Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I have no idea what you are trying to say, so I'll just not respond. This is now the same discussion we had the last time there was some horrible Islamic terrorist attack. What has been missing from all the blogs you posted and all the posts you/RT/Wonk/GGG have posted is a complete lack of what to do- lots of what we shouldn't do, and what we can't expect to happen from moderate Muslims, but nothing as an alternative. Maybe if one of tried to answer that at least we won't be snapping at our tails.

I think I've been pretty clear in saying that I'm not sure what can be done. The French seem to have done a good job of identifying the two brothers as potential actors.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

This is a very serious issue, I think. For most Westerners, a moderate Muslim is simple a Muslim who (a) is westernized or (b) may not be westernized but is aligned with the West (e.g., the Saudi state). Some people mean (a), some (b), some both (a) or (b). But if I point, for example, to an Islamic woman who wears a veil and is happy to defend the practice, she may not be viewed as moderate regardless of her other beliefs. Likewise, someone who supports any Islamic elements in state law, even if limited to, for example, marital law as applied to Muslims, will be viewed as immoderate, even while someone supporting a Jewish state in the same sense will not be viewed as immoderate.

I think of a moderate Muslim as a Muslim who isn't an extremist, who may want to live under some kind of religious law, but who doesn't necessarily want to execute people for violations. I also think that moderates of all stripes tend to lean heavily one way or another depending on what is going on, so that when they have friends and family who have been killed by the West and feel like their religion is being attacked, they may end up tolerating those with extremist thoughts based on a shared anger (even though they don't necessarily agree with an extremist approach).

TM

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...u-might-think/

That's a fuck ton of people who are being asked to "speak out" about something that they, their religious leader, their friends, their families had nothing to do with, and a lot of cases may not even know about. About a fourth of the world's population should be speaking out??? This makes no sense at all.

You did it again.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think your initial statement is wrong for all of the reasons you provide in your second paragraph. There's no reason at all to think that Islamists give a shit what moderate Muslims think, except that they obviously don't buy it.

People who call on moderate Muslims to denounce the Islamists are saying that -- unlike normal people -- moderate Muslims can be presumed to be sympathetic with the Islamists and need to rebut this presumption. No one says it like that, because when you say it that way, it sounds loopy.

It doesn't sound loopy. It sounds anti-islamic. Largely because it is.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I have no idea what you are trying to say, so I'll just not respond. This is now the same discussion we had the last time there was some horrible Islamic terrorist attack. What has been missing from all the blogs you posted and all the posts you/RT/Wonk/GGG have posted is a complete lack of what to do- lots of what we shouldn't do, and what we can't expect to happen from moderate Muslims, but nothing as an alternative. Maybe if one of tried to answer that at least we won't be snapping at our tails.

Engage Islam in a two-way dialogue. Don't isolate people who are Muslim or countries who are Muslim. Spend some time listening and reading about Islam, not lecturing Muslim's you've never met.

You're in Detroit. Hang out at some good Halal restaurants and actually talk to people about shit.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think I've been pretty clear in saying that I'm not sure what can be done. The French seem to have done a good job of identifying the two brothers as potential actors.

Well, Boston, DC sniper, Canada, they all have been handled as crimes by individuals (I suppose it is possible Paris will yet find threads to others, in France or elsewhere). None of those resulted in bombs falling. But you feel we just basically wait for the next thing- the NRA Columbine response plan?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Engage Islam in a two-way dialogue. Don't isolate people who are Muslim or countries who are Muslim. Spend some time listening and reading about Islam, not lecturing Muslim's you've never met.

You're in Detroit. Hang out at some good Halal restaurants and actually talk to people about shit.

And again, through ignorance you say something offensive.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I think of a moderate Muslim as a Muslim who isn't an extremist, who may want to live under some kind of religious law, but who doesn't necessarily want to execute people for violations. I also think that moderates of all stripes tend to lean heavily one way or another depending on what is going on, so that when they have friends and family who have been killed by the West and feel like their religion is being attacked, they may end up tolerating those with extremist thoughts based on a shared anger (even though they don't necessarily agree with an extremist approach).

TM

i mean someone who might want to live a very strict religious life, but recognizes and accepts many others of many different stripes do not.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

While you're at it, you could also call on other people of Algerian descent, people who drive black cars, and foster children to denounce the aggression and reassure the European community. The killers were members of those groups too, and it makes just as much sense.

Yeah, because there have been so many, many, many attacks by people who drive black cars in the past few weeks, months, and years.

And because these attacks were so clearly rooted in the teachings at, um, car dealerships about how to respond to, um, blasphemy against drivers of black cars. Y'know, because so many black-car drivers have been heard excusing black-car violence on the ground that, well, um, if a lot of people who drive black cars are poor, or if the bas stuff said about black cars is like, well, really insulting, then even if you don't support the murder done worldwide by black-car drivers you really can't condemn it but must look to broader factors.

How is the weather on the inside of your ass these days?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Jesus. This is such bullshit. They are not commiting violence in the name of Algeria or black cars.

If you don't think that reducing the safe-harbor of soft support (or the absence of outright condemnation) from others in the religion will make a difference, then I don't know what to say. If you are able to persuade, from the inside, the parts of the muslim community who feel like people who denounce the prophet should be punished severely but who are unwilling to actually pull the trigger, maybe you decrease the number of muslims in the community who look the other way when it occurs. Maybe you reduce the monetary support.

Let me ask you a question. If a bunch of mormons started killing muslims, would you not want the mormon church and mormons generally to speak out against it--to try to convince other mormons that it was wrong, even though you knew the vast number of mormons didn't go out killing people?

TM

Apparently, Ty would ask you what cars the Mormons were driving these days.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I do have some trouble with us continuing to cozy up to some of the ultra-conservative Islamic countries, like Saudi Arabia, that don't speak because they happen to agree with elements of what ISIS stands for. But real moderate Muslims have been and continue to be quite vocal - they just aren't usually people who have as many ties to the US government or get as much voice over here. And they are often the first people the terrorists want to kill (see, for example, the terrorism that happened in Yemen the same day as the shooting in Paris).

And yet, so many Muslims end up turning down this path.

[Replaced_Texan]

He's not a moderate, though.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This article deals with both sides better than we ever will.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/wo...=fb-share&_r=0

TM

The "other" side sounded pretty goddamn ridiculous in some of those quotes. Not as ridiculous as some of the people here, but still.

“Some people who feel crushed or ignored will go toward extremism, and they use religion because that is what they have at hand,” said Said Ferjani, an official of Tunisia’s mainstream Islamist party, Ennahda, speaking about the broader phenomenon of violence in the name of Islam. “If you are attacked and you have a fork in your hand, you will fight back with a fork.”

Give me a fucking break. These killers didn't "use religion." They used AK-47s. They didn't slaughter people because they felt crushed or ignored. They did it because they felt that the Prophet had been insulted and that this justified slaughter -- an idea that they did not come up with themselves.

Charlie Hedbo was routinely insulting to everyone, including people who feel crushed or ignored and who are not Muslim.

The President of Egypt got it right in the quote in this article.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

He's not a moderate, though.

I fucking love this post. If I think Muslims and Muslim leaders should do exactly what Nasrallah is doing in this article you're citing, you come up with all sorts of justifications about why neither he nor anyone else should. But somehow you feel vindicated when he actually does? Talk about making no sense.

I think this is a great thing. I think it would do wonders if others in similar positions of influence did the same thing. I think stuff like this helps. I'd like it to happen more often.

TM

eta, from the article: "Dozens of other, far more moderate Muslim groups have also condemned the recent killings in Paris. Dalil Boubakeur, the head of the Great Mosque of Paris, was quick to decry the killings in no uncertain terms."

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

There has been a nationwide drop in crime rates over many years. No one knows why -- some people say it's about lead paint -- so you are definitely correct when you say that the "broken windows" approach has not been proven not to work. Since NYC is TCOTU, New Yorkers understandably see this is as a story about the particular strategies adopted by particular mayors and police commissioners -- taking account of the national trends would require acknowledging the world beyond the Five Boroughs.

Crime rates in New York have dropped significantly more and significantly faster than in most other major cities. For that reason, arguing that we should look to national trends can quickly end up looking like an argument that "broken windows" was key.

I don't agree with that position. I also think it's silly to claim that the approach had nothing at all to do with reducing crime. Arresting more people who commit low-level crimes tends to result in arresting more people who are likely to commit more serious crimes, partly just because you are arresting more people but more because people who commit crimes don't always sort themselves into low-vs-serious categories. As to whether the stated rationale, of making neighborhoods feel safer, etc., was also valuable, I don't know. To me saying these policies had nothing to do with reducing crime is like saying that Three Strikes had nothing to do with reducing crimes -- and I HATE the three strikes law. I just recognize that a guy who commits burglaries to feed a crack habit is likely to commit more crimes in years to come; so locking him up forever will prevent those crimes -- but at a cost (human and financial) that is intolerably high.

The question is, is it worth it? And, more importantly, is it worth it NOW? That a particular approach contributed to the reduction of crime many years ago, when crime rates were far higher, doesn't mean that it will contribute, at all or at the same level, now, when crime rates are much lower. That's the question we need to ask -- has NY come far enough that the focus on low-level crimes can safely be significantly relaxed? (This is without getting into things that go well beyond that focus -- like stop-and-frisk, or like the racist way in which policies that are not inherently were implemented).

The answer to may question seems to be "YES", given what is occurring in NY right now.