Pyrian on 19/11/2015 at 16:12
Holy cripes, Heil LkoRas mein Fuhrer! :laff:
catbarf on 19/11/2015 at 17:45
Quote Posted by Assidragon
Following that logic, by issuing blanket statements about all ISIL members, you are also perpetuating the same kind of mentality.
He's not making blanket statements about all ISIL members, though. He's making statements about the organization's posture and goals, which may not be shared by every member but are the positions of the leadership that determines their actions. That's not the same as making categorical statements about all people of a specific faith, let alone a specific faith divided into dozens of denominations.
Same way you can say 'America wants' and be expressing a very different idea from 'All Americans want'.
bassoferrol on 19/11/2015 at 18:42
America wants, can you explain that?
catbarf on 19/11/2015 at 19:49
Quote Posted by bassoferrol
America wants, can you explain that?
'America wants stability in the Middle East' would be characterizing America as a nation based on the goals and behaviors of its leadership. It's not implying that all Americans think a particular way, it's commenting on what the institution that the American government represents is doing. 'All Americans want stability in the Middle East', on the other hand, is claiming to represent the positions of all Americans. That's a generalization.
So, I don't think it's unreasonable to say 'ISIS wants' in regards to the group's stated goals. ISIS as an organization certainly wants the West to repress moderate Muslims and drive more of them to extremism. That's not saying all ISIS members think this- frankly, I think most of them don't really know what's going on and are more concerned with their local conflicts. It's a commentary on their leadership and overall organization, and that doesn't generalize the members by asserting that they all think the same way.
Assidragon on 19/11/2015 at 21:34
Quote Posted by catbarf
He's not making blanket statements about all ISIL members, though. He's making statements about the organization's posture and goals, which may not be shared by every member but are the positions of the leadership that determines their actions. That's not the same as making categorical statements about all people of a specific faith, let alone a specific faith divided into dozens of denominations.
Same way you can say 'America wants' and be expressing a very different idea from 'All Americans want'.
That is simply splitting hairs by grammatical pedantry. For most common english users, "ISIL wants" and "ISIL members want" will be synonymous; the same way actions of governments are also projected onto their individuals.
And to be fair, if you don't share the goals of ISIL to some degree, you probably won't join them. The same way if you don't agree with a religion, you won't be a practicing member.
bassoferrol on 20/11/2015 at 01:54
No, catbarf.
My surprise was that you call America a nation when it is a continent with 35 nations or so.
It was only that and I've seen a lot of maps.
Sorry if this sounds to you a bit harsh.
Pyrian on 20/11/2015 at 03:42
Quote Posted by bassoferrol
My surprise was that you call America a nation...
Oh, please. You weren't surprised because you know perfectly well that it's the shorthand currently in use by virtually everyone. You're just starting a pedantic semantic tangent argument which even people who agree with you think is entirely inappropriate in this thread.
faetal on 20/11/2015 at 10:09
ISIL has a stated goal, Islam doesn't - it can be interpreted in a variety of vastly different ways, as per most religions and unsurprisingly, there are many diverse interpretations.
Anyone who thinks that "moderate Muslims" are somehow in any way to be held account for the actions of extremists simply because they see it that way in a massively simplified Venn diagram in their head are probably just trying to find an acceptable way to mask their prejudice towards people who they see as different.
If anyone disagrees, please describe exactly who are moderate Mulsims and how they could have collectively prevented this from happening.
LkoRas on 20/11/2015 at 11:33
@faetal
There, you repeated what i hear from muslim apologetics, politicians and so called 'moderate' muslims after every terrorist attack. Rinse and repeat. No wonder nothing ever changes.
Case in point, one senior state minister Azam Khan (Not of the Govt of India) in India has commented on Paris attacks (at the end):
(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azam_Khan_%28politician%29)
This is a politician who is known to have a strong muslim vote bank. Do you think he would give such statements without knowing what his vote-bank wants to hear from him? Give me an argument against why shouldn't this entire vote-bank not be considered as ISIS sympathizers if not ISIS members, yet.
Sir, i directly deal with more muslims in a month than most of us here will do in their entire lives, and can say i have a better handle on muslim sentiments than you. My muslim friends (see? no broad brush) know what i think of it, we exchange knowing smiles and get along anyway because of our other overarching interests.
faetal on 20/11/2015 at 13:16
You haven't addressed what I've said. If you think that moderate Muslims are an interlinked and cogent entity which can influence violent extremists, then state why - explain the mechanism. Because to me, it just seems like people saying "those people are partly to blame for being cosmetically similar to the people which did the crime and yet are not standing in the way".
Not to mention how the arguments consistently ignore rallies, protests, denunciations etc.. from huge amounts of Muslims worldwide, despite them being in no way linked to each other or ISIL. It would be like someone saying "this person was emulating violent movies, why didn't all of the other movie-goers know about and prevent this?".
It's extremely dumb when prevented without a logical mechanism for how it works and just comes across as fear of other cultures.
