Muuuuuuuslim Baaaaaan! But don't call it that!

[CaptJ]

The whole poverty equals crime is a fallacy that ignores numerous other factors that cause crime to happen.

What is a bigger fallacy is poverty causing terrorism. The hijackers at 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and were educated.

 

[BigGuyCIA]

Do they even really care about minorities?

The protesters? Most of them probably don't. Their interaction with minorities is limited to ordering food from a hole-in-the-wall falafel stand.

Let's face it, Rodney King, Ferguson, and Trayvon Martin are just a long string of the issues being confronted with no resolution in sight.

Rodney King is in no way comparable to Brown or Martin, unless that's your point...that we've transitioned to a point where cases that had nothing to do with racism are hijacked by race merchants because the suspect just so happened to be black.

 

[Crni Vuk]

1. Muslim isn't a race. No one says that they are part Muslim or have Muslim genetics.
2. It doesn't apply to Muslims that are Americans.
3. Being able to travel to a foreign country isn't inalienable right.

Besides, those countries were a list of countries compiled by the previous administration.

I see this quote often as argument. But again, you can not have it both ways in this matter.

For a decade if not longer it was always a discussion about how viollence, terrorism and everything is an inherent problem of Islam, that it is about religion and how the values of Islam (what ever they are ...) are not combatible with American/European values (what ever they are ...), and now since there is a ban on 7 muslim nations ... it's suddenly not about Islam. Do people think that we're stupid? That this isn't about religion?

A long chain of events and rhetoric has lead us to this situation right now. And many of us who are also critical about Islam actually warned about such drastic measures if you constantly generalize about a whole religion of 1 billion people. No Trump isn't the first president that issued restrictions as far as immigration and refugees goes, Carter, Bush and Obama all of them have done similar things, and very often pretty harsh stuff, but never to this level, in such a blunt manner and on such a large extend.

The die hard Trump supporters know it's about muslims, we leftist/libtards/what ever know it's about muslims, everyone in the world knows it's about muslims. But of course you can not say it, and it is not about religion because it's not called a muslim ban. 1984 anyone? Doublethink? Doublespeak? Do we have to develope a whole new language now?



And even if it doesn't apply to 'American Muslims', it still HITS them right now the hardest, because so far, there are thousands of people, that are stuck in limbo, due to the nature of this ban and the poorly execution. If their target was to aim at terrorists, than well, great job! You hit exactly the kind of people you DON'T want to hit with it.

How times in history have questionable and potentially harmfull laws been implemented on the basis of 'security'. How many terorists have been actually stoped by the pretty harsh laws and measures we have now? Like the patriot act? And how many actuall american citizens have been affected by it?

You can say, this Trump decree is just like Obamas and all the others that came before him and did something similar, but this right now, HAS reached a whole new level. There can be no doubts about it.

What is a bigger fallacy is poverty causing terrorism. The hijackers at 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and were educated.

Saudi Arabia is a pretty shit place to be, as a young person though. It's not just about poverty. It's also about idenity and pride. Watch this Saudi Cleric talking about it in detail.


Poverty is sure not the most important reason for terrorism, but it sure doesn't help it either if a place with terrorism is also poor as fuck. And again, Saudi Arabia is NOT(!) a rich nation. Their GDP and all that is pretty inflated and the money they have is not really something that a lot of people benefit from. The average Saudi Citizen, still doesn't compare well to the average American or European.

 

[BigGuyCIA]

I see this quote often as argument. But again, you can not have it both ways in this matter.

For a decade if not longer it was always a discussion about how viollence, terrorism and everything is an inherent problem of Islam, that it is about religion and how the values of Islam (what ever they are ...) are not combatible with American/European values (what ever they are ...), and now since there is a ban on 7 muslim nations ... it's suddenly not about Islam. Do people think that we're stupid? That this isn't about religion?

A long chain of events and rhetoric has lead us to this situation right now. And many of us who are also critical about Islam actually warned about such drastic measures if you constantly generalize about a whole religion of 1 billion people. No Trump isn't the first president that issued restrictions as far as immigration and refugees goes, Carter, Bush and Obama all of them have done similar things, and very often pretty harsh stuff, but never to this level, in such a blunt manner and on such a large extend.

The die hard Trump supporters know it's about muslims, we leftist/libtards/what ever know it's about muslims, everyone in the world knows it's about muslims. But of course you can not say it, and it is not about religion because it's not called a muslim ban. 1984 anyone? Doublethink? Doublespeak? Do we have to develope a whole new language now?

It is a problem with Islam, make no mistake. The problem with this ban is it's just that, it's a ban rather than a process to vet and ensure that the individuals coming into the country aren't going to choose to live in parallel societies - something that's become a growing issue in the UK. I would have been more supportive of a carefully constructed, strict process for importing immigrants from war torn areas, rather than the knee-jerk 'BAN ALL OF THEM REEEEEE' executive action that Trump took.

You're correct in making the distinction that a long chain of events has caused this attitude to take hold, but it's two-way. Our current media has no issue labeling the Quebec mosque attack as an act of terrorism, but the same standard isn't upheld when it is a muslim perpetrator. We've ended up with pundits like Owen Jones hijacking domestic terrorism cases, like the Orlando Shooting, and saying that 'it was an attack on gay people,' rather than 'it was a case of terrorism inspired by Islamism.'

 

[Crni Vuk]

Seriously though? Maybe I am clouded by my own political/ideological views here, but I don't think our society and media - at least in Germany- has much of a problem to call Muslim attackers an act of terrorism. Just by the way terrorism was never a term only to describe Islamic attackers and suicide bombers.

There is and there should be a lot of differentiated debates what ever if islamic terrorism is an inherent problem with the religion it self, and if yes, to what extend and of course we have to deal with that accordingly. But we should always keep a sense of proportionality here.

There are many extremists, but not every extremist has to necessarily be a viollent person or actually the target to declare war on our governments and not every muslim has to be an extremist, and I often feel that just by saying that, I am already seen by some as 'muslim lover'.

As we also very well know, from our own religious belief as predominantly christian nations, many groups have different goals and different ways on how to achieve them. No one would get the idea take Breviks attacks and to blame ALL christians and ALL christian confessions, and no one would go on and declare ALL christians as lunatics based on the Westboro Baptist church, and certainly no one would support a bann on white christian males from schools and churches, who are predominantly the group of people causing mass shootings in schools. And why don't we do that? Because it would be obviously nonsensical, because we differentiate, and because we live in democratic societies, we talk about those things, we don't just act and talk later. Look I don't call you a racist, but I feel that you kinda follow the wrong people right now as icons, who are closer to characters like Vergil and Illuminati Confirmed in their nature. And those guys, right now won the ellection.

I also find it funny to talk about 'parallel societies'. Yes, they exists among muslims. But is this because of Islam? Or is this something that simply happens with people? I don't see anyone mention Little China in here, and I am pretty sure there are Chinese crime organisations in little China as well, doing all sorts of atrocities from human trafficking to, illegal drug trading, weapons, murder you name it.

Just to make this clear, Islam for me is not a religion of peace and something that should be treated like a sacred cow, but is that really the main problem we're currently facing? That islam is not seeing ENOUGH criticism in the western world? Particularly when we actually see a very real and large grow on christian fundamentalism, particularly in the US. It's not a muslim whos currently president, or runing the education, or working as vice president. No, those are Trump, Mike Pence and DeVos, of which all prove to be more and more autocratic in their nature.

 

[CT Phipps]

What is a bigger fallacy is poverty causing terrorism. The hijackers at 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and were educated.

I remember Timothy McVeigh and how a Time magazine article said, "Everyone and their brother is trying to find out why he bombed the building ranging from his childhood to genetics to mental illness. Does anyone think we should just take him at his word he hates the government?"

Rodney King is in no way comparable to Brown or Martin, unless that's your point...that we've transitioned to a point where cases that had nothing to do with racism are hijacked by race merchants because the suspect just so happened to be black.

It's more the simmering anger built up isn't going away and is only spreading.

We've ended up with pundits like Owen Jones hijacking domestic terrorism cases, like the Orlando Shooting, and saying that 'it was an attack on gay people,' rather than 'it was a case of terrorism inspired by Islamism.'

Well, it's both. That was one specific Islamic shooter's issues with gay people driving him to it versus an organized religious driven action. This is fundamentally different from terrorism inspire and organized at the idealogical/group level.

The Lone Actor Gunman is something the US has a history of dealing with under a variety of motives. We could talk about the Islamic motives of the guy but his actions aren't really all that different from Charles Whitman.

 

[Jogre]

something that's become a growing issue in the UK

Someone from the UK here: That's a complete myth. There is practically no evidence that Muslims are forming parallel societies.

The reason why this myth started is because a Fox News story talked about "No-Go Zones" in London and Birmingham. Said news story was later proved to be entirely false.

 

[CT Phipps]

Someone from the UK here: That's a complete myth. There is practically no evidence that Muslims are forming parallel societies.

The reason why this myth started is because a Fox News story talked about "No-Go Zones" in London and Birmingham. Said news story was later proved to be entirely false.

It is the nature of immigration that parent cultures often take it personally when they DARE to keep some element of their homeland with them.

 

[BigGuyCIA]

I remember Timothy McVeigh and how a Time magazine article said, "Everyone and their brother is trying to find out why he bombed the building ranging from his childhood to genetics to mental illness. Does anyone think we should just take him at his word he hates the government?"

Well, it's both. That was one specific Islamic shooter's issues with gay people driving him to it versus an organized religious driven action. This is fundamentally different from terrorism inspire and organized at the idealogical/group level.

The Lone Actor Gunman is something the US has a history of dealing with under a variety of motives. We could talk about the Islamic motives of the guy but his actions aren't really all that different from Charles Whitman.

I would argue that making the decision to bomb a building and kill people would already brand you as mentally ill. You need to be mentally ill in order to go through with something like that. Tons of people hate the government, but you won't find them making bombs in the back of a truck in order to attack and kill government employees.

His (the Orlando shooter's) actions were motivated by the U.S. involvement in Syria, that much was gleaned from when he spoke to Police negotiators. It's a combination of things, to be honest, but you don't need to be working in tandem with other people to make something political.

Someone from the UK here: That's a complete myth. There is practically no evidence that Muslims are forming parallel societies.

The reason why this myth started is because a Fox News story talked about "No-Go Zones" in London and Birmingham. Said news story was later proved to be entirely false.

I'm not referencing the Fox news no-go zone report (I haven't even heard of that report). I'm thinking more on cases like Rotherham and/or grooming gangs that operate under the false-flag that they're exempt from social/human policies and laws of the country because of their religion/culture.

There was a case in the U.S. when a Christian bakery didn't want to service gay couples, and what followed was a media-shitstorm. The same reaction never happened when a reporter went into Dearborn Michigan and couldn't find a muslim-owned bakery that would bake a cake for a gay couple.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I would argue that making the decision to bomb a building and kill people would already brand you as mentally ill. You need to be mentally ill in order to go through with something like that.

When we're talking about organized terrorists, then I would rather use the term motivation than mentally ill, because as strange as it sounds, but those people are often making rational decisions. They definetly are a different kind of personality if you compare them to the as CP said 'Lone gunmen'.

Remember, we're not living in a Bond Movie, someones 'villain' is someone else 'hero'. Could it be so strange, that there are many young people that actually admire the Islamic martyrs the same way we admire people like John Basilone who got a medal for killing lots of Japanese?

 

[CT Phipps]

I would argue that making the decision to bomb a building and kill people would already brand you as mentally ill. You need to be mentally ill in order to go through with something like that. Tons of people hate the government, but you won't find them making bombs in the back of a truck in order to attack and kill government employees.

I strongly disagree because the attempt to make "sane" and "good" to be synonymous warps the meaning of both. There's already a word for someone who will kill loads of innocent people for a cause or money and that's evil. People can be motivated to kill for any number of reasons but trying to make it deviant ignores humans have been doing it since time memorial for good and bad reasons.

His (the Orlando shooter's) actions were motivated by the U.S. involvement in Syria, that much was gleaned from when he spoke to Police negotiators. It's a combination of things, to be honest, but you don't need to be working in tandem with other people to make something political.

Very true, hence McVeigh.

There was a case in the U.S. when a Christian bakery didn't want to service gay couples, and what followed was a media-shitstorm. The same reaction never happened when a reporter went into Dearborn Michigan and couldn't find a muslim-owned bakery that would bake a cake for a gay couple.

I'm comfortable among the liberals AND theists in believing it's an assholish thing to do to deny people services based on color, religion, sex, or so on. I'm still torn though because if you give people freedom to discriminate, they absolutely will discriminate and they don't care about giving people the freedom to buy a cake in return. It's statistically shown when you give an inch to the majority and powerful, they don't feel the same way in returning the favor.

Or anecdotally, "You give people the right to deny blacks service, they won't allow Blacks anything in return."

 

[BigGuyCIA]

When we're talking about organized terrorists, then I would rather use the term motivation than mentally ill, because as strange as it sounds, but those people are often making rational decisions. They definetly are a different kind of personality if you compare them to the as CP said 'Lone gunmen'.

Remember, we're not living in a Bond Movie, someones 'villain' is someone else 'hero'. Could it be so strange, that there are many young people that actually admire the Islamic martyrs the same way we admire people like John Basilone who got a medal for killing lots of Japanese?

I think you've skewed my point almost entirely. Islamic martyrs detonating their vest-bombs in a crowded street of innocents, is in no way comparable to a soldier fighting in a war.

If your politics involve murdering innocents, you're not mentally sane, and I'm not going to dance around the subject.

 

[CT Phipps]

I think you've skewed my point almost entirely. Islamic martyrs detonating their vest-bombs in a crowded street of innocents, is in no way comparable to a soldier fighting in a war.

If your politics involve murdering innocents, you're not mentally sane, and I'm not going to dance around the subject.

Totally disagree. Sane people can be evil. A man who murders an innocent man for money is sane.

Hell, he might even be President.

 

[BigGuyCIA]

Totally disagree. Sane people can be evil. A man who murders an innocent man for money is sane.

Hell, he might even be President.

We have a word for individuals like that. You don't need to be a cartoon-character nutjob that laughs and talks to himself to be considered a sociopath.

You guys are too caught up in the semantics of how mentally-ill someone is. You have to possess some sort of sociopathic tendency in order to consciously go through with the act of killing someone, especially an innocent. For example, in the case of a property-owner shooting an intruder at night, I don't consider them a sociopath because the circumstances of the situation placed the individual under obvious duress (fear for his/her life).

The u-haul truck bomber and the Orlando shooter are clear cut cases of mentally-ill individuals aka sociopaths. I don't think i've described them as mentally-insane (which is what you guys are misinterpreting), and if I did, then let this be the throat-clearing that's apparently needed.

 

[CT Phipps]

I'm of the school of thought that sociopaths are actually people who we consider capable of violence and there's no actual difference psychologically between a person who can do heroics and a person who can do horrible things in terms of "mental health." Which means the definition of sociopath is a stupid one.

There's a reason it's called the warrior gene.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127888976

 

[Prone Squanderer]

I'm of the school of thought that sociopaths are actually people who we consider capable of violence and there's no actual difference psychologically between a person who can do heroics and a person who can do horrible things in terms of "mental health."

So for example, someone who braves going into a burning house to save someone's life is mentally on the same level as someone who would torture animals for shits and giggles?

Or have I missed your point completely?

 

[Hassknecht]

Ah yes, let the, what, English Major? teach us about psychology, because if there ever is a person who is totally worthy of the title of a modern polymath it's the fucking liberal arts academics.

 

[CT Phipps]

So for example, someone who braves going into a burning house to save someone's life is mentally on the same level as someone who would torture animals for shits and giggles?

Or have I missed your point completely?

The brains of people who shoot terrorists without pause to save lives are the same as people who commit terrorism for ideology. And people who don't see a difference and that they're both mentally ill are scum in my opinion.

Which if people have missed my point, I don't consider capacity for violence a sign of mental illness and the sociopath as a diagnosis of it to be the result of a badly framed investigation practice.

They came at diagnosing violent people with "why are they fucked up" rather than "How do people with this brain type live in society?" The fact many many people have this brain type indicates it's NOT a mental illness.

Ah yes, let the, what, English Major? teach us about psychology, because if there ever is a person who is totally worthy of the title of a modern polymath it's the fucking liberal arts academics.

Which is kind of why I linked to the leading expert in the world on the subject.

Who is also a sociopath.

 

[BigGuyCIA]

I'm of the school of thought that sociopaths are actually people who we consider capable of violence and there's no actual difference psychologically between a person who can do heroics and a person who can do horrible things in terms of "mental health." Which means the definition of sociopath is a stupid one.

There's a reason it's called the warrior gene.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127888976

You don't necessarily need to be a man of violence in order to be (or become) a sociopath. Completely normal individuals can be brainwashed or trained into doing terrible things. The U.S. military explored this extensively when they changed up their training regimen in order to increase a soldier's willingness/ability to pull the trigger and kill an enemy.

 

[CT Phipps]

You don't necessarily need to be a man of violence in order to be (or become) a sociopath. Completely normal individuals can be brainwashed or trained into doing terrible things. The U.S. military explored this extensively when they changed up their training regimen in order to increase a soldier's willingness/ability to pull the trigger and kill an enemy.

Very true. The opposite is also the case as the person I linked to is a sociopath as well as a Doctor studying sociopaths and has never harmed anyone. The issue is that many actual sociopaths turn out to not be necessarily violent but have a higher number of violent people. They also have tendencies in other directions as well.

Quite a few, instead are known for having lots and lots of sex instead.

My ultimate point is nature plays a role but nurture certainly explains the difference between a sociopath who teaches neurology, a serial killer, a heroic soldier devoted to his comrades, and a porn star.

Edit:

If I have a weird focus on this, I actually studied the subject a lot and researched it for my book "The Rules of Supervillainy" as I wanted to do a semi-realistic (finger quotes) on the mindset of people who'd become supervillains. It also comes up in my upcoming Agent G books where the cyberpunk corporate samurai finds out his company was experimenting on its executives and agents to make them sociopaths.