Religious/Extremist Terrorism: Non-Muslim edition

[Loachman]

I agree that radicals of every type are horrible for society, but people, again, need to learn to separate the average run of the mill person who represents the majority of every group who just wants to live their lives in peace, and those who would do us harm.

Yes, yes, and yes.

One thing that I have learned from meeting people during various travels and here at home over many years, and through historical studies, is that, at our cores, we are all - aberrant few aside - the same, with a few relatively minor cultural differences (which make such interactions much more interesting).

All reasonable people want to live their lives in safety and security as they see fit, with a decent standard of living and minimum interference from their government, and provide better lives for their children.

But Islam teaches things that are inconsistent with modern western society and our concepts of individual freedom.

Muslims that accept and follow our laws - as the vast majority do, as individual freedom is attractive to most people - are fine. I have enjoyed good chats and discussions - including discussions about religion - and some excellent food with many whom I have known. We can all - and should - learn from each other.

But a relative yet significant few interpret the Qu'ran and Hadiths literally, and can cause problems.

 

[Altair]

Yes, yes, and yes.

One thing that I have learned from meeting people during various travels and here at home over many years, and through historical studies, is that, at our cores, we are all - aberrant few aside - the same, with a few relatively minor cultural differences (which make such interactions much more interesting).

All reasonable people want to live their lives in safety and security as they see fit, with a decent standard of living and minimum interference from their government, and provide better lives for their children.

But Islam teaches things that are inconsistent with modern western society and our concepts of individual freedom.

So does Christianity. Stone the gays, stone the adulterous women, many wives, owning slaves, all that jazz.

But there are the teachings of religions dating back over 1000 years and what is actually done.

Christianity doesn't follow the Bible as law, nor do Jews follow the Torah as law, and Muslims do not follow the Koran as law, at least not in the west.

So maybe don't say Islam teaches things that are inconsistent with modern western society. Every religion does. And if Islam is no different, then it doesn't need to be brought up.

Muslims that accept and follow our laws - as the vast majority do, as individual freedom is attractive to most people - are fine. I have enjoyed good chats and discussions - including discussions about religion - and some excellent food with many whom I have known. We can all - and should - learn from each other.

So you already unconsciously separate political Islam and spiritual Islam. Don't lump them together and you realize that one doesn't need to make blanket statements about Islam.

But a relative yet significant few interpret the Qu'ran and Hadiths literally, and can cause problems.

It's so few as to be almost a statistical anomaly as opposed to any great problem.

The NS shooter killed more people in Canada than radical Islamists have in 20 years.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Meanwhile in the Muslim countries and in the name of Muslim Brotherhood.......

Uyghurs are being deported from Muslim countries, raising concerns about China's growing reach | CNN

After reports of Uyghur disappearances in some major Arab countries, such as the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, some of China's ethnic Muslims fear they are no longer safe in parts of the Islamic world.

www.cnn.com

 

[Brad Sallows]

There is nothing wrong with Islam as it is practiced in the west. Lets not lump it in with what Saudi Arabia and Iran have bastardized it into.

Let's do it the other way. What Saudi Arabia and Iran have is Islam; what is practiced in the west is something different.

 

[Loachman]

Yet since September 12th, one is more likely to die to far right terror, followed by radical Islam.

I remain unconvinced about "far right terror", or deaths being the only unit of measurement.

I think that media are all to willing to ascribe attacks to the "far-right" due to ignorance or to push an agenda.

They often lose interest when a tragedy does not match their purpose.

The number of injuries, especially major ones, receive too little interest.

Property destruction and damage are also important, as they destroy local economies and communities. Most of that happens in local neighbourhoods, often poor ones, wherein small businesses cannot recover from even small losses. That not only destroys the income of the business owner(s), but their employees as well, and deprives communities - the residents of which often have no means of shopping elsewhere - of sources of necessary products.

Religion doesn't fall on the political spectrum. So call it what it is, religious based terror, not political based terror.

I'm content with that.

extreme nationalist, xenophobic, racist, fundamentalist.

I can accept that, although I don't see most of it as a continuation of the right spectrum. Conservatives tend not to prioritize race or country of origin, but personal character. People on the extreme left are also racist, but more subtly so with outward racism while simultaneously blatantly racist inwardly - as in professing hatred towards members of their own race. "Racism" seems to have supplanted the older concept of classism.

That's the straight and narrow of it. A conservative may be of the opinion that immigration control and secure borders are a good thing(those on the left being more open to more immigration)

A far right individual would be of the opinion that new immigrants are invading their country, raping the women, are a nuisance that needs to be eliminated.

in other words, closer to the right wing of the political spectrum, but a extreme and dangerous version of it.

The key difference is the means of immigration.

Legal and controlled immigration is fine.

Illegal and uncontrolled immigration is not.

A sizeable portion of the Hispanic community in the US are very vehemently opposed to illegal immigration for several reasons - resentment against those that cheated while they followed the rules, waited patiently to be admitted, and paid the costs of admission for one, and because they do not appreciate being assumed to have arrived illegally by some. Drugs flooding in with illegal aliens also affect their communities and they do not like that.

In this example of London ON, someone may have the opinion that political Islam is problematic, and that we need to ensure that everyone is integrating into Canadian society and not bringing the troubles of the middle east here.

A far right individual would be of the impression that Muslims are invading Canada, putting in sharia law, he'll bent on oppression and subjugation of the Canadian population, and as such, must be eliminated.

I see the difference, but, again, not a link to "rightism".

I have not, and I don't think anyone here is equating a run of the mill conservative with a far right individual who is of the opinion that one must kill all the Muslims to save Canada from sharia law.

I do not take what you have said that way.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yet I look to Europe, and places with large Muslim populations, and while there are tensions in places, the large majority of Muslims work within a countries framework and are not seeking to curtail rights of other muslims or native born Europeans.

So this is completely false to me. I think you need to separate political islam and islam as the religion. Some despots are using the religion as the cover to do the stupid stuff they do, and there are the people who just worship their god, and follow their customs and do not do anything beyond that.

In Canada we have Islam the religion. Same as we have Christianity the religion. And Judaism the religion. Our politics are secular, again, Muslims vote in large part for the party of gay rights, LGBTQ rights, women's equality, more so than the general population who vote for a party that doesn't have those issues as far up in their list of priorities.

There is no separating political and religious Islam, they are one and the same. Now there are Muslims that do not follow the Quran word for word, and want to live in peace, but there are a lot that also want the world to be more Islamic and many of them live here.

 

[Altair]

Let's do it the other way. What Saudi Arabia and Iran have is Islam; what is practiced in the west is something different.

Well, you should make the onus to separate the two and not issue blanket statements about Islam.

 

[Altair]

There is no separating political and religious Islam, they are one and the same.

Except that Canadian Muslims are politically secular and spiritually devout. What problems do you have with this? Is this not what we want muslims everywhere to be like?

Someone who practices their religion in peace and doesn't engage in political islam, how is that not separate? Is mayor Nenshi a example of political Islam?

Now there are Muslims that do not follow the Quran word for word, and want to live in peace, but there are a lot that also want the world to be more Islamic and many of them live here.

There are 1 million Canadian muslims. How many are a lot?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Well, you should make the onus to separate the two and not issue blanket statements about Islam.

Saudi- and Iranian style Islam is the problem. Whatever you want to call westernized Islam is the other thing you keep returning to.

Whatever threat levels the spooks want to guess at is fine; I suppose all the artists and humourists who readily treat Christianity and crazy right-extremists with disrespect and irreverence and refrain from doing the same to Islam are all wrong.

 

[Altair]

I remain unconvinced about "far right terror", or deaths being the only unit of measurement.

I think that media are all to willing to ascribe attacks to the "far-right" due to ignorance or to push an agenda.

If someone is part of a group like the proud boys or KKK and they kill someone, or are parts of online groups that are like minded, what do you call them?

Property destruction and damage are also important, as they destroy local economies and communities. Most of that happens in local neighbourhoods, often poor ones, wherein small businesses cannot recover from even small losses. That not only destroys the income of the business owner(s), but their employees as well, and deprives communities - the residents of which often have no means of shopping elsewhere - of sources of necessary products.

Property may be repaired, recovered. Lives? Lost forever. Lets not equate the two.

I can accept that, although I don't see most of it as a continuation of the right spectrum. Conservatives tend not to prioritize race or country of origin, but personal character. People on the extreme left are also racist, but more subtly so with outward racism while simultaneously blatantly racist inwardly - as in professing hatred towards members of their own race. "Racism" seems to have supplanted the older concept of classism.

Conservatives no. Far right? Yes. Which is why I separate the two.

The key difference is the means of immigration.

Legal and controlled immigration is fine.

Illegal and uncontrolled immigration is not.

A sizeable portion of the Hispanic community in the US are very vehemently opposed to illegal immigration for several reasons - resentment against those that cheated while they followed the rules, waited patiently to be admitted, and paid the costs of admission for one, and because they do not appreciate being assumed to have arrived illegally by some. Drugs flooding in with illegal aliens also affect their communities and they do not like that.

You're right. But you wont find that sizeable portion of the Hispanic community in the US mowing down immigrants in a Walmart in El Paso Texas.

Again, most run of the mill people on both sides are fine. Its the extremists. Stop getting defensive over me saying the extremists on the right are a problem.

 

[Loachman]

So does Christianity. Stone the gays, stone the adulterous women, many wives, owning slaves, all that jazz.

I am no biblical scholar, but I am pretty sure that that changed with the New Testament, with Jesus saying such things as "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "Love the sinner but hate the sin".

Islam has yet to make that change.

Christianity doesn't follow the Bible as law, nor do Jews follow the Torah as law, and Muslims do not follow the Koran as law, at least not in the west.

So maybe don't say Islam teaches things that are inconsistent with modern western society. Every religion does. And if Islam is no different, then it doesn't need to be brought up.

Christianity is not a combined religious and political system. It is different.

So you already unconsciously separate political Islam and spiritual Islam.

No. I do not.

I do, however - and consciously - make a distinction between individual Muslims and Islam.

It's so few as to be almost a statistical anomaly as opposed to any great problem.

As are many things. That does not mean that they, too, should not be considered seriously.

The NS shooter killed more people in Canada than radical Islamists have in 20 years.

Sikh extremists outdid him by far, if you're willing to go back a few years further, although while the crime was initiated within Canadian borders, the deaths occurred over open ocean.

Who picks the starting point, and on what basis?

 

[Altair]

Saudi- and Iranian style Islam is the problem.

Yes.

Whatever you want to call westernized Islam is the other thing you keep returning to.

I call it Islam. Its the Islam I run into every day in Canada. Its the norm. Its the beautiful ideal of Islam that I wish every country could adopt. Its the Islam that doesn't deserve to be lumped in to what those backward nutjobs have tried to make it seem like.

Whatever threat levels the spooks want to guess at is fine; I suppose all the artists and humourists who readily treat Christianity and crazy right-extremists with disrespect and irreverence and refrain from doing the same to Islam are all wrong.

The spooks were all over radical Islam for a generation post 9-11.

Those same spooks are sounding the alarm over far right threats. That should be telling.

 

[Good2Golf]

Depends on who decides what is “extreme”, doesn’t it?

I am sure that a significant portion of Canadian First Nations people view the entirety of Catholicism as “extreme”…

Exactly (and Protestants too).

We (non-Muslim) can’t (or shouldn’t be able to) say “they (Muslims) have extremes, we don’t” and expect to hold the high moral ground...

 

[lenaitch]

Maybe. That has not been confirmed, at least not by this morning. He was apparently an airsofter, which could well account for items that "looked like" body armour and military helmet but would lack any protective capability.

But I agree with your assessment. I don't see any political aspect, so no terrorism, and I don't think that he just drove at the first random family that he saw crossing the road, and it was not an accident.

It's a little broader than that:

CC Sec 83.01(1), in part

(b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

• (i) that is committed
  • (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and
  • 
    
  • (B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada . . .

Note that clause A and B are connected by the word "and".

 

[Loachman]

Except that Canadian Muslims are politically secular and spiritually devout.

The majority, and many are not particularly devout - which is what got those three girls here in Kingston killed a little over a decade ago. They weren't "devout" enough to satisfy their father and brother.

Is this not what we want muslims everywhere to be like?

Yes. Other Muslims, however, do not.

Someone who practices their religion in peace and doesn't engage in political islam, how is that not separate?

Islam is not purely a religion, like Christianity, or Judaism, or Buddhism, or Pastafarianism.

It is also and simultaneously a political system.

 

[QV]

Don't go there. The Bible is a bloody document as well.

I'm not vilifying a entire group of people for things they haven't done.

I'm telling a specific individual that they need to do better.

I don't like Islam is a problematic statement. There are those who are taking this line of thought and running with it. They go to far but they are starting somewhere.

I don't like Islam to me is the same as I don't like black people.

Or I don't like First nations.

Or I don't like Asians.

While nothing illegal about the statement, its a problematic statement none the less. And what happens when someone who starts with I don't like (insert here) goes to the next step, and the next step after that?

Shit like what happened in London happens.

Uh, Islam isn’t a race... it would be the same as saying you don’t like the Mormon way of life.

 

[Altair]

I am no biblical scholar, but I am pretty sure that that changed with the New Testament, with Jesus saying such things as "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "Love the sinner but hate the sin".

Heh. My Pastor told me the bible was the word of God and we cannot question Gods word.

That seems incompatible with western society now that I think about it.

Islam has yet to make that change.

Yet....western Muslims have. Again, unless you can explain how Canadian Muslims vote en masse for the LPC, who love gays, LGBTQ, women's equality, all stuff that political Islam rails against. Can you make sense of that?

Christianity is not a combined religious and political system. It is different.

Neither is Islam. Is Mayor Nenshi a example of Political Islam?

No. I do not.

I do, however - and consciously - make a distinction between individual Muslims and Islam.

Yes so all the individuals are not practicing political Islam....makes one think Islam in the west Muslims do not practice political Islam...

Its almost like they are politically secular and spiritually devout...like every other religion....

Go figure.

As are many things. That does not mean that they, too, should not be considered seriously.



Sikh extremists outdid him by far, if you're willing to go back a few years further, although while the crime was initiated within Canadian borders, the deaths occurred over open ocean.

Who picks the starting point, and on what basis?

20 years is a generation, lets go with that.

 

[Altair]

Uh, Islam isn’t a race... it would be the same as saying you don’t like the Mormon way of life.

Fine, I don't Jews. Better? Explain that away.

 

[Loachman]

If someone is part of a group like the proud boys or KKK and they kill someone, or are parts of online groups that are like minded, what do you call them?

I am unaware of the Proud Boys killing anybody. If I remember correctly, their current or last leader is/was Hispanic. They began as a joke, and I do not see them as a real threat. The KKK, as I have said, are a creation of the Democrat party, which is not "far-right".

Property may be repaired, recovered. Lives? Lost forever. Lets not equate the two.

Stop getting defensive over me saying the extremists on the right are a problem.

Property may not always be rebuilt. Many of those who lost property cannot afford to replace it, ever. Their lives and livelihoods are shattered.

That cannot be simply waved away.

And I'm not defensive, nor am I saying that extremists are not a problem. I merely disagree with terminology.

 

[Loachman]

It's a little broader than that:

CC Sec 83.01(1), in part

(b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

• (i) that is committed
  • (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and
  • 
    
  • (B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada . . .

Note that clause A and B are connected by the word "and".

So what, then, differentiates a hate crime from a terrorist attack?