not gonna lie, feel like there's been a rise in medics who arent sure how to find middle in pugchamp as of late

leogeo2
m0lk
djfivenine
schetter

(not rly but I just wanted to show off how old I am tee hee)

dude code red is good too #factz

axiomatic always and 4eva

rip what.cd

and as for this point

every religion has people who hold a prejudice against it. ISIS, for instance, could be described as anti-semitic and anti-Christian. however, we live in the west, and extreme Islamophobia is more common here. When a white Christian neo-Nazi kills people, we don't tend to propose measures to crack down on the rights of other whites or other Christians or even other confirmed neo-Nazis. but because Muslims have been racialized (people don't tend to picture an Indonesian guy around these parts when they think of a Muslim) and otherized, lots of people are in favor of blanket bans as a solution to the problem.

it's not that Islam has nothing to do with these lunatics blowing themselves up, it's that the way we respond to these sorts of things is so fixed on religion above all else.

and on top of that, as one of the articles I posted earlier points out, this holy war rhetoric is a self-fulfilling prophecy. we went from groups like Hezbollah and al-Qaeda, who had specific geopolitical motives and whose faith permitted them to not think twice about horrible civilian atrocities to achieve those goals, to ISIS, who have said that they want to completely annihilate all non-believers regardless of our geopolitical actions. they are what we erroneously projected onto previous terrorist groups. I am extremely worried that, as might be the case with climate change, we have reached a point of no return in this religious conflict stuff. it was bad enough when you had dick cheney and donald rumsfeld on one side, and al-qaeda on the other, but it's a lot worse when it's steve bannon and steven miller vs ISIS.

no one is arguing that religious fundamentalism, when under the right conditions, can lead to horrible acts of violence. we're simply disputing the idea that there's something inherent in Islam that makes it more violent than any other religion. I think the history of the world disproves the idea that circumstance + dogma can't lead to violence in a lot of different faiths.

and putting that aside, where does this argument over what % of the reason for terrorism is strictly religion and what % is geopolitical get us? shouldn't we be talking about what to do to prevent terrorism from happening? and two things we can do without harming any non-terrorist Muslims along the way are pretty obvious: 1) end the imperialist US/UK/etc. presence in the Middle East, and 2) stop giving money to the most radical Islamic terror state in the world. how are either of those things controversial?

ewing theory for the celtics???

you're probably right, but why does it matter

For example, the following article obviously has a point of view:
http://fair.org/home/arms-deal-stories-omit-war-crimes-arms-will-be-used-for/

But that doesn't mean it's not filled with useful, factual information

Which the intercept and the other left wing news sources I tend to cite (jacobin, secular talk, current affairs, FAIR, etc.) definitely don't

I'm pretty sure you're not the person to be making arguments about partisan internet news sites

I should probably point out that these two articles are making slightly different points, and I completely agree with the 2nd one and only partially agree with the first

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/29/you-shouldnt-blame-islam-for-terrorism-religion-isnt-a-crucial-factor-in-attacks/

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/18/why-do-so-many-americans-fear-muslims-decades-of-denial-about-americas-role-in-the-world/

it's as pertinent as coming into a thread about a tragedy and pretending to be an expert on how the Qur'an commands Muslims to kill people

my point is that the terrorist groups with that sort of fundamentalism are being funded by US allies, who are all also authoritarian regimes

if someone wants to come in and say I'm oversimplifying things, because sometimes terror attacks are lone actors and ISIS or whoever claims responsibility after the fact, and because a small but still troubling minority of people in the middle east support terrorist attacks against the US and the UK, then I guess I'm just one of many people saying overly simplistic shit in this thread