all it took was a small decrease in quality of life for everyone so that humanity could continue to inhabit the Earth, you don't think that could be justified? In opposing that measure would you not be transgressing the freedoms of countless others - perhaps billions - to live their lives through your principled opposition to having your freedom to pollute and destroy transgressed? I think according to your own reasoning you are wrong, NOS.

Furthermore, there is no redeeming value to be found in ignoring or allowing Jihadism, and I see no reason not to help the people who are most affected by it, which is Muslims, reform their religion successfully, if only because many of them don't want to live in an Islamic state themselves. I mean, those people are having their freedoms transgressed by the Jihadis, are they not? You should want to help them, NOS.



I hope you are just agreeing with him because you took an adversarial position towards the OP in the first place. NOS is being really unreasonable here, as usual.

I hope you are just agreeing with him because you took an adversarial position towards the OP in the first place. NOS is being really unreasonable here, as usual. — ToothyMaw

I didn't take "an adversarial position." I disagreed with what you wrote. And I agreed with what NOS4A2 wrote in the specific post I was responding to.

Besides that, questioning a person's motives is not a legitimate argument.

That’s right; I don’t care if they believe they will bring about heaven on Earth. Every ideologue claims he has the intent to better the world through his power, theft, and impositions, if only he could bend the state and the people to his whim, but history shows that it never turns out as intended. In fact I doubt their intent entirely and conclude that they just want to tell people what to do in the hopes of fashioning society in their image. I prefer to let justice be done though the heavens fall, myself.

Reform is what they do to people in prison, and look how well that has worked out for the islamists. European prisons are a breeding ground for recruitment.

You can look up yourself what the various countries in the Middle-East looked like before US-Israeli intervention. Modern and even prosperous.

The way it has now been framed by the West is to make it seem like this problem is somehow inherent to Islam, to avoid facing the backlash of decades of malpractice.

In reality, virtually every Islamic extremist group can be directly tied to US-Israeli interventions, and regularly these extremist groups were directly supported by the US and/or Israeli government and secrets services at one point or another - IS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc.

The US and Israel are the pink elephant in the room, occasionally supported by English or French lackeys.

I prefer to let justice be done though the heavens fall, myself. — NOS4A2

Then you are okay with the end of organized life on Earth because you think no one has the right to transgress your rights unless you transgress theirs, and every person who has ever claimed to believe in a greater good is a swindler. Got it.

There are groups of people who have a lot of power that push for profits through the destruction of the environment to our detriment and without regard for suffering or the existential threat the destruction poses. It seems to me that the corporations, billionaires, and lobbyists in question are transgressing our rights to maintain our ways of living. If that is true, are we not justified in resisting forcefully?

edit: by forceful I mean taking preventative measures that might include restricting freedoms - economic or personal. I don't mean violence.

Since you can both predict the end of our species and
provide the means to prevent it, what are the answers?

I’m not ok with the end of life on Earth. I just believe you’re more likely to bring it about before any of your bogeymen, and you’ll make our remaining time here more miserable while doing so.

There ought to be no way to deal with Jihadis save for leaving them alone. In fact, one ought to go out of his way to defend the jihadi’s right to speak, believe, and live he wishes, so long as he doesn’t transgress another’s right to do the same. Nothing does more for Jihadism, and brings more to its cause, than its oppression. — NOS4A2

I was a classical liberal once. Maybe I still am. Not sure. It's not always easy to define what a right is. Protest is a right, of course, but what about protesting outside of religious buildings specifically while services are ongoing? Or how about blasting noise outside of religious buildings during services as a form of protest? Harassment or free speech? It's not always so clear cut. As long as the intolerant minority remains insignificant it's easy to be tolerant.

Since you can both predict the end of our species and
provide the means to prevent it, what are the answers? — NOS4A2

That is at least partially an easy question to answer, but mostly irrelevant to our discussion. What I, some random person on a forum, thinks we ought to do, doesn't matter. What does matter is that it is true that sacrifices of freedom can be justified for the greater good. That is, if one isn't so conspiracy-minded that one believes that people who want to protect the environment are equivalent to Jihadis. Sure, the latent potential to control and transgress rights is there even with environmentalism, I guess, but it would be really dumb to think that those two groups - jihadis and environmentalists - are comparable in terms of their goals, the degree to which they (might) want to stifle freedoms, and how they would go about it. In fact, it would be moronic.

I’m not ok with the end of life on Earth. I just believe you’re more likely to bring it about before any of your bogeymen, and you’ll make our remaining time here more miserable while doing so. — NOS4A2

Okay, so let's unpack that. You appear to be saying that a worldwide Islamic caliphate is less likely to make life on Earth difficult to maintain than if we curtailed a few freedoms for everyone and protected the environment (that is, if the curtailment of freedoms were necessary to do so). Or you are saying that jihadis cause less destruction in pursuing their radical, violent agenda than people who want to protect the environment who might try to legislate some changes in the way we live. Or you could be saying both. You don't see any problems with either of those statements?

That is at least partially an easy question to answer, but mostly irrelevant to our discussion. What I, some random person on a forum, thinks we ought to do, doesn't matter. What does matter is that it is true that sacrifices of freedom can be justified for the greater good. That is, if one isn't so conspiracy-minded that one believes that people who want to protect the environment are equivalent to Jihadis. Sure, the latent potential to control and transgress rights is there even with environmentalism, I guess, but it would be really dumb to think that those two groups - jihadis and environmentalists - are comparable in terms of their goals, the degree to which they (might) want to stifle freedoms, and how they would go about it. In fact, it would be moronic.

It isn't true that sacrificing someone's freedom can be justified for The Greater Good, and for two simples reasons. You do not know what The Greater Good is nor how to attain it. What is true, however, is that the environmentalist and the Jihadi both believe they know do know it and how to attain it (or at least they say they do) and both involve imposing their ideologies on others through injustice and the abuse of power.

Okay, so let's unpack that. You appear to be saying that a worldwide Islamic caliphate is less likely to make life on Earth difficult to maintain than if we curtailed a few freedoms for everyone and protected the environment (that is, if the curtailment of freedoms were necessary to do so). Or you are saying that jihadis cause less destruction in pursuing their radical, violent agenda than people who want to protect the environment who might try to legislate some changes in the way we live. Or you could be saying both. You don't see any problems with either of those statements?

I want neither an Islamic nor environmentalist caliphate to govern my life, is what I'm saying.

You speak of curtailing another's freedoms as if it's something you do every other Tuesday. Is this common behavior for you? Or is it a sort of fantasy you have?

I was a classical liberal once. Maybe I still am. Not sure. It's not always easy to define what a right is. Protest is a right, of course, but what about protesting outside of religious buildings specifically while services are ongoing? Or how about blasting noise outside of religious buildings during services as a form of protest? Harassment or free speech? It's not always so clear cut. As long as the intolerant minority remains insignificant it's easy to be tolerant.

In free speech discourse it's called the Heckler's Veto. I don't think drowning out someone's speech with your own is free speech, but rather a form of censorship. It denies both the speaker's right to speak and the listener's right to hear it.

It isn't true that sacrificing someone's freedom can be justified for The Greater Good, and for two simples reasons. You do not know what The Greater Good is nor how to attain it. — NOS4A2

NOS, if we don't do what is necessary to protect the environment no one will even be around to enjoy the freedoms you claim to have in mind for humanity. Either we do what we have to, or no one has any freedoms. Should I say it in a different way? The Greater Good means doing what it takes to maintain a society that affords the people in it at least some freedoms, even if it means that some must be restricted.

You are being dense.

Furthermore, I don't see a fundamental difference between not allowing people to have bazookas and curtailing our freedoms in some small ways (such as imposing certain laws to reduce pollution) for the continuance of a society in which people are free to live comfortably. Why don't you argue for people to have the right to possess and shoot bazookas, NOS?

I want neither an Islamic nor environmentalist caliphate to govern my life, is what I'm saying. — NOS4A2

First off, that doesn't address the point I was making. Second, if you are not aware that your life is already governed in many ways by far more sinister and predatory entities than environmentalists, you are naive.

You speak of curtailing another's freedoms as if it's something you do every other Tuesday. Is this common behavior for you? Or is it a sort of fantasy you have? — NOS4A2

I'm going to forego the sardonic responses that come to mind when I read this.

Well, let's all settle down, shall we? No need to get so personal among total strangers. Let's get this thing back on track. Here's something to consider: there are many US-born Muslims, and there have been, for many generations. It's not just "a thing in the Middle East". In that sense, I would like to share a music video that I happen to like, and I would like to hear your honest thoughts about it, even if they're negative. Deal? Here goes:

Of course, Brand Nubian were inspired, in part, by Boogie Down Productions.

No need to get so personal among total strangers. — Arcane Sandwich

Fair enough. Sorry, @NOS4A2. I could've said what I wanted to without the insults. I hope we can continue to be on good enough terms to have productive conversations still.

Defeat discredits and moderates. — BitconnectCarlos

If that was true, Judaism would have died when the Assyrians invaded.

It nearly did. I'm talking more about the Romans though. The destruction of the temple and the defeat in two major rebellions caused Jews to radically rethink and moderate their theology.

It nearly did. I'm talking more about the Romans though. The destruction of the temple and the defeat in two major rebellions caused Jews to radically rethink and moderate their theology. — BitconnectCarlos

Other than giving up animal sacrifice, what changes did they make?