Are the Muslims really the biggest threat . . .

Post Reply New Topic

Yes respect and kindness are what is wrong with the world.

All nasty, thuggish cults at their extreme end. The same applies to extreme, violent nationalism in many instances.

For that matter, any "-ism" that identifies any other "-ism" as an enemy in need of elimination is a threat to us all.

(Edited to repair incomplete sentence. -F-)

Last edited by Fnord on 04 Sep 2012, 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can be kind and respectful to people (I am, every day, it's easy as pie) but not respect their beliefs. You can respect their right to hold them and not to victimise them for it (as long as they aren't victimising anyone else) but you don't have to respect my, their or anyone else's beliefs.

Are you sure about that? I think the world would be better without certain -isms, especially if they promote violence themselves. I probably wouldn't propose banning them, though.

I'm as sure as a middle-aged yank without a philosophy degree can be.

Look, when it comes down to "Us or Them: Only One Shall Survive", maybe it's time to turn things back a little.

In the last few decades, the majority of terrorist attacks have been committed in the name of Islam. No amount of political correctness can deny that. But let's not just stop there. Most of these terrorist attacks occur within their home countries, so what I am interested in knowing is what proportion of Islamic terrorist attacks occur in first world countries vs. Christian terrorism. I'm also wondering how much of the extremism is a result of politics vs the religion itself. I mean, obviously killing innocent people goes against how the scriptures actually want you to conduct a jihad, but it seems to me that the violence tends to be much more extreme than Christian terrorism and I'm really wondering what is up with that.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 04 Sep 2012, 2:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Which is why secularisation will benefit the Muslim world far more than anyone else. Basically, everyone (apart from the fanatics who want power) are winners.

Mr Jamil sounds quite the tool - ironic someone in the comments there brings up AS. What if it was true, about the restrictive background? How much was made of it being a restrictive background of an Islamic variety? How do the women involved feel?

Racism is an ideology, and not to be considered something solely related to 'race', except that it racialises (witness the 'whitening' of the Irish this past century). It takes a group of people and lumps them together and attacks them for what they are perceived as.

Often contradictory - in the UK, all immigrants are simultaneously stealing 'our' jobs and living it up on welfare.

Ideology in my interpretation = neurosis before the fact. Anais Nin - 'we do not see things as they are. We see them as we are'.

Well, there is only one group that has openly stated its intention to use nuclear weapons and biological weapons if they could procure such arms and that is extremist muslims. I'm not sure how you define "threat" but that sounds pretty severe to me.

What about the North Koreans? Have they gone that far?

Interestingly, I saw a ton of 'stolen' pics taken in North Korea by travellers. The country has the feel of being on another planet entirely.

The North Koreans are somewhat complicated, because while they on one hand threaten to use such weapons, they have had biological and chemical weapons for quite some time and nuclear weapons as well, without using them. While its possible that the Kim regime would use them in a life or death situation, in much the same way Adolf Hitler shot himself in the Fuhrerbunker. They seem more oriented towards using them for blackmail.

I watched a few documentaries about life in North Korea, and it does indeed have the feel
of almost being on a different planet.

The major difference between the groups is that North Korea is an actual state whereas many of the extremist terrorist groups are powerful forces without a direct link to a state (with the exception being Hamas in Palestine).

]Sigh. Rapid anthropogenic climate change such as that which is currently underway.

In terms of potential damages the greatest looming threat is global warming. That will be very expensive.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons to less stable nations is #2. And that includes Muslims. Their non-WMD terror attacks don't really amount to much in the long run.

Replace 'Islam' with 'Judaism'.

It would look like a cut n paste from Mein Kampf.

If we define terrorism as the use of violence to acheive political ends, then the vast majority of terrorist attacks have been committed in the name of capitalism. Which, to answer the OP really is the biggest threat to mankind.

The only difference is, these attacks were sanctioned and carried out by powerful nations rather than by outlawed groups. To put it into context, the 9/11 hijackings cost around 3000 lives. The occupation of Iraq, the blitz on Baghdad and associated activities cost around 250 000 lives. All this was on the back of a fabricated story and lies about WMD as a precursor to hijack the oil supplies.

It seems that political violence becomes acceptable once the size of the perpetrating body is large enough and/or carries enough political currency.

Last edited by thomas81 on 04 Sep 2012, 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.