^+1 for Candian style apology.

Eh, I think it it was missing something...

A friend I have in Canada said that his local children network apologized for stopping routine shows to cover the attack in Ottawa. If that's not Canadian then I don't know what is.

My girlfriend loves to end her texts with "eh?" so I always make fun of her for sounding so Canadian and then immediately apologize profusely.

I apologize for violating a rule.

No worries dipplayer. You've been around for a while, and its entirely possible you missed the recent updates to the forum rules. You didn't intend to hurt anyone I'm sure.

Anyway, so on topic. I don't want to say there has been a rise in religious fundamentalism in Canada. But the recent attacks in Montreal, and Ottawa, and the gunman in Halifax today certainly suggests that things aren't as calm as they seem.

On a related note, due to aggression of ISIS, and other fundamentalists an upstanding leader of the of a mosque in Calgary was hit by a hit and run, he's fine. But it shows that this kind of violence can run both ways. Which is the huge problem with fundamentalism, hate tends to breed more hate.

I don't see how a hit and run is comparable to shooting up the houses of parliament.


The simple truth is that fundamentalist Islam is incompatible with liberal democracy. A central belief there is that law can only come from Allah, so therefore human legislatures are illegitimate, even evil. How can we reason with people like this?

To paraphrase Trotsky, today there lives along the twenty-first century the seventh or eighth. Of course not all Muslims are like this, but *millions* are. Even the ones who are not active supporters of radical elements still largely sympathetic to the fringe's arguments. Rather like how many Irish in America did and do support the IRA. The Islamic State has successfully imposed its will over a huge swath of Mesopotamia, and it shows no sign of going away. That doesn't happen without some significant level of public support. We should stop pretending otherwise.

Are you sure you don't mean threadID=1088864?

"hate tends to breed more hate." I agree. I said this when mapleleaf was spewing his hate, yet people told me I was wrong.

@Invictus
I wasn't arguing that they are comparable. But I do think it lends extra importance to what was said in a lot of the speeches by Canadian politicians, both about fear, and about trying not to let that become hate.

As awful as the attack in Ottawa was, I think it will be far worse if it triggers a lot of grassroots anti Muslim & anti Sikh violence. Far better to mourn, and look to prevention and vigilance than to go seeking revenge.

"
The simple truth is that fundamentalist Islam is incompatible with liberal democracy. A central belief there is that law can only come from Allah, so therefore human legislatures are illegitimate, even evil. How can we reason with people like this? "
The same way you reason with Anarchists and libertarians presumably. Appeal to the things that truly matter and that you hold in common. Try and understand the differences.

Perhaps lots of muslims are complicit in the violence, but there tends to be a large wellspring of mild popular support behind a lot of atrocities. I suspect you could find a large segment of the american population that by the same standard is complicit in damage to mosques and harassment of muslims. Fundamentally, I don't think focusing on the fundamentalists is helpful, you have to engage the normal people who are complicit and reach across to them, show them the face of those effected by the actions of their extreme element, and show them that the large majority isn't against them.

Islamic radicalism is just such a vicious circle. Groups like ISIS draw their legitimacy from Western regional intervention and the existence of Israel. As sad as it is to say, maybe the best way to deal with these groups is to back off the offensive. Let the people in Iraq and Syria figure out that Islamic law isn't all these people talk it up to be. Part of the reason the war in Afghanistan was more supported (at least in the beginning) was because the local population realized how terrible the Taliban was.

@damian I didn't refresh to see your post, but I think you are spot on.

"As awful as the attack in Ottawa was, I think it will be far worse if it triggers a lot of grassroots anti Muslim & anti Sikh violence. Far better to mourn, and look to prevention and vigilance than to go seeking revenge."

Of course vigilantism is illegitimate.


"The same way you reason with Anarchists and libertarians presumably. Appeal to the things that truly matter and that you hold in common. Try and understand the differences."

Libertarians do not think that legislatures are illegitimate. Anarchists are the better analogy, and history shows they cannot be reasoned with. But even anarchists in the end want the people to have more power. Fundamentalist Islam wants people to have no power.

What can anyone who believes in liberty have in common with people who think that self-government itself is against the will of God?


"I suspect you could find a large segment of the american population that by the same standard is complicit in damage to mosques and harassment of muslims."

Even if that's true, and I doubt it is, it's incomparable to what these people would do to us, and the tacit support "moderates" still give these radicals is much more troubling. In the West, the *worst* a law abiding Muslim can fear is being treated shittily by bigots, and possible property damage. Inexcusable, obviously.

But the actions of Islamic fundamentalists against outsiders is so much worse. These radicals literally are crucifying people for violations of religious law. People like Salman Rushdie and Aayan Hirsi Ali are threatened with death just for speaking. Sometimes they're actually killed like Theo van Gogh. Things we've taken for granted since the Enlightenment are hated by these people.

"As sad as it is to say, maybe the best way to deal with these groups is to back off the offensive."

First off, it's not much of an offensive. The Islamic State is actually closer to Baghdad than ever.

Secondly, opposition to liberty is *inherent* to the fundamentalist Islamic view of the world. Also inherent is the desire to expand the temporal writ of religious law to every corner of the world. All religions are in a sense inherently illiberal, but this form goes further than most. These people are Bond villains. They really do want to destroy everything we should hold dear about our civilization, because they really do believe God commands it.

Seriously, what good are blanket statements or faux analyses about millions of people combined? You might as well talk about redheads and their soul-eating qualities.

Reza Aslan nailed it recently:
http://youtu.be/PzusSqcotDw

It's rather different. Redheads don't really eat souls. The Islamic State really does crucify people and want to impose its medieval religious law on us all.

I guess I was still reacting to the painting of Islam with one brush.
Yes, the IS are pretty fucked up, whereas redheads have red hair.

No fair reading of what I wrote could have me painting Islam with one brush. I explicitly said this applies to fundamentalist strains and a limited amount of sympathizers.

This is exactly the problem. Rather than addressing the actual issue, too quickly we jump to proving our PC bona fides.

My previous point was meant as explanation that I wasnt reacting to your post, but still mulling over some previous posts (not even in this thread anymore).

That notwithstanding, I have quite some issues with the suggestion that merely being muslim means you are 'tacitly supporting' islamists. Religion != political affiliation. Not in christianity, not in judaism, not in islam. The suggestion that religion == politics is simply a method to politicize religious tensions. It's a sure vote winner to make people afraid of the scary muslims.

It's all just a little bit of history repeating.

Again, not at all what I was saying.

"opposition to liberty is *inherent* to the fundamentalist Islamic view of the world. Also inherent is the desire to expand the temporal writ of religious law to every corner of the world. All religions are in a sense inherently illiberal, but this form goes further than most."

I agree that the form of Islam practiced by groups like the Islamic State may fit this bill, but I think it's unfair to say that Islam can't exist in at least some form of free society. The reason groups like this can come to power is because the actions of the West give legitimacy to their claims that the non-Muslim world is full of heathens bent on destroying their way of life. People tolerate their horrid actions because they feel that the alternative form of government (usually some weak, western approved dictator) is worse than what the Islamic State has to offer.

The biggest recruitment tool that IS has is drone strikes by the USA.

Also, according to Invictus I can't be reasoned with. So that's nice to hear, I guess.

Just FWIW, Mapleleaf is claiming on VDip that he has been banned from Webdip because of this thread. I don't see him posting in either this thread, or the locked one, so I don't know what he's on about, but still...

Not according to his profile.

http://webdiplomacy.net/profile.php?userID=3959

Quoting Mapleleaf on VDip:

"@Jamie - I didn't post in their Forum because it is teeming with moderator slime. I noticed dipplayer's Islamophobic thread and immediately notified zultar Jong-Il. I'll paraphrase ..." ThreadID= ....This is an Islamophobic thread posted by one of your american countrymen. If I posted the TRUTH about the genocidal Israelis, then you mean girls would be ALL OVER IT. ALLAHU AKBHAR!!!" To which zultar Jong-Il replied " If I were you, I would stop bothering me with your american nonsense." To which I replied, " You Islamophobes are so sensitive. lol. ALLAHU AKBHAR!!!" That was it. Banhammer. lol."

Invictus, Krellin & dipplayer really need to get their racism under control.

Fucking disgusting hate-mongering American scum.

Lando, you fucking twat, I'm not even IN this thread. Fuck off, seriously.

Please show me where in this thread I have said something racist?

And if you are referring to some comment I made about Islam, it is a fucking religion, asshole, not a skin color. I have met plenty of Muslims that are not of Middle-Eastern dissent.

Unsurpisingly, the hate mongers, such as yourself, who choose to dwell in Libtard ignorance rather than open their eyes to the world around them, are often those most mired and bogged down by a woeful ignorance of facts.

Fuck off.

I'm so glad that in my recent absence from this forum that it has become such an intellectual haven, full of thoughtful discussion, rather than hate-backed personal attacks.

Assholes.

Right sorry, Not a racist just prejudiced to hate a religion.