Manchester Bombing *** Please remain respectful and refrain from antagonising posts ***

[Amp34]

Your original post was defending Qaddafi over the Nato led forces, what position am i meant to assume you are taking. If that's not what you were doing then i apologise, but thats how i read it, that's it our fault.

You'll have to explain to me how you got to that conclusion. That's what I said.

I'd disagree, I know a few Libyans that very much disagree with the removal of Gadaffi. It very much depended on which tribe you associate with and what area of the country you are from.

In response to:

Is that ok in the 21st century? To be ruled by an iron fist?

The west didn't really do much in Libya, we took out Ghaddafi and gave a platform for transition. Don't think you'll find many people from Libya that disagreed with the Nato led intervention.



All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke.

Great quote, quite appropriate.

I wasn't defending anyone, just pointing out Gadaffi had a large support base in Libya.

 

[dowie]

We've already been down the route of me quoting a collection of posts who's content and context were against the notion that rapidly killing city sized populations has repercussions on extremist's recruitment in the wider region .

not really, I've not implied that at all

 

[Trusty]

You'll have to explain to me how you got to that conclusion. That's what I said.

I thought you were disagreeing to my questions in the 1st sentence.

In response to the Libyans you know, would they stand by him know he was a pedophile and rapist, who had rape chambers? Maybe they didn't care, maybe they did.

 

[stewski]

https://www.prio.org/Data/Armed-Conflict/Battle-Deaths/The-Battle-Deaths-Dataset-version-30/

At the bottom, 1.25 million deaths, my mistake. Like you say, different sources will come to different conclusions, i try to avoid wikipedia for data like that, don't know if i'm wrong or not to do that, i've always been told Wiki isn't the best with data like that. Its usually fine for overall biographies and timelines but not hard data.

I can't see a good argument for a single data set on a topic such as this, especially one 450k higher than the Iraqi estimate which itself is a outlier from far lower ranges documented.

In my personal experience, out of work PhD smack down, aka wikipedia is clearly superior (on average) than individual sources in such areas of controversy.

 

[Trusty]

I can't see a good argument for a single data set on a topic such as this, especially one 450k higher than the Iraqi estimate which itself is a outlier from far lower ranges documented.

In my personal experience, out of work PhD smack down, aka wikipedia is clearly superior (on average) than individual sources in such areas of controversy.

Sure, it depends on the topic, but Correlates of War is not some individual. They have been documenting deaths within war for a long time, to completely ignore them isn't fair i don't think. The point still stands about Hussein, you listed the people he killed within his country but not the wars he advocated. It would be a lot more balanced had they been included because it tells a bigger picture.

 

[dowie]

Sure, it depends on the topic, but Correlates of War is not some individual. They have been documenting deaths within war for a long time, to completely ignore them isn't fair i don't think. The point still stands about Hussein, you listed the people he killed within his country but not the wars he advocated. It would be a lot more balanced had they been included because it tells a bigger picture.

that is a fair point - not to mention that some of the internal deaths both under Saddam and post invasion will have come from tribal fighting rather than either from his regimen or from coalition forces

 

[Amp34]

I asked you to clarify what question you wanted me to answer...

I've not claimed Christianity doesn't have problems, no I'm not seeing a contradiction as you seem to be basing this apparent contradiction on a false premise. If that was the question you were so determined that I answer I should point out that I've already given that view:

Thanks for clarifying your stance then, it wasn't particularly clear.

I don't think it would be spurious to argue that the Catholic Church needs to change though - my point was that you seem to accept that engaging in deflection/whataboutery would be pointless in such a thread but you're quite keen to do it in Islamist threads

That's not what you wrote though is it.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this but I don't believe other religions are beyond criticism either so am still not seeing a contradiction - I just don't see the point in the continual deflection nonsense along the lines of 'what about the westboro baptists' wherever Islamists are criticised... I mean would you carry on with the same sort of whataboutery in say a thread about the Catholic Church covering up the molestation of Children? If someone were to criticise the Catholic Church should we also be sure to bring up irrelevant examples of other religions having issues? It certainly seems to happen in threads like these re: Islamists.

The argument was the criticism of Islam and its need for reform, whereas you brought up criticism and reform of the Catholic church. Islam is a religion, the Catholic church is an organization. If you actually meant Catholicism then perhaps we are arguing similar points, although Catholicism is a specific denomination of Christianity, not Christianity as a whole. For example I have no issue with the criticism of certain parts of Wahhabism, just as I would have no issues with specific criticism of certain interpretations of the bible.

As I said if there was a thread about the Catholic Church and people same in insisting there was a problem with Christianity because of it and (by not very hidden inference*) Christians that follow it as a whole I would be saying the same things I've been saying in this thread.

It's the gross generalization I have an issue with - something that these threads constantly spawn.

*not you specifically

 

[Amp34]

I thought you were disagreeing to my questions in the 1st sentence.

In response to the Libyans you know, would they stand by him know he was a pedophile and rapist, who had rape chambers? Maybe they didn't care, maybe they did.

From discussions at the time they basically didn't believe most of the claims made against him. Whether that was just a cover, refusal to believe due to their support of him in general or something else I don't know.

I'm inclined to think it was partially a refusal to believe and also for some of the lesser incidents just seen as a normal part of life.

 

[dowie]

The argument was the criticism of Islam and its need for reform, whereas you brought up criticism and reform of the Catholic church. Islam is a religion, the Catholic church is an organization. If you actually meant Catholicism then perhaps we are arguing similar points, although Catholicism is a specific denomination of Christianity, not Christianity as a whole. For example I have no issue with the criticism of certain parts of Wahhabism, just as I would have no issues with specific criticism of certain interpretations of the bible.

As I said if there was a thread about the Catholic Church and people same in insisting there was a problem with Christianity because of it and (by not very hidden inference*) Christians that follow it as a whole I would be saying the same things I've been saying in this thread.

It's the gross generalization I have an issue with - something that these threads constantly spawn.
*not you specifically

I don't see why people couldn't bring up an issue with Christianity in a general sense either tbh... the Catholic Church was just used as an example - whether you want to discuss issues with a wider ideology or issues with an organisation my point remains the same re: deflections and whataboutery being rather pointless and sidetracking. You've had a habit of doing it in previous threads and you did it again in this thread.

 

[stewski]

Sure, it depends on the topic, but Correlates of War is not some individual. They have been documenting deaths within war for a long time, to completely ignore them isn't fair i don't think. The point still stands about Hussein, you listed the people he killed within his country but not the wars he advocated. It would be a lot more balanced had they been included because it tells a bigger picture.

I don't dispute life under Saddam was not likely a rose garden. I've Clearly pointed out, your figures are massively suspect compared to numerous data sets, do not relate directly to the discussion re unilateral intervention versus continued rule and the value locals attached to our intervention, ignore our influence in the Iran Iraq war (both long and short term) and even at the top end don't match the rate of death from the US lead war. Frankly the bottom end civilian death toll of Iran Iraq is 11k.

Additionally no one seems willing to touch the point that, in the same era, mass genocide occurred away from oilfields and nothing.

 

[Trusty]

I don't get it, on the one hand youre saying that my data is wrong, but you claim 600k killed within 3 or 4 years, this website claims otherwise as well.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Lets take my source, do you think the West killed 175k people? I'm guessing not.

Also...
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2015/

I think you're hugely inflating our role as the protagonists of all this death and suffering.

You honestly believe that 11k civilians were killed in the whole 8 years of the Iraq Iran war when there's been 16k deaths in Iraq in 2015? According to that last link of course.

 

[Trusty]

..

 

[stewski]

I don't get it, on the one hand youre saying that my data is wrong, but you claim 600k killed within 3 or 4 years, this website claims otherwise as well.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Lets take my source, do you think the West killed 175k people? I'm guessing not.

Also...
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2015/

I think you're hugely inflating our role as the protagonists of all this death and suffering.

You honestly believe that 11k civilians were killed in the whole 8 years of the Iraq Iran war when there's been 16k deaths in Iraq in 2015? According to that last link of course.

There are websites that claim 9/11 was an inside job, your point is?

I've pointed out the value of wikipedia when it comes to controversial stats, that you misrepresent what I said regarding the low end Civilian casualties, ignore how far your single source is from even the upper outlier on wikipedia (your source isnt even in the edit on wikipedia) and gloss over the likely difference between domestic wars and interventions, speaks volumes about you position!

 

[Trusty]

You're being silly.

Which source are you referring to now regarding not being on the wiki page? Are we on the Iraq Iran war or just Iraq?

https://twitter.com/iraqbodycount?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

Are you saying these guys are lying?

 

[Amp34]

I don't see why people couldn't bring up an issue with Christianity in a general sense either tbh... the Catholic Church was just used as an example - whether you want to discuss issues with a wider ideology or issues with an organisation my point remains the same re: deflections and whataboutery being rather pointless and sidetracking. You've had a habit of doing it in previous threads and you did it again in this thread.

See my post in the other thread, which is probably a more relevant place to discuss this than here.

You can't discuss things in a vaccum, no matter how many people want to do so. Relevant comparisons and correlations are pretty important to have a better understanding of the subject at hand.

That's especially when true bringing up examples from what is essentially the base line - the UK is by and large historically a Christian country, with laws, culture and morals based on a lot of Christian dogma. Comparing the differences and similarities between what is essentially the new entity and the baseline is pretty much standard practice. At the very least that's how science works.

You can't claim that xyz is such a big problem/issue/wrong/right if you have nothing to compare it with.

As I said, insisting it's deflection when relevant comparisons come up is just another way of shutting down and/or trying to control the debate to benefit the person claiming deflection.

Edit: and regarding your criticism point. My main issue with that is how can you criticise something so broad? With so many interpretations of the religion (either Islam or Christianity) it's likely all you're going to do is paint a broad brush that isn't going to be relevant to a significant proportion of those that follow that religion, even if it is an reasonable criticism of some. That's why I said I don't have an issue with specific criticism against certain sects and interpretations, because at least there it's likely you're going to be aiming it broadly the right direction.

I asked before but don't think I got an answer (apologies if I did), what are your specific criticisms about Islam? We can then have a constructive discussion on those specifically. So far all we've really had (from someone else) is criticism of the decentralized nature of it - which posted a counter argument.

 

[dowie]

As I said, insisting it's deflection when relevant comparisons come up is just another way of shutting down and/or trying to control the debate to benefit the person claiming deflection.
[...]
I asked before but don't think I got an answer (apologies if I did), what are your specific criticisms about Islam? We can then have a constructive discussion on those specifically. So far all we've really had (from someone else) is criticism of the decentralized nature of it - which posted a counter argument.

It is deflection and you continually do it which leads to these off topic conversations - the thread is about an Islamist blowing himself up in Manchester and you seem to want to throw in irrelevant stuff like 'what about the westboro baptist church' etc.. No it isn't required that we also discuss the KKK, or some other group of loonies whenever we want to criticise some aspect of Islam, it doesn't add anything. Re; you're last point yes I did answer and in short that is an entire subject itself warranting a separate thread rather than further sidetracking/diverting from the main topic in this one.

 

[Amp34]

It is deflection and you continually do it which leads to these off topic conversations - the thread is about an Islamist blowing himself up in Manchester and you seem to want to throw in irrelevant stuff like 'what about the westboro baptist church' etc.. No it isn't required that we also discuss the KKK, or some other group of loonies whenever we want to criticise some aspect of Islam, it doesn't add anything. Re; you're last point yes I did answer and in short that is an entire subject itself warranting a separate thread rather than further sidetracking/diverting from the main topic in this one.

It's only out of context when you bring it up out of context, like you just have.

Remember the post you originally quoted? The post that was a direct response to a post arguing that the structural problem with Islam was that it lacked leadership. What's my reply about? It's about why I don't think a "lack" of leadership is an issue, citing examples from other religions and why I don't believe the actions of a few should reflect on religion as a whole.

You're basically complaint about a poster replying to a post that was off topic so perhaps you should complain about the other poster, the one I replied to first - his post had little do do with the incident either. The rest of the posts in the chain are by and large you complaining about deflection rather than debating what was brought up.

Islam (and religion in general) doesn't exist in a vacuum, so the discussion of it shouldn't either. To do so just hinders any reasonable debate and just creates an echo chamber.

And this is said post - with all its context

I'm sure but I going to be called a deflectionist here but is that not the same issue with most religions?

My initial thought when reading about the lack of a central leader was to agree with you, but then subsequently I don't think it's quite as clear cut as you're making out. Yes Catholicism has a central figure, but he is only the central figure for one of the many religious denominations that make up Christianity. When you don't agree with his interpretation you split and make up another denomination - see the CoE as a prime example. There are many denominations of Christianity all the way down to the Wesrboro baptist church, all technically worshiping the same god and history, but interpreting the bible in different ways - some literally, some figuratively and some just picking and choosing depending on what they want to portray.

Some take the less savoury paragraphs and claim they should be followed literally, while most moderate people (and denominations) realise they aren't fit for today's world and just don't teach them (as Dis pointed out in his post). Doesn't matter if those paragraphs are in the Koran or Bible.

That's what we see in Islam - Shia and Sunni being the two biggest denominations, both having very different interpretations of the book that is apparently not interpretable. We see this throughout the religious world, heck, not even the religious world, the world as a whole - it's basically the premise of countries as well.

Not having a central leader doesn't help matters (depending on what they are preaching), but it's not the "structural problem". If Islam had an "supreme" leader how would that change what we see today? I don't think it would change much - those wanting to use their interpretation of Islam as a weapon would just split (or be thrown out) and create their own denomination with their own leader and followers believing their interpretation was the correct one.

There are a whole host of reasons for the current issues with Islamists but I don't think a lack of leadership or any particular structural issue is any more an endemic problem than in any other religion.

I think your last paragraph hit it on the head, it's all about greed, power and control in its various forms. Either using religion as a weapon to unite people to their cause, or as an identifier in their differences.

Take for example the fight Scorza brought up in the Philippines. The Islamic insurgency in Mindanou. It's been going on for hundreds of years and essentially started as a independence battle between Muslim communities and the Spanish empire insisting their lands belonged to them and that they would have to convert to Christianity when they colonized the Philippines (subsequently the Americans tried the same thing). It's essentially been a seperatist battle with a bit of cultural heritage thrown in.

Other organizations like ISIS and Al Qaeda are all about trying to "protect" what they perceive is their culture from outside interference from others - largely western culture, which is a major influence on people throughout the Middle East and North Africa (and most of the rest of the world). They're dinosaurs trying to hold on to what they believe was golden era, using religion to entice followers to their cause. They then use violence to try and implement that change, and then force people to live in the way they believe is right (see their actions against those unfortunate enough to be stuck in cities under their influence), no difference to any other extreme right (or left) wing organization.

Islam is perfectly happy coexisting in a modern democratic society, as seen by the millions of Muslims living peacefully in them. Much of the current day issues are due to a multitude of historic and current day events, no more to do with religion than any other.

As for the second part care to quote what you said, I obviously missed it and am genuinely interested because it would actually be a useful debate, rather than what does and doesn't consist of deflection.

 

[dowie]

I can see this is just going to go round in circles and has little to do now with the actual topic of an Islamist blowing himself up in Manchester so I'm out for the moment...

 

[Trusty]

ditto

 

[SpeedFreak]

Hundreds queuing for a bee tattoo to commemorate the dead and injured. Sums up society today. They now can't give blood for 4 months, something that would actually help victims....