user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
smile bank:
|
similiar ballots:
95468. If religion isn't a major factor in terrorism, why are there so few non-muslim terrorists?
97309. Is religion an important factor in the Kashmir Conflict?
104187. What's the most important factor determining household income in the U.S.?
97317. Was religion a key factor in Bangladesh separatism
89131. If the need for oil was suddenly gone, would this lower the incidences of terrorism throughout the world, or would terrorism increase dramatically?
78112. Who has done MORE harm to their religion? Islamic Terrorists or Pedophelic Priests
66110. 'No other factor in history, not even religion, has produced so many wars as has the clash of national egotisms sanctified by the name of patriotism.'
91334. Every religion insists that its the only one, true religion. Isn't this proof that, best case scenario, all religions in the world except maybe one, are complete bullshit!
112280. Race, Gender & Religion: Are These Things Important To You When Voting?
100916. Why is the U.S. hated by the Islamic world?
|
COMMENTS:
I believe it is a convenient mantle to hide behind. The real thrust is geopolitical.
Cathexis- The claim that it is 'political' motives and not religion is heavily flawed.
First of all, many of the terrorist organisations are indeed political Islamists. This implies that religion and politics are intertwined into their agenda. Many have verying theocratic goals. Therefore it is not an issue of politics or religion, but rather both. Many have used Islam, (whether justly or unjustly is completely beside the point) as a means of opposing other civilisations.
Secondly, religion is also important because it creates a common identity. It creates an 'us' and 'them' mentality for many terrorists. Here, Islam is important in terms of identity politics. Many terrorist groups have claimed that their 'Islamic' civilisational identity has come under threat from influences of other cultures (most notably the West but others also), and this is used by many terrorist groups.
The main problem with the argument that it is 'geopolitics' and not religion, is that for many groups in the Islamic world, politics and religion either overlap greatly or even completely. The assumption that the two are separate is a Western assumption, and is not necessarily true for other civilisations, especially for Islam, that is Islam the civilisation.
Soc: The majority of Islam is not involved in terrorism. Just because it is used as a facade doesn't make it a factor. It means there is an attempt to co-opt it for other (geopolitical) ends.
Trying to paint religion as a major factor just provides them cover and distracts from the real motivators.
Cathexis- Focusing on the terrorist groups themselves, they indeed do use Islam to promote their political goals. And for some Islam is their political goal- being varying degrees of theocracy and a desire to protect Islamic culture from 'cultural imperialism' of others.
To claim that many use religion as 'cover' for any 'real' or 'deeper' agenda would also be completely beside the point. The point is that even if it is just being used for propaganda, it is still being used nonetheless. This use of religion by terrrorist groups is important for their self-legitimisation in attracting recruits. Recruits and getting any support is extremely important of a factor. Even in situations where it is to be seen as a facade it is still a factor.
Wahhabism specifically tends to influence many aggressive terrorist groups.
A factor? Yes.
An important factor? No.
The Bush foreign policy does more to 'legitimize' terrorism in some peoples' eyes than religion could ever hope to.
By focusing on trivialities, we rob ourselves of the opportunity to focus on addressing factors that really have impact on the situation.
Cathexis-
Firstly, 'important' factor? All factors are important, as there are many. But religion seems to be a COMMON factor in all the different geopolitical conflicts.
Next, the idea that Bush's foreign policy is to blame is flawed. Islamic terrorism directed toward the United States existed before Bush II, there has been a lot of anger at the US and the Western powers for a long time.
Secondly, the assumption you are making is that political Islamist terrorism targets the United States specifically. It doesn't. It targets many countries, including for reasons that have little to nothing to do with American foreign policy, yet alone specifically Bush II. In fact, Islamic terrorism is probably more important and frequent on the regional level than on the global level of a clash specifically with the US (and West at large).
Thirdly, the Bush foreign policy itself can be used as a religious factor. The Bush foreign policy gives off an perception (whether just or unjust is completely beside the point) to many Muslims, that he is trying to clash with Islam and Muslims, is trying to oppress and subordinate the Islamic geopolitical identity to Western interests, is insensitive to Muslim concern of holy land, and is aggressively interfering in their local and national politics by opposing any political Islamist theocratic elements. So even taking specifically the Bush foreign policy as a source of anger, there can be seen that religion overlaps in various forms.
1. Yes, 'important' factor? All factors are not equally important -- and some are completely irrelevant. Being a 'common' factor doesn't make it important. All terrorists wore shoes, too, but that doesn't strike me as being of particular import.
2. You misunderstand -- Bush's flawed foreign policy is not to blame for creating terrorism -- it is to blame for exacerbating it by orders of magnitude.
3. Re. the assumption that political Islamist terrorism targets the United States specifically ... I am under no such delusion. Again -- Bush actions have fanned the flames, they didn't create them.
4. Re. the religious overtones of the Bush foreign policy -- yes, granted. Which is why I conceded it is a factor.
However, to try to position the perceived threat of imposed Imperialism as primarily a religious aspect is overly simplifying the problem, IMO.
If you are asserting that religion plays a greater role than geopolitical considerations, I still disagree.
It's more about power. Religion's just one of the weapons being used.
, well actually Yes but because religion is the tool of Power for The Stupid.
by Jyl on Thu Jul 06, 06 3:19pm
[+]
Extremist elements in Islam are responsible for terrorism (such as Wahhabism). They believe that their actions are justified by their religion. It isn't about political considerations.
"The Bush foreign policy does more to 'legitimize' terrorism in some peoples' eyes than religion could ever hope to"
This treads very closely to blaming the Bush administration for terrorism. The people who engage in terrorism are ENTIRELY responsible for their own actions. It is like you are making an excuse for terrorism.
"Bush's flawed foreign policy is not to blame for creating terrorism -- it is to blame for exacerbating it by orders of magnitude."
This is making an excuse for it. If someone does something that makes me angry or upset, I have a choice in how to respond. I can choose to punch their lights out or I can choose to respond in a more mature way. This is the same for elements in the Muslim world. It is their choice. Their is no excuse for responding as terrorist do. There is also no excuse for people thinking the response is legitimate.
If a bunch of people think a lynching is an appropriate response to a habitual criminal, that doesn't make it somehow justifiable or even something that people can somehow justify or rationalize. That is just Bullsh*t.
The blind inhumanity and irrationality that religion can induce is a major source of Islamic terrorism.
-
"1. Yes, 'important' factor? All factors are not equally important -- and some are completely irrelevant. Being a 'common' factor doesn't make it important. All terrorists wore shoes, too, but that doesn't strike me as being of particular import."
- Yet, religion as a factor is both common and important. Many exclaim on video and audio footage that they are doing things in a religious context, such as saying 'in the name of Allah', etc. If they were saying that they were doing things in the name of their shoes then your comparison would make sense. As is such your comparison is not feasible. It (religion) is also important in being common, not only because it is explicitly stated by many of these terrorist groups (surprising that that alone is not enough to convince some) but also in the way that it unites a global political Islamist movement. Islam is not mere coincidences in separate incidences. It is common that these Islamist terrorist groups, with varying geopolitical agenda, have links with and support one another. It has spawned a movement global in scale calling on religion both to set up a cohesive identity, and to folloow certain agenda with many Wahhabist theological aims. The fact that these Islamic groups will and have made links with and support one another, but do not generally support any non-Muslim terrorist groups says something. For example, in the 90's Libya was funding and actively supporting Islamic separatists in the Philippines and Thailand. There was no geopolitical gain for Libya, in fact it was counter-productive from a purely geopolitical point of view as Libya was losing potential partners in the booming region of East Asia by doing so. There was rather a sense of Muslim brotherhood and sentimentality in doing so than anything else. Next, many Islamic terrorist groups from around the world formed formal links, they all varied in their aims, but seeing each other as fellow Islamist causes they did actively support one another- there had been an ISLAMIC terrorist network, and NOT a general linkage of terrorist groups in general. Non-Islamist terrorist groups did not get involved in the network. To add to this, terrorists from around the world have trained at places in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Why would a Filipino Muslim go to Afghanistan for example to train and then go back to the Philippines and enforce what was learnt? Why did JI, a mostly Indonesian group form links with Al-Qaeda and middle-eastern Islamist terrorist groups? It is not because both JI and Al-qaeda all wear shoes, it is not because Moro separatists and terrorist training camps all wear shoes, it is not because Libya and the southern Thailand separatists all wear shoes, etc. The answer is very clear- Islam is an important factor in all of it.
"4. Re. the religious overtones of the Bush foreign policy -- yes, granted. Which is why I conceded it is a factor."
- It is strange that you hesitate to associate any sort of relious overtones with the Islamist terrorist militias, but you have no problem or hesitation in pointing out any religious overtones of US foreign policy. That seems very one-sided and biased. The Islamist terrorist networks and movements are all based supposedly purely on 'geopolitics', but when it comes to pointing out any religious factors for the US, there is no hesitation on your part? Even though religion is probably more of an issue for the Islamists than it is for the US.
"However, to try to position the perceived threat of imposed Imperialism as primarily a religious aspect is overly simplifying the problem, IMO."
- It is significant in creating a cohesive political identity of a pan-Islamic people's struggle agaisnt the West. In that case it is important as a source of political identity. Secondly, specifically in terms of cultural imperialism, there is a strong political Islamist resistance to this and anger (I am referring specifically here to terrorist groups not to all Muslim people as the topic here is and ahs always been Islamic terrorism and NOT anti-Western sentiment in the Islamic world in general). Thirdly, the West does actively try to insist on secular values, and the extreme political Islamist terorists despise the idea causing a clash.
"If you are asserting that religion plays a greater role than geopolitical considerations, I still disagree."
- I am asserting that for these terrorist groups geopolitics and religion are intertwined. The idea that politics and religion are separate is based on Western philosophical thought, and should not be assuumed that all groups follow unsentimental secular geopolitics- especially when it comes to the most extreme of Wahhabist Islamic terrorist groups. Religion and geopolitics are not competing factors but rather they overlap, are superimposed and are intertwined.
Cathexis- ^^^
Let me ask you what I believe is the key question ...
IF the people currently commiting these acts were not Muslim, do you believe we'd have no incidents of terrorism from Mid-East extremists?
Me ... I would predict no change -- except in the surface appearance and what they drape themselves with.
"IF the people currently commiting these acts were not Muslim, do you believe we'd have no incidents of terrorism from Mid-East extremists?"
- First of all you are assuming that Islamic terrorism is a middle-eastern phenomenon. It is not. Terrorist problems persist in the rest of the Islamic world.
Next, to your question- if the entire middle-east were of some other religion, it would be difficult to say what the difference would be- specifically because each different circumstance is well different for each country. Would the middle-east be supposedly of the same religion? This different religion would probably be used in a somewhat similar manner, perhaps, especially in terms of identity politics. It may also depend on exactly what the religion is. Does the religion in question have a just-war doctrine? While even religions that are in theory completely pacifist have been manipulated for militarism, the ones with just-war doctrines may do so more, as it would be easier to distort. Next, how developed as a civilisational identity would it be? Islam has created a cohesive civilisational identity, should I be assuming that this other religion would also? Also, in terms of characteristics of this other religion, how far developed would it be in accepting secularism? Christianity and Judaism both went through historic reforms where they became more secular. Buddhist countries have undergone a process of secular experience (Bhutan excepted), China has traditionally been secular in its politics (unless you consider Confucianism to be a religion, which it isn't really, it is more of a philosophy), Hinduism has taken steps toward secularism too, but faces problems. Islam, it must be noted, is significant relative to the other religions as it has undergone the least separation from politics. Political Islam currently is the most active militant opponent of secularism. Many of teh terrorist attacks in the middle-east are targeted against their own governments, who have secularised to small extents. This overlapping of religion with politics is important on the issue.
Well, here is exactly where we part company. Basically, what I hear you saying is that Islam is a causitive factor, then.
I disagree.
Cathexis- "Well, here is exactly where we part company. Basically, what I hear you saying is that Islam is a causitive factor, then."
- To varying extents. In some circumstances it is an extremely important cause, for others it is a minor cause. For the Palestinian issue for example, religion plays a causitive role as one of many components of Palestinian nationalism, and thus religion as a cause of conflict is relatively minor. Whereas the bombing of the hotel in Jordan and the insurgents in Somalia: Islam is of very important significance as a causitive factor. Islam as a causitive factor varies in each region/circumstance.
"Yes with Zionist Israelis oppressing palestinians and bulldozing their homes"
- The problem with this ballot choice is that not all terrorism in the Islamic world is related to Israel/Palestine.
|
|
