I haven't watched the video, Muslima, but I must tell you that I'm often struck by your tagline, "The problem is not Radical Islam, but Radical Igorance."

There are plenty of ignorant people in the world. They are not violent, aggressive, dangerous people. Or at least not on a large level, although they may win the Darwin award occasionally.

Radical Islam and Islamic extremists are a problem.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So Jeff, I know you'll find a new way to say that Muslima is right and I'm wrong, even if it's just accusing me again of non-existent contradictions. I'm starting to think you're really full of it. Have at it.

I am sorry that this has become an issue. I was trying to compliment you on your post. The only thing I might accuse you of is poor reading skills. You quoted a post that said, "these actions are inexplicable". You wrote, "I agree". Then, you provided an explanation. How can you both agree that the actions are inexplicable and then explain them? It's not a big deal and I shouldn't have mentioned it. I was simply confused by your post because of this contradiction.

This has nothing to do with Muslima and I don't understand your obsession with her. I didn't mention her once.

Apology accepted. If "I'm sorry it has become an issue that you have poor reading comprehension and you can't write clearly" is an apology. Whatever, it'll have to do.

Lots of people are irritated by Muslima, not just me. I know you can verify this. Her victimhood mentality is irritating, the drumbeat about how CH is sonebody else's fault. Her rhetorical style is irritating, where she responds to important points only with insults and then obsesses about irrelevant side issues. Her misrepresentation is Islam is irritating. (On this thread I just noticed her claiming that you can't cite the Quran to talk about Islam, and I didn't have the energy to take on that BS by pointing out that Muslims, including her on the other threads, cite the Quran all.the.time. But boy, you should have seen her on those other threads. "Women are equal in Islam" and "Islam offers protection and sexual fulfillment to women captives.") Don't call it an "obsession", that's just an ad hominem. I and others are merely pointing out what we've noticed about how you always defend her, even when she's full of crap; you never question her crap even when it's blatant crap; and in fact you've frequently jumped in to challenge the posters who were questioning her crap. To the extent Muslima affects me at all, it's probably to cause a knee-jerk reaction to distrust her. Your own role in defending her crap probably causes me (and I venture to say, others here) to come down even harder on her. Laudable? Not exactly, I'll admit that. Understandable? Completely.

A little Saturday morning introspection. You're welcome.

Take a chill pill, it is Saturday! And that highlighted sentence is a lie. Where did I say that? I didn't know I had such a big part in your virtual life, i am flattered! Everything else you said about my posts is also untrue, illogical and false. But I have nor the time or the wants to go through each point again as they have been debated in hundreds of pages and if you didn't get them then , you wouldn't get them now~

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What good will an "explanation" be? The explanation will most likely reflect passages (perhaps distorted in meaning) found in the Quran.

Is there hope that through some mediation these extremist will eventually see the light?

If so, now THAT'S funny!

"Let's all sit down and talk. Leave your weapons outside by the door, please."

ha!

When events like this take place, you can react or not react. If you react, you can react in a way that helps solves the problem or react in a way that makes the problem worse. An explanation would be helpful in choosing a reaction that solves the problem. Ignorance is almost never helpful to problem solving.

We're really getting into words here. But the underlying issue I think people are getting at is "fault," who is "at fault," and "where the fault lies." Or, if you want, "blame," who is "to blame," and "where the blame lies."

By focussing on the "explanation is bigotry" you're totally alienating fault/blame from the terrorists. I think that's what I and others are objecting to. By saying the terrorists have some measure of responsibility, you could start to broaden this idea of "fault/blame" into questions like, why didn't the assassins instead consider a sit-in in front of CH, and what was going on in the mosques where these guys were radicalized.

"Reaction in an appropriate way" is just another way of getting at the idea of "fault.' It could be answered with, hey, why didn't they stage a sit-in in front of CH. Although, of course, Jeff is referring not to how the terrorists reacted to the bigotry (murder vs. sit-ins) but how French society should react to the terrorists.

You say, "we are really getting into words here." Of course, this is a written medium. We have nothing but words. That being the case, it helps to pay attention to words.

I have never said that the "explanation is bigotry". All of my posts have my name on them. Find one that says that. Bigotry may be part of the explanation -- you even included it in your list. But, it is far from the complete explanation.

The only factors I have mentioned regarding the explanation are those related to AQAP's ability to provide an attractive alternatives to disaffected Muslims in France. Otherwise, I agreed with your list of factors. Just as there are many parts to the explanation for what happened, there are many layers of fault. Ultimately, fault lies with those who pulled the triggers. But, there are others that share some blame.

It is important to understand the meaning of words and be a critical listener. Explaining behavior is different from justifying it. If someone intentionally spills coffee on me and I kill them in response, the explanation for what I did was that I was defying their actions, and wanted to show them I had a bigger ego than they did and will not allow anyone to mistreat me . But that, of course, isn't a justification for what I did, because, even though what they did was wrong, my reaction to it is out of proportion.

Now back to the Paris attack, it is disingenuous to state that I put all the blame on the French government and policies. That would be ridiculous, you can go back to my posts and clearly see how I not only blamed the attackers but stated that we have a lot of young Muslims who are so angry and full of hate that they have lost their sense of humanity. I will focus on the Muslim explanation by popular demand

-In the Muslim community, we have uneducated, self-taught followers who believe they are qualified to give religious verdicts and that they can make someone else's life permissible, without ever actually having studied with a single scholar. Googling fatwas and quoting random incidents from the Seerah is enough these days to become a faqih.

-The terms jihad (struggle) and Shaheed ( martyr) have been hijacked by extremist movements who might be motivated by legitimate concerns, but express that motivation in un-Islamic manners, and cause destruction & bloodshed in the name of religion whilst overlooking their own responsibilities towards their communities.

-Young overzealous youth, angered by the transgressions of Western powers, are often swayed by fancy rhetoric and enticing slogans into entering a military conflict that eventually ends up harming the very people they claim to protect

-The Muslim world lacks strong leaders and strong institutions. They are mostly led by dictators who oppress their own people and are in bed with the western world.

- You have a country like Saudi Arabia that is exporting more extremism than oil. Political identity around grievances are then used and exploited in regions with huge crisis of identity problems.

- Lots of extremists that inspire people through the web, we need to counter that narrative

- Attacks like the ones in Paris will provoke the rise of nationalist policies and parties in the West, and this is what extremists want, so they can draw a further wedge and recruit more people. Their main goal is to divide communities so they can polarize and radicalize.

For anyone interested, I highly recommend this talk by Dr.Yasir Qadhi about the causes and roots of Muslim Fundamentalism .In this interview, he gets into the mindset of radical "Islamic" movements and unveils the psychological framework that leads to terrorism. He academically analyses the three primary combinations that must exist before radicalism is resorted to and talks about how to fight these ideologies. [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gGYVsbRvDQ [/youtube]

I just opened my home copy of the Koran, to a book mark I had in it of Mother Teresa cradling a little baby.

Well, what would people like me to look up?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What good will an "explanation" be? The explanation will most likely reflect passages (perhaps distorted in meaning) found in the Quran.

Is there hope that through some mediation these extremist will eventually see the light?

If so, now THAT'S funny!

"Let's all sit down and talk. Leave your weapons outside by the door, please."

ha!

When events like this take place, you can react or not react. If you react, you can react in a way that helps solves the problem or react in a way that makes the problem worse. An explanation would be helpful in choosing a reaction that solves the problem. Ignorance is almost never helpful to problem solving.

We're really getting into words here. But the underlying issue I think people are getting at is "fault," who is "at fault," and "where the fault lies." Or, if you want, "blame," who is "to blame," and "where the blame lies."

By focussing on the "explanation is bigotry" you're totally alienating fault/blame from the terrorists. I think that's what I and others are objecting to. By saying the terrorists have some measure of responsibility, you could start to broaden this idea of "fault/blame" into questions like, why didn't the assassins instead consider a sit-in in front of CH, and what was going on in the mosques where these guys were radicalized.

"Reaction in an appropriate way" is just another way of getting at the idea of "fault.' It could be answered with, hey, why didn't they stage a sit-in in front of CH. Although, of course, Jeff is referring not to how the terrorists reacted to the bigotry (murder vs. sit-ins) but how French society should react to the terrorists.

Anonymous wrote:
Lots of people are irritated by Muslima, not just me. I know you can verify this. Her victimhood mentality is irritating, the drumbeat about how CH is sonebody else's fault. Her rhetorical style is irritating, where she responds to important points only with insults and then obsesses about irrelevant side issues. Her misrepresentation is Islam is irritating. (On this thread I just noticed her claiming that you can't cite the Quran to talk about Islam, and I didn't have the energy to take on that BS by pointing out that Muslims, including her on the other threads, cite the Quran all.the.time. But boy, you should have seen her on those other threads. "Women are equal in Islam" and "Islam offers protection and sexual fulfillment to women captives.") Don't call it an "obsession", that's just an ad hominem. I and others are merely pointing out what we've noticed about how you always defend her, even when she's full of crap; you never question her crap even when it's blatant crap; and in fact you've frequently jumped in to challenge the posters who were questioning her crap. To the extent Muslima affects me at all, it's probably to cause a knee-jerk reaction to distrust her. Your own role in defending her crap probably causes me (and I venture to say, others here) to come down even harder on her. Laudable? Not exactly, I'll admit that. Understandable? Completely.

A little Saturday morning introspection. You're welcome.

I don't defend Muslima that much and I suspect she would be pretty surprised that you think I defend her at all. I do often share a perspective similar to hers so I may appear to be arguing on the same side. There are very distinct and important differences between us. She is Muslim and I'm not. She is discussing her personal beliefs and her religion. I could as easily be discussing Formula 1 racing or the difference between Gibson and Fender guitars (if you want to see a true religious war, let's discuss that). When Muslima discusses Islam, unless she says otherwise, it is implied that she means Islam as she practices it or as she believes it. If she says "Women are equal in Islam", she is providing her understanding of Islam. What you should do is discuss other groups of Muslims who don't think women are equal in Islam. Because if Muslima says, "Woman are equal in Islam" and you say, "Women are not equal in Islam", I would say that both of you are wrong. Those statements are only true within the context of specific Muslims because there is no single "Islam".

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course there is no justification, but there is an explanation

Haven't posted much on this thread, but I have been reading it. You just lost any credibility you thought you had.

Could someone please explain what is wrong with Muslima's statement? Why wouldn't there be an explanation? I assume that nobody here would think that the explanation provides a justification, but understanding why this atrocity occurred could be useful in preventing future attacks.

I agree. Why shouldn't there be an explanation, as incredible or nonsensical as it may be? We need to understand why these events happen. Nobody disagrees that there is no justification for this horrible event. But the explanation is important.

An "explanation" to the Sandy Hook murders was given but certainly didn't justify what happened. I think people are just getting tired of heinous behavior always being given an excuse in lieu of accountability. There's always an explanation for nonsensical behavior but doesn't mean it should be excused. You are still (or should be) in control of your actions regardless of any disdain or hatred of others' actions.

No explanation excuses the carnage the terrorists perpetrated.

people are cross talking. There are 43 pages of 'explanation' here so Muslima can stop harping on semantics--everyone has sought to understand the 'context' --just as we could spend another 43 on Boko Haram. No one has shut that conversation down. What people are not seeking is the idea that these actions can be explained--ie justified or grounded in reason. They may have reasons but they are not reasonable. They are human garbage.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So Jeff, I know you'll find a new way to say that Muslima is right and I'm wrong, even if it's just accusing me again of non-existent contradictions. I'm starting to think you're really full of it. Have at it.

I am sorry that this has become an issue. I was trying to compliment you on your post. The only thing I might accuse you of is poor reading skills. You quoted a post that said, "these actions are inexplicable". You wrote, "I agree". Then, you provided an explanation. How can you both agree that the actions are inexplicable and then explain them? It's not a big deal and I shouldn't have mentioned it. I was simply confused by your post because of this contradiction.

This has nothing to do with Muslima and I don't understand your obsession with her. I didn't mention her once.

Apology accepted. If "I'm sorry it has become an issue that you have poor reading comprehension and you can't write clearly" is an apology. Whatever, it'll have to do.

Lots of people are irritated by Muslima, not just me. I know you can verify this. Her victimhood mentality is irritating, the drumbeat about how CH is sonebody else's fault. Her rhetorical style is irritating, where she responds to important points only with insults and then obsesses about irrelevant side issues. Her misrepresentation is Islam is irritating. (On this thread I just noticed her claiming that you can't cite the Quran to talk about Islam, and I didn't have the energy to take on that BS by pointing out that Muslims, including her on the other threads, cite the Quran all.the.time. But boy, you should have seen her on those other threads. "Women are equal in Islam" and "Islam offers protection and sexual fulfillment to women captives.") Don't call it an "obsession", that's just an ad hominem. I and others are merely pointing out what we've noticed about how you always defend her, even when she's full of crap; you never question her crap even when it's blatant crap; and in fact you've frequently jumped in to challenge the posters who were questioning her crap. To the extent Muslima affects me at all, it's probably to cause a knee-jerk reaction to distrust her. Your own role in defending her crap probably causes me (and I venture to say, others here) to come down even harder on her. Laudable? Not exactly, I'll admit that. Understandable? Completely.

A little Saturday morning introspection. You're welcome.

Anonymous wrote:What good will an "explanation" be? The explanation will most likely reflect passages (perhaps distorted in meaning) found in the Quran.

Is there hope that through some mediation these extremist will eventually see the light?

If so, now THAT'S funny!

"Let's all sit down and talk. Leave your weapons outside by the door, please."

ha!

When events like this take place, you can react or not react. If you react, you can react in a way that helps solves the problem or react in a way that makes the problem worse. An explanation would be helpful in choosing a reaction that solves the problem. Ignorance is almost never helpful to problem solving.

What good will an "explanation" be? The explanation will most likely reflect passages (perhaps distorted in meaning) found in the Quran.

Is there hope that through some mediation these extremist will eventually see the light?

If so, now THAT'S funny!

"Let's all sit down and talk. Leave your weapons outside by the door, please."

ha!

Anonymous wrote:Muslima, Jeff: What's the explanation for Boko Haram razing entire villages the other day, killing at least 2000, mostly kids, women and elderly? To date, they are estimating at killing 10k. What is the explanation for that? Is it the same as killing a dozen journalists and cartoonists? The same as 4 patrons at a kosher market? Or are all Islamic radicals killing for different reasons?

Occasionally there are events that are unexplainable either because we simply don't know the explanation or because the explanation is not comprehensible to us (i.e. voices in someone's head told them to commit murder). But, most of the time, people and groups act based on some logic. We often categorize that logic as being strategy or tactics. I don't know enough about Boko Haram to explain either their strategy or their tactics. But, possible explanations are that they were punishing the villagers for some reason and their brutal response was mean to intimidate other villagers that might consider doing whatever it was that provoked the punishment. Another possibility was something similar to ethnic cleansing in which they were trying to rid the territory of members of another group to make the land available for their own group.

AQAP has been very clear about why they organized the attack on Charlie Hebdo. The group has published a "hit list" of individuals they consider to be enemies of Islam. They are attempting to eliminate those enemies as punishment, to intimidate others, and to demonstrate their power (i.e. propaganda). There is also an old communist expression, "heightening the contradictions" in which actions are taken to provoke a backlash and increase divisions between groups. France has a large disaffected Muslim population. If an event like this results in a significant backlash against that population, it will only push more people into the AQAP camp. That is why I consider those who exploit events like this to attack "Islam" to be in league with AQAP and similar groups.

Anonymous wrote:Muslima, Jeff: What's the explanation for Boko Haram razing entire villages the other day, killing at least 2000, mostly kids, women and elderly? To date, they are estimating at killing 10k. What is the explanation for that? Is it the same as killing a dozen journalists and cartoonists? The same as 4 patrons at a kosher market? Or are all Islamic radicals killing for different reasons?

Broadly speaking, they're all insane. Or uncivilized. Or violent savages.

Less abstractly, they are reactionary, extremely conservative, hostile to Western education and principles, and an outlet for anger fueled by extreme poverty.

Boko Haram means "Western education is forbidden."

I think Frances best response would be to.embrace its moderate Muslim.and Jewish populations. Both seem under attack by this human garbage, along with the rest of the people / ideals of France.