|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Terrorist attack on french satirical magazine. Why
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It IS hypocritical, or at the very least wilfully blind, to say violent acts can't "genuinely" be carried out in the name of Christianity, if this is contrasted with Islam.
As if whether you personally think the use of the name was "genuine" erases all the times that it actually happens.
It's not fair to have it both ways. If Christians can deny the legitimacy of violent acts done in the name of Jesus, then Muslims are perfectly entitled to deny the legitimacy of violent acts done in the name of their religion. If Muslims are required to own the violence done in the name of their religion, then Christians are not entitled to wriggle out of ownership of the violent acts done in the name of the Christian God.
It's not the claim itself that attracts the criticism, Raptor Eye, it's the double standard. It's the application of the "no true Christian" argument while not recognising the validity of the "no true Muslim" argument. The very notion that someone can misuse the name of a holy figure only comes up when it's Christianity that's being misused.
And that IS hypocrisy.
If a Christian were saying that all Muslims should be condemned as they're violent and all Christians are the greatest peacemakers and would never do such a thing, I'd agree.
How it seems to me is like this:
"How dare you hit that woman! That's not the right way to behave."
"She deserved it, she offended me."
"Who are you to tell him not to hit her? Your own cousin hit his wife once! Your family can't crow about the right way to behave."
"Yeah, you hypocrite, keep your nose out of it, your family isn't innocent, it's well known for wife beating! Maybe she did offend him, she shouldn't have done that. Of course, he shouldn't have hit her......"
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's NOTHING like that. Apostatic Christianity spawned Islam in reaction. Apostatic Christianity and her daughters is the dominant global force bar none for 1700 years.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It IS hypocritical, or at the very least wilfully blind, to say violent acts can't "genuinely" be carried out in the name of Christianity, if this is contrasted with Islam.
As if whether you personally think the use of the name was "genuine" erases all the times that it actually happens.
It's not fair to have it both ways. If Christians can deny the legitimacy of violent acts done in the name of Jesus, then Muslims are perfectly entitled to deny the legitimacy of violent acts done in the name of their religion. If Muslims are required to own the violence done in the name of their religion, then Christians are not entitled to wriggle out of ownership of the violent acts done in the name of the Christian God.
It's not the claim itself that attracts the criticism, Raptor Eye, it's the double standard. It's the application of the "no true Christian" argument while not recognising the validity of the "no true Muslim" argument. The very notion that someone can misuse the name of a holy figure only comes up when it's Christianity that's being misused.
And that IS hypocrisy.
If a Christian were saying that all Muslims should be condemned as they're violent and all Christians are the greatest peacemakers and would never do such a thing, I'd agree.
How it seems to me is like this:
"How dare you hit that woman! That's not the right way to behave."
"She deserved it, she offended me."
"Who are you to tell him not to hit her? Your own cousin hit his wife once! Your family can't crow about the right way to behave."
"Yeah, you hypocrite, keep your nose out of it, your family isn't innocent, it's well known for wife beating! Maybe she did offend him, she shouldn't have done that. Of course, he shouldn't have hit her......"
No, how it actually starts is: "How dare YOUR FAMILY HIT WOMEN".
That's exactly the problem. Christians DON'T walk up to the particular Muslim "hitting women" and tell him not to do it. They walk up to the whole Muslim world, any Muslim within reach, and start talking about the Muslims that "hit women".
Starting your analogy with the idea of walking up to the actual perpetrator and telling the actual perpetrator to stop is simply not an accurate reflection of what happens.
So yeah, if you walk up to any old member of the other family and start talking about the problem of their family hitting women, it's perfectly sensible for the response to be "your family does it to".
[ 13. January 2015, 21:46: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Istm that there's an assumption made by some others that that is the case, regardless of what is actually said, simply because the speaker is identified as a Christian.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Istm that there's an assumption made by some others that that is the case, regardless of what is actually said, simply because the speaker is identified as a Christian.
No, it's because the perpetrator is identified as Muslim. Not ISIS. Not one of the two Kouachi brothers.
See the other thread for my commentary on the criminal history of my family. It's actually the criminal history of 2 individual people that are a little related to me by blood, but the point is that, if we're dealing with analogies, people keep mentioning my entire family - right before going back to say "oh, I know you're not ALL bad".
If your analogy was right, we would never have a thread headed Islam and violence. At most we would have a thread headed ISIS and violence - which wouldn't get off the ground because we all know ISIS is violent. Or we'd have a thread about the Kouachi brothers.
We don't. We have threads on how there's just something about Islam. Which sometimes manage to become threads about Islamism, but then we mustn't ignore the religious connection.
[ 13. January 2015, 22:38: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
If youre saying it's Islam, then it's hard to explain the fact that the least problem comes from the Islamic population of indonesia mentioned above. And most of the violence comes from middle Eastern/Arab cultures. Then I ask - why Arab moslems, and the general answer is, if youre from an arab culture, youre most likely islamic. So then I ask - why arabic culture has a tendency to violence? And the answer is to be found in the history of the middle east as affected by colonial history (mainly UK and France), by Oil politics and cold war machinations, by a history of gradual loss of water resources and arable land as populations were growing over the past 200 years, by the creation of the state of Israel, by power politics within the arab countries themselves.
A lot can be taken back to the supremacy of Oil and the investment of that income by Saudi Arabia into religious politics. Then after the overthrow of the Shah (which came about after, amongst other things repeated disastrous interferences into Iranian politics by Britiain), both the USA and USSR became frightened by the rise of radical Islam. Rather than trying to seek a diplomatic solition, BOTH the USA and USSR bankrolled Iraq under a little known General Saddam Hussein, providing them with money, training, chemical weapons and more conventional military equipment to wage the Iran-Iraq war. Add that to the already precipitous situation round Israel and the present trouble was more or less inevitable. There were other issues - France/Algeria, Russia/Syria/Lebanon... a whole sequence of messy, selfish and ill-conceived foreign policies.
About 20 years ago, peace broke out in Uganda, after about 20 years of conflict - a local reporter commented that everyone was tired of fighting and just wanted to go home to their villages. And that they had the advantage of not having any strategic resources or of being sitiuated ina strategically important position, so no armies were bankrolled and everyone left them alone.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
Seeing Orfeo's commenting on the other thread.
There do seem to be a couple of oddities between the 2 brothers and the 3rd man.
You have the indecision between which terrorist organization they belong too.
There seems a odd difference between the (relative) organization and targeting of the (marginally protected) newspaper attack.
While the (possibly attempted) attack on a Jewish school and the actual whatever-was-intended in the Jewish supermarket seems much more random (apart from the obvious Anti-semitism) and unnecessary.
It makes me wonder if there isn't something more, not a conspiracy, but a more petty human drama that we're yet to find about.
*unnecessary isn't quite right but I can't find the right word.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
This is interesting...
The Je Suis Charlie Tweet Map
It would be more meaningful if it was normalized by total number of tweets in each area.
Yeah, some of the places on the map(eg. the interior of Brazil or the Canadian north) are places that probably don't send out a lot of tweets to begin with.
I'm still curious about the Gulf though, and Indonesia as someone else mentioned.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Some countries just don't use Twitter, Facebook or any of 'our' social media platforms because they use their own. China is the example that immediately springs to mind - the Western versions of these things have very little traction compared to Weibo.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
If youre saying it's Islam, then it's hard to explain the fact that the least problem comes from the Islamic population of indonesia mentioned above. And most of the violence comes from middle Eastern/Arab cultures. Then I ask - why Arab moslems, and the general answer is, if youre from an arab culture, youre most likely islamic. So then I ask - why arabic culture has a tendency to violence? And the answer is to be found in the history of the middle east as affected by colonial history (mainly UK and France), by Oil politics and cold war machinations, by a history of gradual loss of water resources and arable land as populations were growing over the past 200 years, by the creation of the state of Israel, by power politics within the arab countries themselves.
A lot can be taken back to the supremacy of Oil and the investment of that income by Saudi Arabia into religious politics. Then after the overthrow of the Shah (which came about after, amongst other things repeated disastrous interferences into Iranian politics by Britiain), both the USA and USSR became frightened by the rise of radical Islam. Rather than trying to seek a diplomatic solition, BOTH the USA and USSR bankrolled Iraq under a little known General Saddam Hussein, providing them with money, training, chemical weapons and more conventional military equipment to wage the Iran-Iraq war. Add that to the already precipitous situation round Israel and the present trouble was more or less inevitable. There were other issues - France/Algeria, Russia/Syria/Lebanon... a whole sequence of messy, selfish and ill-conceived foreign policies.
About 20 years ago, peace broke out in Uganda, after about 20 years of conflict - a local reporter commented that everyone was tired of fighting and just wanted to go home to their villages. And that they had the advantage of not having any strategic resources or of being sitiuated ina strategically important position, so no armies were bankrolled and everyone left them alone.
Since 2002 about 100 Australians have been killed and as many injured by Indonesian Muslim extremists in Indonesia (most were killed in bombings in the overwhelmingly peaceful and 90%.Hindu island of Bali) The Australian embassy in Jakarta was bombed, Indonesia isn't a bastion of peace. This is particularly notable because Indonesia, since WWII hasn't been subject to the sort of US influence that is the source of much discontent.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Some, or all, of this was received in an email
I find all this high-minded talk about freedom of speech and conscience ironic when Muslims have more limits on speech and conscience than any other group of people - both in France and in North America.
Obviously the burqa and Halal meat bans were passed specifically to target Muslims and impinge on their religious beliefs in a way that these laws wouldn't for any other religious group. But apart from that, Muslims have been imprisoned for many years in the U.S. for things like translating and posting non-violent so-called "jihad" videos to the internet, writing scholarly articles in defense of Palestinian groups and expressing harsh criticism of Israel, and even for including a Hezbollah channel in a cable package. That’s all well beyond the numerous cases of jobs being lost or careers destroyed for expressing criticism of Israel or critiquing Judaism or Christianity in harsh terms. Muslims in Islamic dress get pulled off planes and detained in airports for misconstrued comments with depressing regularity throughout the west.
Apart fro that according to surveys almost 2/3rds of Americans want to see Congress pass a constitutional amendment criminalizing the burning/desecration of the U.S. flag as a form a protest. And in Europe many countries have holocaust denial laws.
Freedom to offend seems to work in certain directions but not in others.
[ 14. January 2015, 13:21: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
It makes me wonder if there isn't something more, not a conspiracy, but a more petty human drama that we're yet to find about.
Maybe the brothers were acting out their own personal drama/issues/mythology? They could have reinforced each other, or one manipulated the other. I don't know how often siblings do this kind of thing, but the guys who bombed the Boston marathon were brothers, too.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
If youre saying it's Islam, then it's hard to explain the fact that the least problem comes from the Islamic population of indonesia mentioned above. And most of the violence comes from middle Eastern/Arab cultures. Then I ask - why Arab moslems, and the general answer is, if youre from an arab culture, youre most likely islamic. So then I ask - why arabic culture has a tendency to violence? And the answer is to be found in the history of the middle east as affected by colonial history (mainly UK and France), by Oil politics and cold war machinations, by a history of gradual loss of water resources and arable land as populations were growing over the past 200 years, by the creation of the state of Israel, by power politics within the arab countries themselves.
A lot can be taken back to the supremacy of Oil and the investment of that income by Saudi Arabia into religious politics. Then after the overthrow of the Shah (which came about after, amongst other things repeated disastrous interferences into Iranian politics by Britiain), both the USA and USSR became frightened by the rise of radical Islam. Rather than trying to seek a diplomatic solition, BOTH the USA and USSR bankrolled Iraq under a little known General Saddam Hussein, providing them with money, training, chemical weapons and more conventional military equipment to wage the Iran-Iraq war. Add that to the already precipitous situation round Israel and the present trouble was more or less inevitable. There were other issues - France/Algeria, Russia/Syria/Lebanon... a whole sequence of messy, selfish and ill-conceived foreign policies.
About 20 years ago, peace broke out in Uganda, after about 20 years of conflict - a local reporter commented that everyone was tired of fighting and just wanted to go home to their villages. And that they had the advantage of not having any strategic resources or of being sitiuated ina strategically important position, so no armies were bankrolled and everyone left them alone.
Since 2002 about 100 Australians have been killed and as many injured by Indonesian Muslim extremists in Indonesia (most were killed in bombings in the overwhelmingly peaceful and 90%.Hindu island of Bali) The Australian embassy in Jakarta was bombed, Indonesia isn't a bastion of peace. This is particularly notable because Indonesia, since WWII hasn't been subject to the sort of US influence that is the source of much discontent.
Since 2002? 100 deaths?
Hate to break it to you, but on a global scale that really doesn't make Indonesia a hotbed of danger. Nigeria suffered 20 times as many deaths last week.
The post you were quoting said Indonesia had the least problem. It didn't say that no-one ever died in Indonesia. It's about perspective, not absolutes.
Meanwhile, how many murders do you think were committed in Australia since 2002? How many of our citizens died at our own hands? Is an Australian visiting Indonesia statistically in any more danger than an Australian staying at home?
You've got to ask these kind of comparison questions to get a meaningful answer. You can't just say "100 Australians have died in Indonesia since 2002" as if, since 2002, everyone who stayed inside the borders of Australia was magically rendered immortal.
[ 14. January 2015, 05:48: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Heck, now I really want to find some statistics on how many Australians have died overseas in other situations such as muggings, stabbings, and one case in America where an Aussie was just shot by some bored teenagers for fun.
Who knows, maybe 100 Australians out of the huge numbers visiting Bali is statistically significant, but allow me to be somewhat sceptical. Because without any kind of comparison about the 'usual', background rate of misfortune of Australians on overseas holiday, it means very little.
First question is: do I count the Boxing Day tsunami, or not?
I may have mentioned this before, but I'm again reminded about the furore over the government home insulation scheme. FOUR PEOPLE DIED!, the headlines shouted. That's a lot lower than the usual rate of death in the industry prior to the massive expansion caused by government subsidy, knowledgeable people said ever so quietly in a little corner of the media that was interested in comparative analysis.
[ 14. January 2015, 05:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
It makes me wonder if there isn't something more, not a conspiracy, but a more petty human drama that we're yet to find about.
Maybe the brothers were acting out their own personal drama/issues/mythology? They could have reinforced each other, or one manipulated the other. I don't know how often siblings do this kind of thing, but the guys who bombed the Boston marathon were brothers, too.
Quite possibly, it's the lack of reinforcement to the third member of the 'gang' that seems a bit more lacking than the narrative (both the news and his) suggests.
It almost makes more sense as a desperate copycat, but then where's the driver? Or possibly of him panicking, but after being relaxed enough to go home and still feeling safe to go out.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The response to someone like Breivik is basically "he's not one of us".
The response to a violent Muslim is basically "he's one of THEM!".
This has been confirmed in surveys:
Public Religion Research Institute: The American Double Standard on Religious Violence
Was that the survey as is?
I'm sure I have a double standard and if you set the question up so the distinction was implicit you'd definitely see it, and if you just separated it probably.
But I can't imagine consciously crossing opposite boxes and handing it in, freezing up as I alternate answers perhaps.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
It almost makes more sense as a desperate copycat, but then where's the driver? Or possibly of him panicking, but after being relaxed enough to go home and still feeling safe to go out.
What we have heard here is that CCTV has shown he scoped out the supermarket the week before and he was closely and systematically in contact with the other two in the time leading up to the attacks, and (as I understand it) during the sieges.
The idea of a two-pronged hostage action strikes me as typical Al-Quaeda, who seem to go in for multiple actions, and complicated the situation by an assault on one immediately having an effect on the other. There is little doubt in my mind that the attacks were coordinated in some fashion.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What we have heard here is that CCTV has shown he scoped out the supermarket the week before and he was closely and systematically in contact with the other two in the time leading up to the attacks, and (as I understand it) during the sieges.
The idea of a two-pronged hostage action strikes me as typical Al-Quaeda, who seem to go in for multiple actions, and complicated the situation by an assault on one immediately having an effect on the other. There is little doubt in my mind that the attacks were coordinated in some fashion.
Ah ok, our reviews have been a bit less thorough (and I've probably missed bits).
[fixed code]
[ 14. January 2015, 07:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
Just to put Indonesia into perspective, there are 200 million moslems, and with a death rate of less than 10 australians a year from islamic extremists from indonesia, there can't be more than 100 people engaged in this kind of activity in indonesia. So that's about 1 person in a million. We should NOT be giving these violent idiots so much attention and publicity, because that's what a) encourages them to do more, and b) recruits other people.
The stats for other moslem countries are not so large, but the numbers of people engaged in this activity are still small compared to the general population. And where the numbers are larger it is easy to draw a correlation between thise numbers and previous state-sponsored institutionalised violence, which always results in people becoming emotionally numb. Numbness is the cause of violence because a) the only way to feel something is for it to be big, and b) depersionalised people are also less able to feel empathy or compassion for anyone else. So all the "brainwashing" and similar techniques for making someone into (e,g.) a suicide bomber involve some degree of depersonalisation. So there are more ISIS and jihadis from Lebabon & Iraq because lebanon is an unholy mess (after once, not so long ago, being like the garden of eden), and in Iraq we have had a brutal regime and culture of state violence upheld by bothmajor superpowers of the day - who also at various times promised to help minorities to resust Saddam an dthen abandoned them to be massacred and tortured. Not good. NOT good. If anyone wants to find the source of todays violence of any kind in any situation, they only need to look to past acts of violence. From a spiritual pov it's the continuation of evil - humans affected by evil then make other humans susceptible to evil, and it goes on generation after generation. This can be stopped, but hysterical fear of a small number of people and then actions which marginalise others and encourage recruitment - is not the way to go about it.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
If youre saying it's Islam, then it's hard to explain the fact that the least problem comes from the Islamic population of indonesia mentioned above. And most of the violence comes from middle Eastern/Arab cultures. Then I ask - why Arab moslems, and the general answer is, if youre from an arab culture, youre most likely islamic. So then I ask - why arabic culture has a tendency to violence? And the answer is to be found in the history of the middle east as affected by colonial history (mainly UK and France), by Oil politics and cold war machinations, by a history of gradual loss of water resources and arable land as populations were growing over the past 200 years, by the creation of the state of Israel, by power politics within the arab countries themselves.
A lot can be taken back to the supremacy of Oil and the investment of that income by Saudi Arabia into religious politics. Then after the overthrow of the Shah (which came about after, amongst other things repeated disastrous interferences into Iranian politics by Britiain), both the USA and USSR became frightened by the rise of radical Islam. Rather than trying to seek a diplomatic solition, BOTH the USA and USSR bankrolled Iraq under a little known General Saddam Hussein, providing them with money, training, chemical weapons and more conventional military equipment to wage the Iran-Iraq war. Add that to the already precipitous situation round Israel and the present trouble was more or less inevitable. There were other issues - France/Algeria, Russia/Syria/Lebanon... a whole sequence of messy, selfish and ill-conceived foreign policies.
About 20 years ago, peace broke out in Uganda, after about 20 years of conflict - a local reporter commented that everyone was tired of fighting and just wanted to go home to their villages. And that they had the advantage of not having any strategic resources or of being sitiuated ina strategically important position, so no armies were bankrolled and everyone left them alone.
Since 2002 about 100 Australians have been killed and as many injured by Indonesian Muslim extremists in Indonesia (most were killed in bombings in the overwhelmingly peaceful and 90%.Hindu island of Bali) The Australian embassy in Jakarta was bombed, Indonesia isn't a bastion of peace. This is particularly notable because Indonesia, since WWII hasn't been subject to the sort of US influence that is the source of much discontent.
Since 2002? 100 deaths?
Hate to break it to you, but on a global scale that really doesn't make Indonesia a hotbed of danger. Nigeria suffered 20 times as many deaths last week.
The post you were quoting said Indonesia had the least problem. It didn't say that no-one ever died in Indonesia. It's about perspective, not absolutes.
Meanwhile, how many murders do you think were committed in Australia since 2002? How many of our citizens died at our own hands? Is an Australian visiting Indonesia statistically in any more danger than an Australian staying at home?
You've got to ask these kind of comparison questions to get a meaningful answer. You can't just say "100 Australians have died in Indonesia since 2002" as if, since 2002, everyone who stayed inside the borders of Australia was magically rendered immortal.
Oh Orfeo do calm down. I'm quite aware of the statistics and their significance, I've never disputed that the numbers involved in terrorism are minuscule.
People dying from causes other than terrorism is, however, totally irrelevant. It is nonsense to talk about people being stabbed and drawing any comparison-so should we say oh lots of people die in Paris everyday what's 6 more-no biggie.
Somebody was arguing that Indonesia was a bastion of peace and making a point that this proved Islam isn't a cause of the terrorism. My point was, there is terrorism in Indonesia funded by Al Quaeda,
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
Oh and PS while we're on stats, here's another one. There are more Australian Muslims fighting for ISIL than there are Muslims in the Australian defence forces.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Oh and PS while we're on stats, here's another one. There are more Australian Muslims fighting for ISIL than there are Muslims in the Australian defence forces.
Here's another stat: virtually all ethnic minorities are under-represented in the Australian forces. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Oh and PS while we're on stats, here's another one. There are more Australian Muslims fighting for ISIL than there are Muslims in the Australian defence forces.
Sources please.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Never mind, I found a source for you, actually in an article that ignores the big whopping hint in the official ADF source.
"As at 26 October, 2014, 100 ADF members have declared they are of Islamic faith … The reporting of religious faith is voluntary and, as such, the data provided may not be a fully accurate representation."
What you actually mean is that it is estimated more people have gone to Syria than have declared their Islamic faith in the ADF. Gee, I can't think of any possible reason why a Muslim might feel a little nervous about putting an underline about their background when joining the ADF. Can you?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Also, of course, that leaves about 476,000 Muslims (as of the last census) sitting on the sidelines, failing to join either ISIS or the Australian Defence Force.
Seriously? We're going to start saying you're un-Australian if you don't sign up? I must be un-Australian to my bones, then.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Oh and PS while we're on stats, here's another one. There are more Australian Muslims fighting for ISIL than there are Muslims in the Australian defence forces.
Here's another stat: virtually all ethnic minorities are under-represented in the Australian forces.
No doubt, but I can't see what that's got to do with comparing the number of a particular group who are in the ADF with the number who have gone to fight with ISIL. Do enlighten me...... is there some sort of discrimination in the ADF recruiting process that means those disappointed applicants decide they want to be in the army anyway, so they go join up with another force who are recruiting? ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Also, of course, that leaves about 476,000 Muslims (as of the last census) sitting on the sidelines, failing to join either ISIS or the Australian Defence Force.
Seriously? We're going to start saying you're un-Australian if you don't sign up? I must be un-Australian to my bones, then.
As you said earlier Orfeo quote:
... it's about perspectives not absolutes
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
No doubt, but I can't see what that's got to do with comparing the number of a particular group who are in the ADF with the number who have gone to fight with ISIL.
Because it might simply mean that the ADF is WORSE at recruiting the many patriotic muslims who would join, than the ISIL is at targeting a handful of nutters.
It doesn't tell you anything about the relative percentage of nutters to patriots.
[ 14. January 2015, 11:37: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
But apart from that, Muslims have been imprisoned for many years in the U.S. for things like translating and posting non-violent so-called "jihad" videos to the internet, writing scholarly articles in defense of Palestinian groups and expressing harsh criticism of Israel, and even for including a Hezbollah channel in a cable package. That’s all well beyond the numerous cases of jobs being lost or careers destroyed for expressing criticism of Israel or critiquing Judaism or Christianity in harsh terms.
It would be a lot easier for people to evaluate your statements if you'd supply a link to the page from which you lifted them.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
It came to me in an email and the language is a bit different, but if that is where it's from then there you go.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I've just gone back and attributed the post to something received by email. I might have attributed more to the author of the email who'd lifted stuff from Glenn Greenwald than necessary, but without access to ToujoursDan's email I don't know what are his words and what's from the email.
The quote function makes it very easy to distinguish between your words and the words of someone else. It's easy to keep on the safe side of copyright laws and courteous behaviour.
Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
I believe Thailand is a fairly popular spot for medical trips and even according to the article lots of Aussies retire there so a fair number of deaths there might be of elderly or ill people who would have died anyway (though one might want to check the safety of the medical care).
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
It's a bit difficult for non-Australians to evaluate what's being said about 100 Australians getting murdered in Indonesia since 2002 without knowing whether Indonesia is a popular holiday and business destination for Australians, or whether hardly any Australians go there.
By comparison, if one were told that 100 British subjects had been murdered on Kerguelen since 2002, that would probably be considerably more than both the number of British subjects who have been to Kerguelen in that time and the number of murders ever committed there. On the other hand, if one were told, say, that 100 British subjects had been murdered in the USA since 2002, that is a country that a lot of British people visit. So it would be a worrying but possibly not particularly significant statistic.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
nerd-sniping tangent for avid Googlers/ quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
if one were told, say, that 100 British subjects had been murdered in the USA since 2002, that is a country that a lot of British people visit. So it would be a worrying but possibly not particularly significant statistic.
Apparently, 3.8 million British nationals visit the US each year. The murder rate in the US since 2002 has declined steadily over that time, but if we take a ballpark average of 5.5 per hundred thousand, we could expect some 209 of the UK visitors not to make it home each year. In summary, a total of 100 UK nationals being murdered even per year in the US would suggest they are beating the odds. A grand total of 100 over more than a decade would, I think, be exceptionally good news.
(However, according to this article a mere 50 Britons are being murdered abroad annually worldwide (four or so of them in Thailand).
According to this table, roughly 60 million UK residents travel abroad every year*, so if we assume 50 million of them are Brits the murder rate for Brits abroad is one in a million, in which case making the US your destination increases those odds dramatically).
I remember a book in my school's economics library called "How to lie with statistics", and I have a more recent one called "Damned lies and statistics".
/nerd-sniping tangent for avid Googlers
[*ETA I assume that's journeys not people, but can't be bothered to hack the rest of the back-of-the-envelope calculations involved]
[ 14. January 2015, 20:15: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Nerdy comment, Eutychus
Doesn't that predicted figure of 209 tourist deaths overlook exposure to risk? The average UK tourist will be in the USA for about 2 weeks, the average US citizen 51 weeks (giving them a week's holiday abroad. Call it 50. So the UK tourist is 25 times less exposed to risk that than the US citizen. Which would make the predicted figure a 25th of your 209 i.e. 8?
That's a crude adjustment of course, but seems a more justifiable forecast.
Or am I just being stoopid?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Well on the other hand the vast majority of murder victims die at the hands of somebody they know, so heading off somewhere you know nobody at all looks like a good survival (or at least escaping murder) scenario.
I suppose I'm just offering light relief at the same time as highlighting how hard it is to apply statistics in a meaningful fashion, especially to issues as complicated as this one.
[and if the figure was 8, then Enoch's (presumed) absolute guess of 100 over 13 years was almost exactly spot on!]
[ 14. January 2015, 20:48: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's a bit difficult for non-Australians to evaluate what's being said about 100 Australians getting murdered in Indonesia since 2002 without knowing whether Indonesia is a popular holiday and business destination for Australians, or whether hardly any Australians go there.
Bali, which is in Indonesia (and which is where the bombings occurred), is probably the single most popular overseas holiday destination for Australians. It's close, it's exotic and it's cheap.
The only country that more people travel to is New Zealand, but a somewhat lower percentage of trips to NZ are for leisure.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
Every bogan Australian (and yeah that's a lot) goes to Bali-it's crawling with Dazzas and Kylies. I don't see how that's relevant to what was being discussed, unless somebody had said that terrorism was rampant in Indonesia and a significant number of Australians had been killed.
The fact is terrorists exist and are operative in Indonesia which was being disputed. I didn't say that terrorism was a common activity amongst Indonesians, just that it is not unknown.
I can't see how the fact that plenty of Australians die overseas is in anyway relevant to the fact that there are active terrorists in Indonesia. Frankly Al-Quada would have a better murder rate if they just sold goon and hired out mopeds rather than going to the trouble of orchestrating co-ordinated bombings of nightclubs frequented by westerners.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
What you actually said was that Indonesia "wasn't a bastion of peace".
How are we supposed to interpret that? If you're saying simply that from time to time violent deaths occur in Indonesia, this is pretty trite. Even if what you're saying is that from to time religiously motivated deaths occur in Indonesia, this is still pretty trite.
Which is why people took you to be suggesting that more religiously motivated deaths occurred in Indonesia than elsewhere. That it was relatively violent. That it was more violent than the 'background' level of violence to be found in "peaceful" countries. Hence the interest in statistics.
You're in fact now basically admitting that the terrorists DON'T have a significant impact on the death rate. In that case, why exactly were you pointing out Indonesia as "not a bastion of peace" in the first place? Why were you providing figures?
[ 15. January 2015, 06:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
It's a question of proportionality and perceived risk. For instance how many Australians get killed every year as a result of "normal" crime in Indonesia - or Australia of that matter - compared to "Islamic Terrorists". I'm not saying that any death in this way is good in any way, but that we spend hours, days, weeks, lifetimes agonising over terrorism and whether islam is good but ignore the other stuff that actually has a larger effect because it somehow is more normal or less scary - or something. And we also allow these events to erode our democracies and drive our politics. Why?
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What you actually said was that Indonesia "wasn't a bastion of peace".
How are we supposed to interpret that? If you're saying simply that from time to time violent deaths occur in Indonesia, this is pretty trite. Even if what you're saying is that from to time religiously motivated deaths occur in Indonesia, this is still pretty trite.
Which is why people took you to be suggesting that more religiously motivated deaths occurred in Indonesia than elsewhere. That it was relatively violent. That it was more violent than the 'background' level of violence to be found in "peaceful" countries. Hence the interest in statistics.
You're in fact now basically admitting that the terrorists DON'T have a significant impact on the death rate. In that case, why exactly were you pointing out Indonesia as "not a bastion of peace" in the first place? Why were you providing figures?
Where did I every claim that terrorists had a significant impact on the death rate? Death rates are totally irrelevant-why are we bothering to discuss Charlie Hebdo when so few people were killed-actually a tiny fraction of all those killed in the Bali bombings-I didn't think there was a critical mass of dead bodies required before we were allowed to discuss the causes of terrorism.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
The fact is terrorists exist and are operative in Indonesia which was being disputed.
I suspect the fundamental problem here is that this wasn't being disputed. No-one ever said there was no terrorism in Indonesia. What was actually said in the post you were replying to was:
quote:
[T]he least problem comes from the Islamic population of indonesia mentioned above. And most of the violence comes from middle Eastern/Arab cultures.
Least. Most. Not 'zero' and 'all'.
Again, this is why we end up with statistics and figures, and why it feels strange when you come back and say "I've never disputed the numbers involved are miniscule" or "I know it's not a common activity".
Well, if you're not disputing that, you're not disputing the thing that was actually said. You decided you needed to dispute a claim that there was no terrorism in Indonesia, but that claim wasn't made.
[ 15. January 2015, 07:04: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
I said Indonesia wasn't a bastion of peace-that's not the same as saying it's less peaceful than Syria or Afghanistan.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I said Indonesia wasn't a bastion of peace-that's not the same as saying it's less peaceful than Syria or Afghanistan.
Well, I still don't know WHAT it means, because (1) you were clearly saying it as a criticism of a previous post, and (2) you appear to believe that someone said no-one ever died of terrorism in Indonesia.
To make this point, you told us about 100 deaths in Indonesia since 2002. It's notable that you picked that date, and didn't tell anyone that 88 of those deaths were in 2002. It very much gave the impression that you wanted to point out that there was in fact a serious concern about terrorism in Indonesia.
Don't tell me what "Indonesia isn't a bastion of peace" doesn't mean. Tell me what it DOES mean.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
The OED defines bastion as "...place...strongly maintaining particular principles, attitudes, or activities"
and peace as "Freedom from disturbance; tranquillity:"
hope that helps.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
No, it doesn't help, because it doesn't explain why you think Indonesia, out of the over 200 countries in the world, qualifies for your description. Why not Norway?
Right now it feels like you've sidled up to me in an ice cream shop while I'm trying to choose between the flavours, and you've pointed to one tub and said archly "you realise that one has dairy in it".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
