The Romans considered the Christians terrorists. All evil is relative.
The Romans considered the Christians terrorists. All evil is relative.
The Uighurs in Xinjiang are kicking ass against the Chinese govt, who considers them to be terrorists.
The Turks considered Armenians to be terrorists in 1915.
There are Buddhist terrorists killing Rohingyas in Myanmar right now.
anyone who wreacks havoc and terror is a terrorist. FARQ, Los Luminosos in Peru-Shining Path, etc.
And so it begins. With the greatest respect Kirkland, what you could try doing is reading the article. What Atran is saying is that this work is simply not being done. As an Anthropologist, while it is not the end game, you can derive insights from large sample surveys but Ironically, (considering the propaganda led agenda of many) not only are wannabe Jihadis unwilling to talk, but also research ethics criteria has become too obstructive in seeking to overprotect university research students.
France did not Invade Iraq and the French gunmen made very little sense, being just as pissed off at having to pay tax, so things are not as simple as you are claiming.
Last edited by Beanz; 01-22-2015 at 07:46 PM.
Andre.
You of all people should know me well enough by now to realise that I am not a subscriber to 'one eye views'. I should then maybe make myself clearer. The article is an interview with an Anthropologist, not the views of a journalist, so already it is presenting another way of looking at something. So yes it wasn't merely reporting, but making a point is not the same as making a claim that seeks to whitewash the argument ? I too do not think that the only point worth making is that potential terrorist are not all just hiding in amongst their own religion, I am merely trying to stop the whole discussion descending into ever decreasing circles of blame and very little headway being made.
"It’s the organized anarchy of it that does more to terrorize than actually carefully planned commando operations"
The threat is unpredictable and in his realm it is his job to try and understand behavioural patterns and then help predict it.
I do not subscribe to the idea of these being staged events with crisis actors like Miles does, I think that is beyond myopic and incredibly offensive. I also do not subscribe to the easy 2 =2 + 4 argument of Kirkland that seeks to solely blame the actions of Western Governments. I also don't think that closing all Mosques is likely to achieve much either except fostering animosity and attacks on all small ethnic and religious groups. And yet I am expected to respond to stuff like this ?
"Im not against him or his works or you being 100% on his side or he fact he so called educated that is a swipe.
Im all for you protecting innocent Muslims who I agree are 97% clear, but why aren't you all for routing out the small percentage that hides among them?"
This is extremely disingenuous. IT has become like forum apartheid. Why would you think I was against routing out terrorists? That's crazy and I am getting sick to the back teeth of it to be honest. You try and take a balanced approach and you get labelled a bleeding heart liberal (not by you). Yes I get pissed with people using terms like "so called educated" because it took that guy 6 or 7 years of hard work to get recognised for his expertise and I love education. I work in education and people pay thousands of pounds to better themselves and expand their brain, mind, experience and intellect, often whilst working long hours and sometimes bringing up a family, and so I will not so easily dismiss them with some mislead notion that the academic life is an easy one. Many Anthropologists live for years in tribal societies and have just as many valid spiritual, mental and life experiences as you. Ryan spent years studying immigration at a very high level and yet he is dismissed because people like to make themselves self appointed experts or rely on half baked ideas and hearsay.
I always try to look at things from more than one fixed point of view and I regret any suggestion that I do otherwise. I am not angry or preaching Or hounding anyone. but please people stop assuming any alternative view is some kind of attack or bleeding hearted liberal capitulation. It's impossible to have a discussion when people have already filled in your half of the conversation before you open your mouth.
Last edited by Beanz; 01-22-2015 at 07:50 PM.
@Andre Don't forget that Greenbeanz is the one that created this thread -
http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...gies-evil.html
I think he takes a very balanced and objective view mate. He never makes excuses for the acts, he doesn't deny that there is a problem of an extremist strand in Islam. Yet he also doesn't make sweeping statements that are anti Islamic.
Also, when discussing the causes of Islamic extremism he is balanced in that he can see,and has often said, that the causes are more complex than those often put forward. Saying that he doesn't want all the mosques closed doesn't mean he is in denial that there is an issue that needs addressing.
Last edited by ryanman; 01-22-2015 at 07:18 PM.
Saddo Fantasy Premier League
2011/12 - 2nd
2012/13 -1st Hidden Content
2013/14 - 3rd (Master won)
Saddo World Cup Dream Team
2014 - 1st Hidden Content
@Kirkland Laing that may well be true for the genesis of many of the groups and the attacks they carry out however for me it can't be the definitive reason to explain Islamic extremism as there are things that don't fit.
Boko Haram for instance are not engaging in Anti-Western activities.
ISIS were happy to have no involvement and conflict with the US.
There is more to terrorism than just blow back against countries that have interfered.
If it were simply that then as I said before we would also be having a spate of international terrorist groups emanating from South and Central America.
There are a multitude of reasons for the spate of Islamic extremist groups and I think that an anti-west agenda is just one of those reasons. For some groups it is the primary reason, yet for others it doesn't really feature at all. So for me it isn't a satisfactory (complete) explanation.
Saddo Fantasy Premier League
2011/12 - 2nd
2012/13 -1st Hidden Content
2013/14 - 3rd (Master won)
Saddo World Cup Dream Team
2014 - 1st Hidden Content
For over half a century now Saudi Arabia has been funding radical Islam all over the world. The Saudi brand of Islam, Wahaabism, is pretty indistinguishable from the brand practiced under ISIS. Saudi have funded the building of mosques all over the Muslim world including Nigeria, Pakistan, Britain and so on and they in most cases get radical Waahabi imans preaching in them as part of the deal.
Fundamentalist Islam used to be a minority thing but due to Saudi money it's becoming the dominant strain of religion. Preachers funded by Saudi and Gulf state money are all over the world and the internet preaching hate. This is the ideological foundation of groups like Al Quaeda and ISIS.
If we didn't involve ourselves in their part of the world they'd be far too busy fighting amongst themselves to bother about us (see Syria pre our involvement) but once we get involved then some of them are going to respond violently.
Also, too. South American or Vietnamese or whoever groups who would like to fight back against America need money and organisation. The Saudis/Gulf states provide the money for all these Islamic groups and initially the Americans provided the organisation ( Saudi/Arab fighters going to fight in Afghanistan against the Soviets and being trained by the US).
Now they have military know-how and basically unlimited military funding from Saudi and the Gulf states.
Nice.
Here's a root cause of terrorism, the collapse of The Ottoman Empire
Ok we are on the same page.
Im all for routing out these fuckers where there meet.
In reality here in Australia, ASIO are doing that undercover within Islam and that is the only way to find out who is stepping out of their back doors for private meetings and grooming their kids for war against us here in the west.
I 've never been with the close all mosques idea either. That would bring open warfare onto our streets if you think about the stages and where it would all lead.
Thing is here in the forum,I've pointed out that its a fact we know where these lads are coming from here and it is the other side of homegrown terrorism, I belive the Anthropologist fellow who went and interviewed terrorists interviewed ones that strike at home not the already organised system of recruting from within the religion and there was no mention of that or that those lines do cross at times as seen in 911.
My beliefs about it stem from the arrests out here and where they actually found these fellows,I think its right to go in after them.
People out there whos main aim is to protect the rights of individuals to practice what they like above everything else and belive the goverment is trying to form more controls over everyone through fear of this religion etc are jaded. They ignore real threats,real facts to prove their points and will try to dump others into the reverse group to theirs politically and the reverse occurs too then they both lose focus in the blame game, meanwhile the physical threat to us all is still building its reserves and numbers from within.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks