"Radical Islam is world's greatest threat" - Tony Blair

[Phony Moderate]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11182225

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Phony Moderate]

I don't like to agree with a neocon, but....he's basically right, imo.

[memphis]

I would broaden the statement and say religious nutters are the world's greatest threat.

[dead0man]

Yeah, all those Hindu nutters violently trying to take over a country...or those Buddhist nutters stoning rape victims....or those Shintoists burning Australian flags over a minor issue. 


Why is it wrong to point out that one specific religion's nutters do 95% of the crazy religious nutter sh**t?

[Sbane]

Although I disagree with him on Iraq, he's pretty much spot on here.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Yeah, all those Hindu nutters violently trying to take over a country...or those Buddhist nutters stoning rape victims....or those Shintoists burning Australian flags over a minor issue. 


Why is it wrong to point out that one specific religion's nutters do 95% of the crazy religious nutter sh**t?

     There are plenty of dangerous nutters in Christianity & Judaism. They are not as aggressive or as powerful as the ones in Islam, though they are still a significant threat in their own right.

[dead0man]

Of course, but most of the time (I'll stand by my 95% number) a religious nutter does something violent it's one specific religion.  Yes, there are nuts in other religions and every once in awhile one of them will do some violence, but for every one of them there are 20 (at least) act of insanity from Islam.  Ignoring that fact (for whatever reason) isn't going to help.  Trying to make it seem like all religions are equally full of the insanely violent isn't going to help.  Trying to make it seem like the world is under threat from nutters of all religious stripes isn't going to help.

[doktorb]

Yeah, all those Hindu nutters violently trying to take over a country...or those Buddhist nutters stoning rape victims....or those Shintoists burning Australian flags over a minor issue. 


Why is it wrong to point out that one specific religion's nutters do 95% of the crazy religious nutter sh**t?

Because the argument is very rarely put in those terms.

[Middle-aged Europe]

You know, I think christianity often ranks very high on the insanity-scale in some parts of Sub-Saharan Africa. This includes putting children to death for being suspected witches as well as the systematic persecution of homosexuals. Ah, well, and then there are organizations like the Lord's Resistance Army: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army

This is a phenomenon only few pay attention to in the Western world. For one thing, African christians don't blow sh!t up in North America/Europe, so "we" couldn't care less. Besides, it could shed a negative light on christianity as a whole (and especially, it could shed a very bad light on what Western evangelical missionaries are often doing in Africa...).

[minionofmidas]

Ahem...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence (attention - currently vandalized by hindunazis)

[dead0man]

You know, I think christianity often ranks very high on the insanity-scale in some parts of Sub-Saharan Africa. This includes putting children to death for being suspected witches as well as the systematic persecution of homosexuals. Ah, well, and then there are organizations like the Lord's Resistance Army: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army

Hamas is worse....as are a half dozen other Muslim based groups any of us could think of off the top of our head.

Ahem...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence (attention - currently vandalized by hindunazis)

Which was started by Muslims burning old ladies and babies alive.  Thanks though.

Look, this aint a competition you can win.  It's fine to just "say" all religions have their followers do funked up sh**t, but when facts start coming into the discussion it quickly shows that one religion is a lot better at it than the others.  I don't understand why people have such a hard time pointing that out or why they wouldn't want to.

[minionofmidas]

Ahem...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence (attention - currently vandalized by hindunazis)

Which was started by Muslims burning old ladies and babies alive.  Thanks though.

[/quote]Not really...

[dead0man]

What part of that does your link get wrong?

[Silent Hunter]

Just because "95%" of crazy religious violence is carried out by self-described Muslims does not make its followers or the religion evil.

[dead0man]

Who the hell ever even insinuated that?

[minionofmidas]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11182225

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note: radical. Not "violent radical Islam". They're all the same, you see, including the strong pacifist tendency within radical Islam (which shares much of the same frustrations and ressentiments as motivate Al Qaeda fighters...)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They all do, you see.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lmao. They're all doing this out of the blackness of their evil hearts, you see. They could not possibly have any sort of cause, since we were only killing them for their own good.

Yeah, nothing to see here. Right.

[dead0man]

Yes, clearly he's talking about radical pacifist Islam




(How many posts are you going to need here before you figure out how to post properly?)

[Silent Hunter]

@ deadoman: The fact you're pointing out the majority of these attacks are coming from "Muslims" could be interpreted that way. I apologise if you're not insinuating a problem with Islam.

[dead0man]

Yeah, my problem isn't with random Muslim, Islam in general or religion.  My issue in this thread is that people are trying to paint all religions as equally full of nutters and that those nutters are all equally likely to start doing violence.  My argument is, yeah, anybody can be nuts and do bad things to others, but people of a certain religious persuasion seem to be doing it a lot more than any other specific religion.  Furthermore I think ignoring that fact is a bad thing.

(which is why pointing out non-Muslims doing bad things too is kind of a stupid argument to make)

[Sbane]

Ahem...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence (attention - currently vandalized by hindunazis)

Which was started by Muslims burning old ladies and babies alive.  Thanks though.

Not really...
[/quote]

Wait...the Godhra train burning didn't happen?

Not that it comes close to even justifying one innocent muslim life taken after that, but let's not deny that it happened. And yes this kind of sh**t happens in India every decade or so, usually when the economy turns sour. It was certainly why the riots in the early 90's happened, and the economy wasn't that good in the early 2000's. Also the reason why no widespread riots happened after the Mumbai bombings of 2006 or the attack in 2008, since the economy was roaring.

Contrast that with Kashmir, where almost every single day you hear of a bomb going off in some market somewhere. And it's not as if it's Hindus being killed there either. It's radical islamists killing other muslims thinking that will somehow "liberate" Kashmir. Of course I don't care if Kashmir is "liberated". The world will see more pictures like the one below but not really give a sh**t. At least maybe an evacuation of Kashmiri women could be undertaken or whatever.

[minionofmidas]

In the sense of a terror attack on a train by random people from the outside? Yes, it never happened. That much is established beyond reasonable doubt (though a lot remains unclear - the version where the drunken taporis on their way back from Ayodhya accidentally set themselves and their cotravellers on fire and that was the only thing that happened is certainly not the only possible explanation.)
And it's not as if doubts about that version of the story weren't around before the pogroms even started (though presumably not in any news source available to the rioters.)

[Sbane]

In the sense of a terror attack on a train by random people from the outside? Yes, it never happened. That much is established beyond reasonable doubt (though a lot remains unclear - the version where the drunken taporis on their way back from Ayodhya accidentally set themselves and their cotravellers on fire and that was the only thing that happened is certainly not the only possible explanation.)
And it's not as if doubts about that version of the story weren't around before the pogroms even started (though presumably not in any news source available to the rioters.)

I don't know exactly what happened. There was certainly a lot of protests and what not going on because the train full of "drunken taporis" was coming back from Ayodhya. Was the fire set by Muslim protesters, or was it set by the Hindus themselves..who knows. It's a little similar to saying the US government demolished the WTC to justify invading Iraq..but whatever. There is nothing that can justify what followed next. And it's unfortunate that Modi is still the governor of Gujarat, and not in jail or lawfully executed, as would be my wish.

Still doesn't detract from the fact that atrocities happen damn near every day in Kashmir, mostly by Muslims against other Muslims. I don't see how bringing up this example detracts from the 19:1 ratio of violence Dead0man has proposed.

[minionofmidas]

Was the fire set by Muslim protesters, or was it set by the Hindus themselves..who knows.

Yeah, more as in "was it set (probably not, but if so then from the inside) or did it break out, and why exactly did it break out?" Fighting on the train broke out well before the fire, apparently, but evidence on who was brawling with whom and what over is hopelessly tangled and unclear and it is indeed not going to be possible to find what the hell happened, exactly.
But the RSS militias (whose members were most of the dead, after all) and the state government jumped to a conclusion what MUST have happened, and rejoiced at the opportunity to riot. All sorts of dark rumours spread (which hardly requires orchestration by some mastermind. People will do that on their own accord.)
It's not exactly a unique course of events for communal violence in India... though the still-acting prime minister's part makes it somewhat special.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was a direct reference to

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The guy hasn't even a clue of what he was talking about... he isn't at all aware that the world is actually quite full of violent Hindu nutters. (Or of Buddhists and Hindus burning flags or worse of their neighbor countries over hilariously minor issues, incidentally, though that's not particularly relevant.)

The sad tale of Kashmir doesn't really lend itself to being used as evidence for anything here. Though it is, of course, one of the issues that the (is there an actual word for this?) violencization within radical Islam happened over.

[Sbane]

Was the fire set by Muslim protesters, or was it set by the Hindus themselves..who knows.

Yeah, more as in "was it set (probably not, but if so then from the inside) or did it break out, and why exactly did it break out?" Fighting on the train broke out well before the fire, apparently, but evidence on who was brawling with whom and what over is hopelessly tangled and unclear and it is indeed not going to be possible to find what the hell happened, exactly.
But the RSS militias (whose members were most of the dead, after all) and the state government jumped to a conclusion what MUST have happened, and rejoiced at the opportunity to riot. All sorts of dark rumours spread (which hardly requires orchestration by some mastermind. People will do that on their own accord.)
It's not exactly a unique course of events for communal violence in India... though the still-acting prime minister's part makes it somewhat special.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was a direct reference to

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The guy hasn't even a clue of what he was talking about... he isn't at all aware that the world is actually quite full of violent Hindu nutters. (Or of Buddhists and Hindus burning flags or worse of their neighbor countries over hilariously minor issues, incidentally, though that's not particularly relevant.)

The sad tale of Kashmir doesn't really lend itself to being used as evidence for anything here. Though it is, of course, one of the issues that the (is there an actual word for this?) violencization within radical Islam happened over.

Of course there are Hindu nutters (not sure about the Buddhists unless you mean the Sri Lankans? Though that is more of an ethnic conflict.) but any violence orchestrated by them pales in comparison to violence committed by Muslims, even inside India (including Kashmir of course). And if you include Pakistan....Seriously, when was the last time a Sufi shrine was bombed in India by Hindu nutjobs? Never is my guess. What's the count in Pakistan now? It's hard to keep up. 

And you must mean Chief minister, not Prime minister? Obviously you are not blaming Manmohan Singh for the Gujarat pogroms, are you?

[minionofmidas]

Yes, yes, Chief Minister. Didn't think about the country-specific nomenclature. Sorry bout that.

(Re Buddhists - I was actually thinking of South East Asia. The way tempers in Thailand and Cambodia and such places can rise over seemingly trivial issues can be pretty hilarious, in just the same way the anti-Denmark protests were hilarious.)