Re: ideology

by confuzzled dude Sun Nov 15, 2015 12:12 am

Kris wrote:
1) No god or paradise motivated the LTTE which is why that MO is gone. I mean once they got wiped out, did anyone reconstitute themselves with the same ideology of killing of anyone seen as interventionist? This is because, even if the feelings toward Sinhalese suppression remain and are real, the problem is seen as a human one and not due to any god-given special status with paradise access through killing.

That is because India has learned its lesson after Rajiv Gandhi's death and did not give in to TN people's sentiments nor budge to TN politicians pressure. India treated it as SL's internal problem or else it would not have been possible for SL to succeed.

Kris wrote:
2) I would disagree. For your position to be true i.e. the idea that superpower politics is solely or even mainly the trigger to these acts, you have to show that any conflict that fundamentalist islam with other cultures (now or in history) has/had US or Western involvement. There are various theaters (Philippines, Thailand, Kashmir, Nigeria) where the West is not even peripherally involved. Speaking of realpolitik, that may very well be what is needed to get our arms around this tactically. Instead of fighting a war by Marquess of Queensberry rules (and spending billions and thousands of lives), this has to be tackled at the ground level covertly by neutralizing the brains behind this. See my post in the other thread about the talking heads yapping 24/7 on TV. This is guerilla warfare we are being confronted with. If that is seen as underhanded, you have to then censure Obama for killing Bin Laden by entering Pakistani airspace illegally or Kennedy for the Cuban blockade as that infringed on Cuba's right to strike a deal with the Soviets.

Thailand, Kashmir, et al are internal strifes they did not spill over to the west, have they? nor did the LTTE conflict or any of the genocides in central african countries where millions of people lost their lives. West doesn't care about these countries because they are useless to them, and there is no oil, so the chances are that they will remain issues internal to those countries.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Nov 15, 2015 12:21 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
1) No god or paradise motivated the LTTE which is why that MO is gone. I mean once they got wiped out, did anyone reconstitute themselves with the same ideology of killing of anyone seen as interventionist? This is because, even if the feelings toward Sinhalese suppression remain and are real, the problem is seen as a human one and not due to any god-given special status with paradise access through killing.
That is because India has learned its lesson after Rajiv Gandhi's death and did not give in to TN people's sentiments nor budge to TN politicians pressure. India treated it as SL's internal problem or else it would not have been possible for SL to succeed.
Kris wrote:
2) I would disagree. For your position to be true i.e. the idea that superpower politics is solely or even mainly the trigger to these acts, you have to show that any conflict that fundamentalist islam with other cultures (now or in history) has/had US or Western involvement. There are various theaters (Philippines, Thailand, Kashmir, Nigeria) where the West is not even peripherally involved. Speaking of realpolitik, that may very well be what is needed to get our arms around this tactically. Instead of fighting a war by Marquess of Queensberry rules (and spending billions and thousands of lives), this has to be tackled at the ground level covertly by neutralizing the brains behind this. See my post in the other thread about the talking heads yapping 24/7 on TV. This is guerilla warfare we are being confronted with. If that is seen as underhanded, you have to then censure Obama for killing Bin Laden by entering Pakistani airspace illegally or Kennedy for the Cuban blockade as that infringed on Cuba's right to strike a deal with the Soviets.
Thailand, Kashmir, et al are internal strifes they did not spill over to the west, have they? nor did the LTTE conflict or any of the genocides in central african countries where millions of people lost their lives. West doesn't care about these countries because they are useless to them, and there is no oil, so the chances are that they will remain issues internal to those countries.

Are you agreeing then although the above are all independent local issues iSlam is the linker for all the killing and bombings?

by Kris Sun Nov 15, 2015 12:47 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
1) No god or paradise motivated the LTTE which is why that MO is gone. I mean once they got wiped out, did anyone reconstitute themselves with the same ideology of killing of anyone seen as interventionist? This is because, even if the feelings toward Sinhalese suppression remain and are real, the problem is seen as a human one and not due to any god-given special status with paradise access through killing.
That is because India has learned its lesson after Rajiv Gandhi's death and did not give in to TN people's sentiments nor budge to TN politicians pressure. India treated it as SL's internal problem or else it would not have been possible for SL to succeed.
Kris wrote:
2) I would disagree. For your position to be true i.e. the idea that superpower politics is solely or even mainly the trigger to these acts, you have to show that any conflict that fundamentalist islam with other cultures (now or in history) has/had US or Western involvement. There are various theaters (Philippines, Thailand, Kashmir, Nigeria) where the West is not even peripherally involved. Speaking of realpolitik, that may very well be what is needed to get our arms around this tactically. Instead of fighting a war by Marquess of Queensberry rules (and spending billions and thousands of lives), this has to be tackled at the ground level covertly by neutralizing the brains behind this. See my post in the other thread about the talking heads yapping 24/7 on TV. This is guerilla warfare we are being confronted with. If that is seen as underhanded, you have to then censure Obama for killing Bin Laden by entering Pakistani airspace illegally or Kennedy for the Cuban blockade as that infringed on Cuba's right to strike a deal with the Soviets.
Thailand, Kashmir, et al are internal strifes they did not spill over to the west, have they? nor did the LTTE conflict or any of the genocides in central african countries where millions of people lost their lives. West doesn't care about these countries because they are useless to them, and there is no oil, so the chances are that they will remain issues internal to those countries.

1) Regardless, the question remains. Was there a god or paradise angle to the SL Tamil struggle? I am trying to make the point that this insanity is what is sustaining the ISIS/Al Queda ideology and MO. When you have some "god" on your side and your martyrdom with suicide bombings is the way to heaven, very few earthly objectives- including the one to stay alive-are deterrents.

2) The question is not about why the West didn't get involved in those theaters. The answer to that is obvious. It is to refute your point that the conflicts of the Islamist ideologues are largely driven as a reaction to the West's doings and has nothing to do with any specific ideology. If these other places have no Western involvement- and sure there can always be be local reasons-but given the number and disparate locations, it seems to be a case of "it's always someone else's fault". That is not to absolve the West which has many skeletons in its closet, but a wholesale dismissal of ideological motives seems a huge stretch.

by confuzzled dude Sun Nov 15, 2015 12:48 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
1) No god or paradise motivated the LTTE which is why that MO is gone. I mean once they got wiped out, did anyone reconstitute themselves with the same ideology of killing of anyone seen as interventionist? This is because, even if the feelings toward Sinhalese suppression remain and are real, the problem is seen as a human one and not due to any god-given special status with paradise access through killing.
That is because India has learned its lesson after Rajiv Gandhi's death and did not give in to TN people's sentiments nor budge to TN politicians pressure. India treated it as SL's internal problem or else it would not have been possible for SL to succeed.
Kris wrote:
2) I would disagree. For your position to be true i.e. the idea that superpower politics is solely or even mainly the trigger to these acts, you have to show that any conflict that fundamentalist islam with other cultures (now or in history) has/had US or Western involvement. There are various theaters (Philippines, Thailand, Kashmir, Nigeria) where the West is not even peripherally involved. Speaking of realpolitik, that may very well be what is needed to get our arms around this tactically. Instead of fighting a war by Marquess of Queensberry rules (and spending billions and thousands of lives), this has to be tackled at the ground level covertly by neutralizing the brains behind this. See my post in the other thread about the talking heads yapping 24/7 on TV. This is guerilla warfare we are being confronted with. If that is seen as underhanded, you have to then censure Obama for killing Bin Laden by entering Pakistani airspace illegally or Kennedy for the Cuban blockade as that infringed on Cuba's right to strike a deal with the Soviets.
Thailand, Kashmir, et al are internal strifes they did not spill over to the west, have they? nor did the LTTE conflict or any of the genocides in central african countries where millions of people lost their lives. West doesn't care about these countries because they are useless to them, and there is no oil, so the chances are that they will remain issues internal to those countries.

Are you agreeing then although the above are all independent local issues iSlam is the linker for all the killing and bombings?

Our dear friend Saudi Arabia-petro-dollars-wahhabism is the common thread. When are your republican friends (if they have any balls) are invading Saudi Arabia and/or imposing sanctions on Saudi Arabia?

by truthbetold Sun Nov 15, 2015 12:54 am

cd

would your indian pseudo secular brethren declare that Saudi arabian wahabi religious fanatics are the source of jehadi funding? would they agree to oppose such funding to indian institutions?

by confuzzled dude Sun Nov 15, 2015 1:07 am

Kris wrote:
1) Regardless, the question remains. Was there a god or paradise angle to the SL Tamil struggle? I am trying to make the point that this insanity is what is sustaining the ISIS/Al Queda ideology and MO. When you have some "god" on your side and your martyrdom with suicide bombings is the way to heaven, very few earthly objectives- including the one to stay alive-are deterrents.

and yet suicide bombs were prevalent and in fact were invented by LTTE, again who killed Rajiv Gandhi? If my memory serves me right, a suicide bomber.

Kris wrote:
2) The question is not about why the West didn't get involved in those theaters. The answer to that is obvious. It is to refute your point that the conflicts of the Islamist ideologues are largely driven as a reaction to the West's doings and has nothing to do with any specific ideology. If these other places have no Western involvement- and sure there can always be be local reasons-but given the number and disparate locations, it seems to be a case of "it's always someone else's fault". That is not to absolve the West which has many skeletons in its closet, but a wholesale dismissal of ideological motives seems a huge stretch.

How do you for sure know that those local reasons are different from say Kaveri water fights between Tamilians and Kannadigas? (not including the ones sponsored by Wahhabists)

by confuzzled dude Sun Nov 15, 2015 1:23 am

truthbetold wrote:cd

would your indian pseudo secular brethren declare that Saudi arabian wahabi religious fanatics are the source of jehadi funding? would they agree to oppose such funding to indian institutions?

Forget pseudos, Would Veer Hindu Modi declare that?

by Kris Sun Nov 15, 2015 1:51 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
1) Regardless, the question remains. Was there a god or paradise angle to the SL Tamil struggle? I am trying to make the point that this insanity is what is sustaining the ISIS/Al Queda ideology and MO. When you have some "god" on your side and your martyrdom with suicide bombings is the way to heaven, very few earthly objectives- including the one to stay alive-are deterrents.
and yet suicide bombs were prevalent and in fact were invented by LTTE, again who killed Rajiv Gandhi? If my memory serves me right, a suicide bomber.
Kris wrote:
2) The question is not about why the West didn't get involved in those theaters. The answer to that is obvious. It is to refute your point that the conflicts of the Islamist ideologues are largely driven as a reaction to the West's doings and has nothing to do with any specific ideology. If these other places have no Western involvement- and sure there can always be be local reasons-but given the number and disparate locations, it seems to be a case of "it's always someone else's fault". That is not to absolve the West which has many skeletons in its closet, but a wholesale dismissal of ideological motives seems a huge stretch.
How do you for sure know that those local reasons are different from say Kaveri water fights between Tamilians and Kannadigas? (not including the ones sponsored by Wahhabists)

1) We are going in circles here. There is no LTTE or LTTE-like entity now with the suicide bombing MO, because there was never an idea that is was going to get them a first class ticket to a 72 virgin heaven or to meet some god. There is an ISIS which (very much like its other fundamentalist "spiritual" cohorts) believes in the virtues/rewards of martyrdom that comes from killing infidels. It sees this as its god-given duty and therefore, this is not going to change anytime soon.

2) I am not following the parallel, which seems to be at best tangential to what I am saying. I am not referring to the nature of any of the problems. I am however asking why you are ruling out an ideological root cause possibility out of hand, if there are conflicts in multiple geographically and culturally disparate environments. In other words, why the default assumption that it is always someone else's fault?

by confuzzled dude Sun Nov 15, 2015 9:36 am

Kris wrote:
1) We are going in circles here. There is no LTTE or LTTE-like entity now with the suicide bombing MO, because there was never an idea that is was going to get them a first class ticket to a 72 virgin heaven or to meet some god. There is an ISIS which (very much like its other fundamentalist "spiritual" cohorts) believes in the virtues/rewards of martyrdom that comes from killing infidels. It sees this as its god-given duty and therefore, this is not going to change anytime soon.

You need to make up your mind as to whether one is ready to commit suicide only for god/paradise/72, which appears to be flawed logic given the expansive history of LTTE suicide bombers. Were earlier ('80s) Palestinian suicide bombings were committed for god and 72 virgins as well?

Kris wrote:
2) I am not following the parallel, which seems to be at best tangential to what I am saying. I am not referring to the nature of any of the problems. I am however asking why you are ruling out an ideological root cause possibility out of hand, if there are conflicts in multiple geographically and culturally disparate environments. In other words, why the default assumption that it is always someone else's fault?

I doubt it is as tangential as your theory i.e. separation of non-muslim (involved) ideologies from muslims involved ideologies and lumping all the issues in world where muslims are involved (whatever may be root cause) in one umbrella (for good/paradise)

Kris wrote:
In other words, why the default assumption that it is always someone else's fault?

And your default assumption is and has been it is always their fault, right? why is that?

by truthbetold Sun Nov 15, 2015 9:44 am

It is a fool's errand to rank terrorists on a extremism scale. All of them are capable of extreme acts. But no one has seen an organization of this wide a reach as isis in recent history. None have conducted such barbaric acts. None present such danger to conducting daily routines of ordinary people around the world.

by Kris Sun Nov 15, 2015 1:01 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
1) We are going in circles here. There is no LTTE or LTTE-like entity now with the suicide bombing MO, because there was never an idea that is was going to get them a first class ticket to a 72 virgin heaven or to meet some god. There is an ISIS which (very much like its other fundamentalist "spiritual" cohorts) believes in the virtues/rewards of martyrdom that comes from killing infidels. It sees this as its god-given duty and therefore, this is not going to change anytime soon.
You need to make up your mind as to whether one is ready to commit suicide only for god/paradise/72, which appears to be flawed logic given the expansive history of LTTE suicide bombers. Were earlier ('80s) Palestinian suicide bombings were committed for god and 72 virgins as well?
Kris wrote:
2) I am not following the parallel, which seems to be at best tangential to what I am saying. I am not referring to the nature of any of the problems. I am however asking why you are ruling out an ideological root cause possibility out of hand, if there are conflicts in multiple geographically and culturally disparate environments. In other words, why the default assumption that it is always someone else's fault?
I doubt it is as tangential as your theory i.e. separation of non-muslim (involved) ideologies from muslims involved ideologies and lumping all the issues in world where muslims are involved (whatever may be root cause) in one umbrella (for good/paradise)
Kris wrote:
In other words, why the default assumption that it is always someone else's fault?
And your default assumption is and has been it is always their fault, right? why is that?

1) Is your position that LTTE ideology=ISIS ideology, even though the the ISIS is telling you their agenda is Caliphate/Killing of infidels/Sharia, whereas the LTTE's fight was for the rights of SL Tamils? I have had nothing but contempt for LTTE for their MO, but their basic cause was not an irrational one.

2) Because they are telling you they want sharia, that they differentiate between themselves and the others "infidels'. You can go and look at every one of the examples I cited and show me where this difference was not raised.

3) See #2. The burden of proof is on you in view of this sharia/ infidel b.s. that is constantly invoked by the terrorist elements. The guys who killed the parisians were shouting allahu akbar, in case you didn't hear.

by confuzzled dude Sun Nov 15, 2015 1:19 pm

Kris wrote:
1) Is your position that LTTE ideology=ISIS ideology, even though the the ISIS is telling you their agenda is Caliphate/Killing of infidels/Sharia, whereas the LTTE's fight was for the rights of SL Tamils? I have had nothing but contempt for LTTE for their MO, but their basic cause was not an irrational one.

The answer is Yes, because you seem to lump Palestinian struggle/J&K/Thailand bombs with ISIS's ideology.

Kris wrote:
2) Because they are telling you they want sharia, that they differentiate between themselves and the others "infidels'. You can go and look at every one of the examples I cited and show me where this difference was not raised.

3) See #2. The burden of proof is on you in view of this sharia/ infidel b.s. that is constantly invoked by the terrorist elements. The guys who killed the parisians were shouting allahu akbar, in case you didn't hear.

Yeah, right!

by Kris Sun Nov 15, 2015 1:31 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
1) Is your position that LTTE ideology=ISIS ideology, even though the the ISIS is telling you their agenda is Caliphate/Killing of infidels/Sharia, whereas the LTTE's fight was for the rights of SL Tamils? I have had nothing but contempt for LTTE for their MO, but their basic cause was not an irrational one.
The answer is Yes, because you seem to lump Palestinian struggle/J&K/Thailand bombs with ISIS's ideology.
Kris wrote:
2) Because they are telling you they want sharia, that they differentiate between themselves and the others "infidels'. You can go and look at every one of the examples I cited and show me where this difference was not raised.

3) See #2. The burden of proof is on you in view of this sharia/ infidel b.s. that is constantly invoked by the terrorist elements. The guys who killed the parisians were shouting allahu akbar, in case you didn't hear.
Yeah, right!

1) I have already said the conflicts may have local reasons, but there is an underlying theme of this infidel/ sharia theme in all the conflicts. The speciific question is about the LTTE vs ISIS, which is the news right now. How are they equal in their causes?

3) Why isn't the burden of proof on you, in view of #2 above, unless you are saying the calls for a caliphate and sharia and 'allahu akbar' cries are being made up?

by confuzzled dude Sun Nov 15, 2015 1:57 pm

Kris wrote:
1) I have already said the conflicts may have local reasons, but there is an underlying theme of this infidel/ sharia theme in all the conflicts. The speciific question is about the LTTE vs ISIS, which is the news right now. How are they equal in their causes?

3) Why isn't the burden of proof on you, in view of #2 above, unless you are saying the calls for a caliphate and sharia and 'allahu akbar' cries are being made up?

Basic common sense tells me that it can't be both, either one or the other. Was the underlying theme of j&k or Palestine was to spread Islam?

by Kris Sun Nov 15, 2015 2:05 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
1) I have already said the conflicts may have local reasons, but there is an underlying theme of this infidel/ sharia theme in all the conflicts. The speciific question is about the LTTE vs ISIS, which is the news right now. How are they equal in their causes?

3) Why isn't the burden of proof on you, in view of #2 above, unless you are saying the calls for a caliphate and sharia and 'allahu akbar' cries are being made up?
Basic common sense tells me that it can't be both, either one or the other. Was the underlying theme of j&k or Palestine was to spread Islam?

>>>Why can't it be both? If you have a conflict for whatever reasons (water rights, civil rights etc.) and one party invokes religious supremacy and right to destroy, that throws a monkey wrench into any attempt at finding a win/win or a common middle ground, doesn't it? In both j&k, and palestine, religion certainly is one of the factors at play.

by Guest Sun Nov 15, 2015 2:37 pm

Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
1) I have already said the conflicts may have local reasons, but there is an underlying theme of this infidel/ sharia theme in all the conflicts. The speciific question is about the LTTE vs ISIS, which is the news right now. How are they equal in their causes?

3) Why isn't the burden of proof on you, in view of #2 above, unless you are saying the calls for a caliphate and sharia and 'allahu akbar' cries are being made up?
Basic common sense tells me that it can't be both, either one or the other. Was the underlying theme of j&k or Palestine was to spread Islam?
>>>Why can't it be both? If you have a conflict for whatever reasons (water rights, civil rights etc.) and one party invokes religious supremacy and right to destroy, that throws a monkey wrench into any attempt at finding a win/win or a common middle ground, doesn't it? In both j&k, and palestine, religion certainly is one of the factors at play.

the solution is to gain a better understanding of islam and to promote liberal islam and marginalize fundamentalist islam. in India more than 90% of muslims are sunnis. Now Indian sunnis are sub-divided into deobandis and barelvis. barelvis being the more liberal, more tolerant sect. One can even say that barelvis are hinduised muslims. for instance, barelvis will pray and do pooja before tombs and shrines of sufi saints (hindus will also pray at these places) by offering flowers and lighting lamps and candles etc. this is a practice that is forbidden in orthodox islam (Even praying before the tomb or shrine of prophet Mohammad or indeed any spiritual or religious figure is forbidden in orthodox Islam since the orthodox claim that by doing so one is implicitly comparing a human to God which is blasphemous) and hence deobandis do not do it. barelvis respect and honor sufi saints while deobandis consider the sufi saints to be heretics. (from what can i tell the deobandis have an ideological affinity with wahabi islam.) There have been many occasions when physical fights have broken out between barelvis and deobandis because of their different ideologies. as an example try googling for 'barelvis deobandis clash'.

so how is it that there is a prominent educational institution in India promoting deobandi ideology (darul uloom deoband ) while to the best of my knowledge there is no similar institution promoting barelvi ideology? Even though barelvis greatly outnumber the deobandis.

by Guest Sun Nov 15, 2015 2:46 pm

What follows is the position in Pakistan. (In India the percentage of Deobandi and Wahabi muslims together is significantly less than 20%.)
----

Most Sunnis adhere to the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. Only 5 per cent of the country’s population belongs to the Ahle Hadith sect or Wahabis.
The Sunnis are subdivided into the Barelvi and Deobandi schools of thought

The Deobandis and Wahabis consider the Barelvis as kafir, because they visit the shrines of saints, offer prayers, believe music, poetry and dance can lead to god
Barelvis constitute 60 per cent of the population. Deobandis and Wahabis together account for 20 per cent

Another 15 per cent are Shias, again considered kafir and subjected to repeated attacks
Since 2000, the Sunni-Shia conflict has claimed 5,000 lives

Others considered kafir are the religious minorities—Christians, Ismailis, Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis, Ahmadias, etc, who account for 5 per cent of the population
So, 20 per cent of the population effectively considers the remaining 80 per cent as kafir

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?266157

by Kris Sun Nov 15, 2015 2:49 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
1) I have already said the conflicts may have local reasons, but there is an underlying theme of this infidel/ sharia theme in all the conflicts. The speciific question is about the LTTE vs ISIS, which is the news right now. How are they equal in their causes?

3) Why isn't the burden of proof on you, in view of #2 above, unless you are saying the calls for a caliphate and sharia and 'allahu akbar' cries are being made up?
Basic common sense tells me that it can't be both, either one or the other. Was the underlying theme of j&k or Palestine was to spread Islam?
>>>Why can't it be both? If you have a conflict for whatever reasons (water rights, civil rights etc.) and one party invokes religious supremacy and right to destroy, that throws a monkey wrench into any attempt at finding a win/win or a common middle ground, doesn't it? In both j&k, and palestine, religion certainly is one of the factors at play.

the solution is to gain a better understanding of islam and to promote liberal islam and marginalize fundamentalist islam. in India more than 90% of muslims are sunnis. Now Indian sunnis are sub-divided into deobandis and barelvis. barelvis being the more liberal, more tolerant sect. One can even say that barelvis are hinduised muslims. for instance, barelvis will pray and do pooja before tombs and shrines of sufi saints (hindus will also pray at these places) by offering flowers and lighting lamps and candles etc. this is a practice that is forbidden in orthodox islam (Even praying before the tomb or shrine of prophet Mohammad or indeed any spiritual or religious figure is forbidden in orthodox Islam since the orthodox claim that by doing so one is implicitly comparing a human to God which is blasphemous) and hence deobandis do not do it. barelvis respect and honor sufi saints while deobandis consider the sufi saints to be heretics. (from what can i tell the deobandis have an ideological affinity with wahabi islam.) There have been many occasions when physical fights have broken out between barelvis and deobandis because of their different ideologies. as an example try googling for 'barelvis deobandis clash'.

so how is it that there is a prominent educational institution in India promoting deobandi ideology (darul uloom deoband ) while to the best of my knowledge there is no similar institution promoting barelvi ideology? Even though barelvis greatly outnumber the deobandis.

>>>I am just guessing on this, but this is probably something that European countries can try (and may be trying already). Of course, this type of approach is less likely to happen in the US due to the church/state separation aspect. In answer to your question, the deobandis being more prominent in India may be related to the assertion of more virulent strains of Islam. In that sense, it could also be the reason why those strains are trumping what you would think are the liberalizing influences of western upbringing on English/French muslim youth joining iSIS.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Nov 15, 2015 3:39 pm

Kris wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
1) I have already said the conflicts may have local reasons, but there is an underlying theme of this infidel/ sharia theme in all the conflicts. The speciific question is about the LTTE vs ISIS, which is the news right now. How are they equal in their causes?

3) Why isn't the burden of proof on you, in view of #2 above, unless you are saying the calls for a caliphate and sharia and 'allahu akbar' cries are being made up?
Basic common sense tells me that it can't be both, either one or the other. Was the underlying theme of j&k or Palestine was to spread Islam?
>>>Why can't it be both? If you have a conflict for whatever reasons (water rights, civil rights etc.) and one party invokes religious supremacy and right to destroy, that throws a monkey wrench into any attempt at finding a win/win or a common middle ground, doesn't it? In both j&k, and palestine, religion certainly is one of the factors at play.

the solution is to gain a better understanding of islam and to promote liberal islam and marginalize fundamentalist islam. in India more than 90% of muslims are sunnis. Now Indian sunnis are sub-divided into deobandis and barelvis. barelvis being the more liberal, more tolerant sect. One can even say that barelvis are hinduised muslims. for instance, barelvis will pray and do pooja before tombs and shrines of sufi saints (hindus will also pray at these places) by offering flowers and lighting lamps and candles etc. this is a practice that is forbidden in orthodox islam (Even praying before the tomb or shrine of prophet Mohammad or indeed any spiritual or religious figure is forbidden in orthodox Islam since the orthodox claim that by doing so one is implicitly comparing a human to God which is blasphemous) and hence deobandis do not do it. barelvis respect and honor sufi saints while deobandis consider the sufi saints to be heretics. (from what can i tell the deobandis have an ideological affinity with wahabi islam.) There have been many occasions when physical fights have broken out between barelvis and deobandis because of their different ideologies. as an example try googling for 'barelvis deobandis clash'.

so how is it that there is a prominent educational institution in India promoting deobandi ideology (darul uloom deoband ) while to the best of my knowledge there is no similar institution promoting barelvi ideology? Even though barelvis greatly outnumber the deobandis.
>>>I am just guessing on this, but this is probably something that European countries can try (and may be trying already). Of course, this type of approach is less likely to happen in the US due to the church/state separation aspect. In answer to your question, the deobandis being more prominent in India may be related to the assertion of more virulent strains of Islam. In that sense, it could also be the reason why those strains are trumping what you would think are the liberalizing influences of western upbringing on English/French muslim youth joining iSIS.

first and foremost these young guys need to somehow be made to believe that they are part of a larger democratic society and can succeed economically as well as the mainstream population. understanding and promoting a moderate islam etc. are laudable goals, but it is not going to accomplish the primary goal. having said that, my idea of secularism is very close to the american govt's. the very idea of a state coddling any religion and promoting a moderate version of it etc. is quite repugnant to me. the state has no business in religion. individuals like yourself can take up such goals and pursue them on your own.

by Kris Sun Nov 15, 2015 3:54 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kris wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Basic common sense tells me that it can't be both, either one or the other. Was the underlying theme of j&k or Palestine was to spread Islam?
>>>Why can't it be both? If you have a conflict for whatever reasons (water rights, civil rights etc.) and one party invokes religious supremacy and right to destroy, that throws a monkey wrench into any attempt at finding a win/win or a common middle ground, doesn't it? In both j&k, and palestine, religion certainly is one of the factors at play.

the solution is to gain a better understanding of islam and to promote liberal islam and marginalize fundamentalist islam. in India more than 90% of muslims are sunnis. Now Indian sunnis are sub-divided into deobandis and barelvis. barelvis being the more liberal, more tolerant sect. One can even say that barelvis are hinduised muslims. for instance, barelvis will pray and do pooja before tombs and shrines of sufi saints (hindus will also pray at these places) by offering flowers and lighting lamps and candles etc. this is a practice that is forbidden in orthodox islam (Even praying before the tomb or shrine of prophet Mohammad or indeed any spiritual or religious figure is forbidden in orthodox Islam since the orthodox claim that by doing so one is implicitly comparing a human to God which is blasphemous) and hence deobandis do not do it. barelvis respect and honor sufi saints while deobandis consider the sufi saints to be heretics. (from what can i tell the deobandis have an ideological affinity with wahabi islam.) There have been many occasions when physical fights have broken out between barelvis and deobandis because of their different ideologies. as an example try googling for 'barelvis deobandis clash'.

so how is it that there is a prominent educational institution in India promoting deobandi ideology (darul uloom deoband ) while to the best of my knowledge there is no similar institution promoting barelvi ideology? Even though barelvis greatly outnumber the deobandis.
>>>I am just guessing on this, but this is probably something that European countries can try (and may be trying already). Of course, this type of approach is less likely to happen in the US due to the church/state separation aspect. In answer to your question, the deobandis being more prominent in India may be related to the assertion of more virulent strains of Islam. In that sense, it could also be the reason why those strains are trumping what you would think are the liberalizing influences of western upbringing on English/French muslim youth joining iSIS.

first and foremost these young guys need to somehow be made to believe that they are part of a larger democratic society and can succeed economically as well as the mainstream population. understanding and promoting a moderate islam etc. are laudable goals, but it is not going to accomplish the primary goal. having said that, my idea of secularism is very close to the american govt's. the very idea of a state coddling any religion and promoting a moderate version of it etc. is quite repugnant to me. the state has no business in religion. individuals like yourself can take up such goals and pursue them on your own.

>>> is this meant for me personally as a suggested course of action?

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Nov 15, 2015 3:56 pm

Kris wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kris wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>Why can't it be both? If you have a conflict for whatever reasons (water rights, civil rights etc.) and one party invokes religious supremacy and right to destroy, that throws a monkey wrench into any attempt at finding a win/win or a common middle ground, doesn't it? In both j&k, and palestine, religion certainly is one of the factors at play.

the solution is to gain a better understanding of islam and to promote liberal islam and marginalize fundamentalist islam. in India more than 90% of muslims are sunnis. Now Indian sunnis are sub-divided into deobandis and barelvis. barelvis being the more liberal, more tolerant sect. One can even say that barelvis are hinduised muslims. for instance, barelvis will pray and do pooja before tombs and shrines of sufi saints (hindus will also pray at these places) by offering flowers and lighting lamps and candles etc. this is a practice that is forbidden in orthodox islam (Even praying before the tomb or shrine of prophet Mohammad or indeed any spiritual or religious figure is forbidden in orthodox Islam since the orthodox claim that by doing so one is implicitly comparing a human to God which is blasphemous) and hence deobandis do not do it. barelvis respect and honor sufi saints while deobandis consider the sufi saints to be heretics. (from what can i tell the deobandis have an ideological affinity with wahabi islam.) There have been many occasions when physical fights have broken out between barelvis and deobandis because of their different ideologies. as an example try googling for 'barelvis deobandis clash'.

so how is it that there is a prominent educational institution in India promoting deobandi ideology (darul uloom deoband ) while to the best of my knowledge there is no similar institution promoting barelvi ideology? Even though barelvis greatly outnumber the deobandis.
>>>I am just guessing on this, but this is probably something that European countries can try (and may be trying already). Of course, this type of approach is less likely to happen in the US due to the church/state separation aspect. In answer to your question, the deobandis being more prominent in India may be related to the assertion of more virulent strains of Islam. In that sense, it could also be the reason why those strains are trumping what you would think are the liberalizing influences of western upbringing on English/French muslim youth joining iSIS.

first and foremost these young guys need to somehow be made to believe that they are part of a larger democratic society and can succeed economically as well as the mainstream population. understanding and promoting a moderate islam etc. are laudable goals, but it is not going to accomplish the primary goal. having said that, my idea of secularism is very close to the american govt's. the very idea of a state coddling any religion and promoting a moderate version of it etc. is quite repugnant to me. the state has no business in religion. individuals like yourself can take up such goals and pursue them on your own.
>>> is this meant for me personally as a suggested course of action?

no i replied to the wrong post. that was meant for rashmun.

by Guest Sun Nov 15, 2015 4:05 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kris wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Basic common sense tells me that it can't be both, either one or the other. Was the underlying theme of j&k or Palestine was to spread Islam?
>>>Why can't it be both? If you have a conflict for whatever reasons (water rights, civil rights etc.) and one party invokes religious supremacy and right to destroy, that throws a monkey wrench into any attempt at finding a win/win or a common middle ground, doesn't it? In both j&k, and palestine, religion certainly is one of the factors at play.

the solution is to gain a better understanding of islam and to promote liberal islam and marginalize fundamentalist islam. in India more than 90% of muslims are sunnis. Now Indian sunnis are sub-divided into deobandis and barelvis. barelvis being the more liberal, more tolerant sect. One can even say that barelvis are hinduised muslims. for instance, barelvis will pray and do pooja before tombs and shrines of sufi saints (hindus will also pray at these places) by offering flowers and lighting lamps and candles etc. this is a practice that is forbidden in orthodox islam (Even praying before the tomb or shrine of prophet Mohammad or indeed any spiritual or religious figure is forbidden in orthodox Islam since the orthodox claim that by doing so one is implicitly comparing a human to God which is blasphemous) and hence deobandis do not do it. barelvis respect and honor sufi saints while deobandis consider the sufi saints to be heretics. (from what can i tell the deobandis have an ideological affinity with wahabi islam.) There have been many occasions when physical fights have broken out between barelvis and deobandis because of their different ideologies. as an example try googling for 'barelvis deobandis clash'.

so how is it that there is a prominent educational institution in India promoting deobandi ideology (darul uloom deoband ) while to the best of my knowledge there is no similar institution promoting barelvi ideology? Even though barelvis greatly outnumber the deobandis.
>>>I am just guessing on this, but this is probably something that European countries can try (and may be trying already). Of course, this type of approach is less likely to happen in the US due to the church/state separation aspect. In answer to your question, the deobandis being more prominent in India may be related to the assertion of more virulent strains of Islam. In that sense, it could also be the reason why those strains are trumping what you would think are the liberalizing influences of western upbringing on English/French muslim youth joining iSIS.

first and foremost these young guys need to somehow be made to believe that they are part of a larger democratic society and can succeed economically as well as the mainstream population. understanding and promoting a moderate islam etc. are laudable goals, but it is not going to accomplish the primary goal. having said that, my idea of secularism is very close to the american govt's. the very idea of a state coddling any religion and promoting a moderate version of it etc. is quite repugnant to me. the state has no business in religion. individuals like yourself can take up such goals and pursue them on your own.

let me stick to the indian context since i know india better than the situation in other countries:
for economic success you need to give jobs to young indian muslims. now it is true that unemployment is higher in muslims than in other communities because indian muslims are less educated, in general, than other indians. one solution to the problem would have been to give religion based reservation to muslims. but this will not be acceptable to most non-muslims. the alternative is to abolish caste based reservations completely. this will at least allow indian muslims to compete with other indians at a level playing field. this may be done as a two step exercise. that is, first caste based reservations for OBC's can be abolished and later caste based reservations for dalits can be ablolished. or, if it is thought wiser, it can be abolished with one stroke.

coming to the promotion of moderate islam, there is one factor that you are not taking into account. deobandi seminaries in India (including in Kashmir) are believed to get funding from the saudi government because they promote a school of Islam which is very similar to the wahabi islam prevalent in saudi arabia. so in the barelvi vs deobandi ideological battle it is not a level playing field.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Nov 15, 2015 4:12 pm

Rashmun wrote:

let me stick to the indian context since i know india better than the situation in other countries

indian muslims are not the ones shooting up people in vietnamese cafes and concert halls in paris.

by Guest Sun Nov 15, 2015 4:18 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

let me stick to the indian context since i know india better than the situation in other countries

indian muslims are not the ones shooting up people in vietnamese cafes and concert halls in paris.

https://twitter.com/seemagoswami/status/665608893318336512

https://twitter.com/NewsX/status/665517465208754178

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Nov 15, 2015 4:47 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

let me stick to the indian context since i know india better than the situation in other countries

indian muslims are not the ones shooting up people in vietnamese cafes and concert halls in paris.

https://twitter.com/seemagoswami/status/665608893318336512

https://twitter.com/NewsX/status/665517465208754178

better to focus on a problem that we do have than try to solve one that isn't there. let's focus on muslims in western cities.

by confuzzled dude Sun Nov 15, 2015 9:10 pm

Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
1) I have already said the conflicts may have local reasons, but there is an underlying theme of this infidel/ sharia theme in all the conflicts. The speciific question is about the LTTE vs ISIS, which is the news right now. How are they equal in their causes?

3) Why isn't the burden of proof on you, in view of #2 above, unless you are saying the calls for a caliphate and sharia and 'allahu akbar' cries are being made up?
Basic common sense tells me that it can't be both, either one or the other. Was the underlying theme of j&k or Palestine was to spread Islam?
>>>Why can't it be both? If you have a conflict for whatever reasons (water rights, civil rights etc.) and one party invokes religious supremacy and right to destroy, that throws a monkey wrench into any attempt at finding a win/win or a common middle ground, doesn't it? In both j&k, and palestine, religion certainly is one of the factors at play.

If this aspect/factor is common among all conflicts (caste fights, separate state fights) why are we highlighting this for only certain kind?

by Kris Sun Nov 15, 2015 9:46 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
1) I have already said the conflicts may have local reasons, but there is an underlying theme of this infidel/ sharia theme in all the conflicts. The speciific question is about the LTTE vs ISIS, which is the news right now. How are they equal in their causes?

3) Why isn't the burden of proof on you, in view of #2 above, unless you are saying the calls for a caliphate and sharia and 'allahu akbar' cries are being made up?
Basic common sense tells me that it can't be both, either one or the other. Was the underlying theme of j&k or Palestine was to spread Islam?
>>>Why can't it be both? If you have a conflict for whatever reasons (water rights, civil rights etc.) and one party invokes religious supremacy and right to destroy, that throws a monkey wrench into any attempt at finding a win/win or a common middle ground, doesn't it? In both j&k, and palestine, religion certainly is one of the factors at play.
If this aspect/factor is common among all conflicts (caste fights, separate state fights) why are we highlighting this for only certain kind?

>>>When the people who are fighting for state or water rights are involved in Charlie Hebdo like incidents, airplane hijackings and flying into skyscrapers in new york, london subway bombings, paris club killings, stadium attacks, restaurant bombings and periodic beheadings of hostages, we can certainly highlight their ideologies, whatever those may be.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Nov 15, 2015 10:36 pm

http://qz.com/550699/why-did-the-terrorists-strike-paris-once-again/

A disempowered Muslim population

France is home to an estimated 4.7 million Muslims, the highest proportion of Muslims in any country in western Europe. This population is highly segregated from the rest of French society; in Paris, many Muslims live in the city’s suburbs, known as banlieues.
Tension between France and its Muslim population is strong and historic, rooted in the country’s colonial activities and its treatment of French Algerians. In 1961, shortly before Algeria became independent, French police murdered up to 300 Algerian protesters. The French government has never apologized, the subject is not taught in schools, and this violent history is still largely ignored.
Today, discrimination, poor employment opportunities, poverty, and isolation are all common in Paris’s banlieues. After the Charlie Hebdo attacks, the New Yorker asked if the suburbs of Paris had become “incubators of terrorism”.
France’s poor relations with its Muslim community mean that the country is vulnerable to homegrown attackers. ISIL is able to call on French Muslims to attack their home country with apparent ease and effectiveness. At least three of the suicide bombers on Friday were French, according to officials.
And France’s emphasis on secular values has led it to introduce national laws that are seen by some Muslims as an attack on their religious freedom. The burqa is banned, hijabs are not allowed in public spaces, and children have been told that their school lunch option is “pork or nothing.” In the eyes of some devout Muslims, these policies make France an enemy of Islam.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Nov 15, 2015 11:15 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kris wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Basic common sense tells me that it can't be both, either one or the other. Was the underlying theme of j&k or Palestine was to spread Islam?
>>>Why can't it be both? If you have a conflict for whatever reasons (water rights, civil rights etc.) and one party invokes religious supremacy and right to destroy, that throws a monkey wrench into any attempt at finding a win/win or a common middle ground, doesn't it? In both j&k, and palestine, religion certainly is one of the factors at play.

the solution is to gain a better understanding of islam and to promote liberal islam and marginalize fundamentalist islam. in India more than 90% of muslims are sunnis. Now Indian sunnis are sub-divided into deobandis and barelvis. barelvis being the more liberal, more tolerant sect. One can even say that barelvis are hinduised muslims. for instance, barelvis will pray and do pooja before tombs and shrines of sufi saints (hindus will also pray at these places) by offering flowers and lighting lamps and candles etc. this is a practice that is forbidden in orthodox islam (Even praying before the tomb or shrine of prophet Mohammad or indeed any spiritual or religious figure is forbidden in orthodox Islam since the orthodox claim that by doing so one is implicitly comparing a human to God which is blasphemous) and hence deobandis do not do it. barelvis respect and honor sufi saints while deobandis consider the sufi saints to be heretics. (from what can i tell the deobandis have an ideological affinity with wahabi islam.) There have been many occasions when physical fights have broken out between barelvis and deobandis because of their different ideologies. as an example try googling for 'barelvis deobandis clash'.

so how is it that there is a prominent educational institution in India promoting deobandi ideology (darul uloom deoband ) while to the best of my knowledge there is no similar institution promoting barelvi ideology? Even though barelvis greatly outnumber the deobandis.
>>>I am just guessing on this, but this is probably something that European countries can try (and may be trying already). Of course, this type of approach is less likely to happen in the US due to the church/state separation aspect. In answer to your question, the deobandis being more prominent in India may be related to the assertion of more virulent strains of Islam. In that sense, it could also be the reason why those strains are trumping what you would think are the liberalizing influences of western upbringing on English/French muslim youth joining iSIS.

first and foremost these young guys need to somehow be made to believe that they are part of a larger democratic society and can succeed economically as well as the mainstream population. understanding and promoting a moderate islam etc. are laudable goals, but it is not going to accomplish the primary goal. having said that, my idea of secularism is very close to the american govt's. the very idea of a state coddling any religion and promoting a moderate version of it etc. is quite repugnant to me. the state has no business in religion. individuals like yourself can take up such goals and pursue them on your own.

As soon as Kris is ready to go to Raqaa, I will book a free airline ticket for him so that he can preach, Evangelize and "convert" the misguided ISILans.

by Kris Mon Nov 16, 2015 12:00 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kris wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>Why can't it be both? If you have a conflict for whatever reasons (water rights, civil rights etc.) and one party invokes religious supremacy and right to destroy, that throws a monkey wrench into any attempt at finding a win/win or a common middle ground, doesn't it? In both j&k, and palestine, religion certainly is one of the factors at play.

the solution is to gain a better understanding of islam and to promote liberal islam and marginalize fundamentalist islam. in India more than 90% of muslims are sunnis. Now Indian sunnis are sub-divided into deobandis and barelvis. barelvis being the more liberal, more tolerant sect. One can even say that barelvis are hinduised muslims. for instance, barelvis will pray and do pooja before tombs and shrines of sufi saints (hindus will also pray at these places) by offering flowers and lighting lamps and candles etc. this is a practice that is forbidden in orthodox islam (Even praying before the tomb or shrine of prophet Mohammad or indeed any spiritual or religious figure is forbidden in orthodox Islam since the orthodox claim that by doing so one is implicitly comparing a human to God which is blasphemous) and hence deobandis do not do it. barelvis respect and honor sufi saints while deobandis consider the sufi saints to be heretics. (from what can i tell the deobandis have an ideological affinity with wahabi islam.) There have been many occasions when physical fights have broken out between barelvis and deobandis because of their different ideologies. as an example try googling for 'barelvis deobandis clash'.

so how is it that there is a prominent educational institution in India promoting deobandi ideology (darul uloom deoband ) while to the best of my knowledge there is no similar institution promoting barelvi ideology? Even though barelvis greatly outnumber the deobandis.
>>>I am just guessing on this, but this is probably something that European countries can try (and may be trying already). Of course, this type of approach is less likely to happen in the US due to the church/state separation aspect. In answer to your question, the deobandis being more prominent in India may be related to the assertion of more virulent strains of Islam. In that sense, it could also be the reason why those strains are trumping what you would think are the liberalizing influences of western upbringing on English/French muslim youth joining iSIS.

first and foremost these young guys need to somehow be made to believe that they are part of a larger democratic society and can succeed economically as well as the mainstream population. understanding and promoting a moderate islam etc. are laudable goals, but it is not going to accomplish the primary goal. having said that, my idea of secularism is very close to the american govt's. the very idea of a state coddling any religion and promoting a moderate version of it etc. is quite repugnant to me. the state has no business in religion. individuals like yourself can take up such goals and pursue them on your own.

As soon as Kris is ready to go to Raqaa, I will book a free airline ticket for him so that he can preach, Evangelize and "convert" the misguided ISILans.

>>> If yiu could make it La Jolla, I think I am up to the challenge. Wait, those are the people who converted me-- no, never mind.

by Guest Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:13 pm

Kris and Max, what is your view on this:

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/666291067923341316

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Nov 17, 2015 8:48 pm

a note to confuzzled dude: i know the majority of the posters on this group have an unwarranted tendency to demonize indian muslims who by and large mind their own business and are no more or no less prone to violence and communalism as the average hindu. however, i also think you are wrong about trying to equate radical jihadi islam with the LTTE or the sikh separatist movement from the 80s. they may have become violent eventually, but each began with very rational and reasonable reasons to exist. i don't think the global jihadi movement is anything like these movements. it seeks to destroy everything in its path and is fundamentally different. i urge you to listen to the opinions of the late christopher hitchens a fearless public intellectual on radical islam. he really has been prescient.

by Hellsangel Tue Nov 17, 2015 9:30 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:a note to confuzzled dude: i know the majority of the posters on this group have an unwarranted tendency to demonize indian muslims who by and large mind their own business and are no more or no less prone to violence and communalism as the average hindu. however, i also think you are wrong about trying to equate radical jihadi islam with the LTTE or the sikh separatist movement from the 80s. they may have become violent eventually, but each began with very rational and reasonable reasons to exist. i don't think the global jihadi movement is anything like these movements. it seeks to destroy everything in its path and is fundamentally different. i urge you to listen to the opinions of the late christopher hitchens a fearless public intellectual on radical islam. he really has been prescient.

What! No sympathy for the Kashmiri terrorists?

by confuzzled dude Tue Nov 17, 2015 11:12 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:a note to confuzzled dude: i know the majority of the posters on this group have an unwarranted tendency to demonize indian muslims who by and large mind their own business and are no more or no less prone to violence and communalism as the average hindu. however, i also think you are wrong about trying to equate radical jihadi islam with the LTTE or the sikh separatist movement from the 80s. they may have become violent eventually, but each began with very rational and reasonable reasons to exist. i don't think the global jihadi movement is anything like these movements. it seeks to destroy everything in its path and is fundamentally different. i urge you to listen to the opinions of the late christopher hitchens a fearless public intellectual on radical islam. he really has been prescient.

Most of these Jihadi wars were localized till global actors jumped in and made them global. LTTE went after external actors/interventionists too (Rajiv Gandhi). Indira Gandhi was killed because she offended Sikhs religious sentiments. The only difference between them and the extremist groups from middle-east are the resources they possess(ed), these guys have had state sponsorships from all over the world and have received (and are still receiving) sophisticated military training and arms. Wonder what would be the primary utility of those 1.2 billions worth of arms sold to Saudi Arabia. Checkout the link below which gives visual representation of current mess.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/explaining-the-syrian-conflict/

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Nov 18, 2015 12:39 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kris wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Basic common sense tells me that it can't be both, either one or the other. Was the underlying theme of j&k or Palestine was to spread Islam?
>>>Why can't it be both? If you have a conflict for whatever reasons (water rights, civil rights etc.) and one party invokes religious supremacy and right to destroy, that throws a monkey wrench into any attempt at finding a win/win or a common middle ground, doesn't it? In both j&k, and palestine, religion certainly is one of the factors at play.

the solution is to gain a better understanding of islam and to promote liberal islam and marginalize fundamentalist islam. in India more than 90% of muslims are sunnis. Now Indian sunnis are sub-divided into deobandis and barelvis. barelvis being the more liberal, more tolerant sect. One can even say that barelvis are hinduised muslims. for instance, barelvis will pray and do pooja before tombs and shrines of sufi saints (hindus will also pray at these places) by offering flowers and lighting lamps and candles etc. this is a practice that is forbidden in orthodox islam (Even praying before the tomb or shrine of prophet Mohammad or indeed any spiritual or religious figure is forbidden in orthodox Islam since the orthodox claim that by doing so one is implicitly comparing a human to God which is blasphemous) and hence deobandis do not do it. barelvis respect and honor sufi saints while deobandis consider the sufi saints to be heretics. (from what can i tell the deobandis have an ideological affinity with wahabi islam.) There have been many occasions when physical fights have broken out between barelvis and deobandis because of their different ideologies. as an example try googling for 'barelvis deobandis clash'.

so how is it that there is a prominent educational institution in India promoting deobandi ideology (darul uloom deoband ) while to the best of my knowledge there is no similar institution promoting barelvi ideology? Even though barelvis greatly outnumber the deobandis.
>>>I am just guessing on this, but this is probably something that European countries can try (and may be trying already). Of course, this type of approach is less likely to happen in the US due to the church/state separation aspect. In answer to your question, the deobandis being more prominent in India may be related to the assertion of more virulent strains of Islam. In that sense, it could also be the reason why those strains are trumping what you would think are the liberalizing influences of western upbringing on English/French muslim youth joining iSIS.

first and foremost these young guys need to somehow be made to believe that they are part of a larger democratic society and can succeed economically as well as the mainstream population. understanding and promoting a moderate islam etc. are laudable goals, but it is not going to accomplish the primary goal. having said that, my idea of secularism is very close to the american govt's. the very idea of a state coddling any religion and promoting a moderate version of it etc. is quite repugnant to me. the state has no business in religion. individuals like yourself can take up such goals and pursue them on your own.

looks like the french have unearthed a large nest of terrorists and bomb makers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/19/world/europe/paris-attacks.html?

Djamila Khaldi, a 54-year-old cashier who lives near the basilica, was preparing to take her daughter to the airport when the gunfire erupted.

Ms. Khaldi said she was not surprised the police had tracked the suspects to the neighborhood. She said a friend of hers believed she had seen one of the wanted men, Salah Abdeslam, on Monday.

“She was terrified, and she looked at another woman knowing that she recognized him too,” Ms. Khaldi said. “They did not dare to go to the police.”

this is why i said military actions alone are insufficient. look at this woman! why didn't she feel like she could go to the cops? when you have marginalized people living amongst you, who don't have much of an economic future, that's a breeding ground for ISIS like organizations.

and this from the mayor of st.denis:

Didier Paillard, the mayor of St.-Denis, said the Rue du Corbillon, where the raid occurred, had “many buildings and habitats in a disgraceful state,” with some apartments lacking even electricity and running water. “We were not prepared for this discovery,” he said of the raid. “This is a city that has 130 different nationalities, including people who come from war zones. We are a population that needs serenity.”

why is the mayor surprised by the living conditions of people he presumably serves? france may have a large problem, but it looks to me that at least some of its problems can be traced back to inattention to what's going on with one segment of its society. this is why i think the republican approach of a military solution to everything is not going to solve anything. this is also why i think politicians of a particular stripe need to tone down their rhetoric.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed Nov 18, 2015 12:48 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

why is the mayor surprised by the living conditions of people he presumably serves? france may have a large problem, but it looks to me that at least some of its problems can be traced back to inattention to what's going on with one segment of its society. this is why i think the republican approach of a military solution to everything is not going to solve anything. this is also why i think politicians of a particular stripe need to tone down their rhetoric.

Now don't blame poverty and economic discrimination for this Paris terror. Practically EVERY country discriminates some groups or other. Do you see the blacks or hispanics indulging in terror attacks like these?

Isn't it true that the middle easterners refuse to blend in with the french (or the US or the Indians) rather than rejected by the country's majority? If the Muslims avoided the purdah and the Kulla and the trademark beard, they would look just like Americans, French or the hindus.

So it is the muslims own fault (they think they are superior due to Koran) that they live isolated from the majority.

Why is that the Muslims whine even in Sweden ? tell me? are you blaming the Swedes also for discrimination?

by southindian Wed Nov 18, 2015 1:05 pm

Again! Brilliant logical reasoning Upilli. Folks like CD, Merlot and Thomas living in a rat hole can't see the larger picture from top. 9/11, 26/11, London, Paris, Chechnia, Australia, India... the list goes on and on.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Nov 18, 2015 4:38 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Now don't blame poverty and economic discrimination for this Paris terror. Practically EVERY country discriminates some groups or other. Do you see the blacks or hispanics indulging in terror attacks like these?

Isn't it true that the middle easterners refuse to blend in with the french (or the US or the Indians) rather than rejected by the country's majority? If the Muslims avoided the purdah and the Kulla and the trademark beard, they would look just like Americans, French or the hindus.

So it is the muslims own fault (they think they are superior due to Koran) that they live isolated from the majority.

Why is that the Muslims whine even in Sweden ? tell me? are you blaming the Swedes also for discrimination?

i am not. religious intolerance is the fuel and impoverishment is the oxygen that feeds it. just like any combustion reaction needs two reactants, so too terrorism -- religion is the gasoline and economic factors and marginalization is the oxidant.

by FluteHolder Wed Nov 18, 2015 4:43 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

i am not. religious intolerance is the fuel and impoverishment is the oxygen that feeds it. just like any combustion reaction needs two reactants, so too terrorism -- religion is the gasoline and economic factors and marginalization is the oxidant.

If you go by that example, we have so many farmers in India are/were marginalized so are dalits/untouchables. Have any farmer/dalit gone on rampage?

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Nov 18, 2015 4:48 pm

FluteHolder wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

i am not. religious intolerance is the fuel and impoverishment is the oxygen that feeds it. just like any combustion reaction needs two reactants, so too terrorism -- religion is the gasoline and economic factors and marginalization is the oxidant.
If you go by that example, we have so many farmers in India are/were marginalized so are dalits/untouchables. Have any farmer/dalit gone on rampage?

i have already conceded that the poisonous religious ideology plays an important role. not sure what we are arguing about.

by confuzzled dude Wed Nov 18, 2015 9:18 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
why is the mayor surprised by the living conditions of people he presumably serves? france may have a large problem, but it looks to me that at least some of its problems can be traced back to inattention to what's going on with one segment of its society. this is why i think the republican approach of a military solution to everything is not going to solve anything. this is also why i think politicians of a particular stripe need to tone down their rhetoric.

This morning I heard an interview by BBC of two muslim individuals from Molenbeek, Brussels, one of them, a 36 year old woman has mentioned that they took up marginalization issues they've been facing to the officials several times before but no one paid any attention but I didn't quite understand the connection between this and Paris incident i.e. what prompted the guy who was raised (assuming was mistreated) in Brussels to mastermind an attack in Paris. It is disappointing that BBC reporter failed to ask that question.

by Hellsangel Wed Nov 18, 2015 10:18 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
why is the mayor surprised by the living conditions of people he presumably serves? france may have a large problem, but it looks to me that at least some of its problems can be traced back to inattention to what's going on with one segment of its society. this is why i think the republican approach of a military solution to everything is not going to solve anything. this is also why i think politicians of a particular stripe need to tone down their rhetoric.
This morning I heard an interview by BBC of two muslim individuals from Molenbeek, Brussels, one of them, a 36 year old woman has mentioned that they took up marginalization issues they've been facing to the officials several times before but no one paid any attention but I didn't quite understand the connection between this and Paris incident i.e. what prompted the guy who was raised (assuming was mistreated) in Brussels to mastermind an attack in Paris. It is disappointing that BBC reporter failed to ask that question.

Comrade, the mass-shooting perpetrators in the US have sob stories from their childhood too. But I don't see the same level of leftie Libby sympathies from you.

by confuzzled dude Wed Nov 18, 2015 10:27 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
why is the mayor surprised by the living conditions of people he presumably serves? france may have a large problem, but it looks to me that at least some of its problems can be traced back to inattention to what's going on with one segment of its society. this is why i think the republican approach of a military solution to everything is not going to solve anything. this is also why i think politicians of a particular stripe need to tone down their rhetoric.
This morning I heard an interview by BBC of two muslim individuals from Molenbeek, Brussels, one of them, a 36 year old woman has mentioned that they took up marginalization issues they've been facing to the officials several times before but no one paid any attention but I didn't quite understand the connection between this and Paris incident i.e. what prompted the guy who was raised (assuming was mistreated) in Brussels to mastermind an attack in Paris. It is disappointing that BBC reporter failed to ask that question.
Comrade, the mass-shooting perpetrators in the US have sob stories from their childhood too. But I don't see the same level of leftie Libby sympathies from you.

Sympathies! Are you out of your mind?

by Sponsored content