Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is an idiot

[AlbertCat]

Of course they are debating this malarkey on the GD page

http://time.com/3662152/kareem-abdul-jabbar-paris-charlie-hebdo-terrorist-attacks-are-not-about-religion/

the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6067756



I take exception to this statement at the beginning:

"When the Ku Klux Klan burns a cross in a black family’s yard, Christians aren’t required to explain how these aren’t really Christian acts"

Since when??????

[Tobin S.]

1. There's a lot of things wrong with that article.

Abdul-Jabbar really didn't say anything that convinces me that these terrorist attacks would be happening if there were no Islam.

[jeff47]

2. Of course they'd be happening. Because they already did

They were conducted by Stalinists. They called it "sharpening the contradictions".

The attacks aren't about religion. They're about power. The sociopaths leading these groups have a recruitment problem - not a lot of people want to sign up for a life of violence in service to a sociopath. So they need to create an environment where they have more recruits.

So they conduct terrorist attacks, aiming to create a backlash against Muslims in general. If French Muslims are reduced to a despised and oppressed underclass, these leaders will have a much easier time recruiting. Which will get them more power. Then they can conduct more attacks, get more repression, more followers and even more power.

In these recent attacks, religion is not the motivation. Religion is the tool being used to manipulate people.

[Tobin S.]

3. Remove the tool being used to manipulate people. What happens then?

[bvf]

7. One less tool.

And a step in the right direction.

[jeff47]

8. Then they use another tool. Stalinists didn't use religion. (nt)

[Warren Stupidity]

17. This particular argument drives me nuts.

So back when revolutionary marxists were blowing up civilians (and generally they didn't, but for now lets just accept that they did), or when marxist-leninist totalitarian governments were murdering their populations, sometimes by the millions, the suggestion that perhaps there was something wrong with marxist ideology was misguided?

Seriously?

[jeff47]

18. Good thing that's not the argument I'm making.

Generating a backlash to oppress people and thus get more recruits has been used many times by many different groups. The sociopaths pursuing this strategy will use any convenient tool to carry out the strategy.

Today, there's some "Muslim" sociopaths doing it. Back in Stalin and Mao's days, it was "marxist" sociopaths doing it. Same strategy, but different tools were used to achieve it.

If you'd prefer another example, McVeigh was trying to do the same thing when he set off his bomb. He was doing it out of racial hatred and delusions of tyranny, but it was still the same strategy.

Point being it's not a problem unique to Islam. If you waved a magic wand and made Islam disappear, you'd still have people using the same strategy. They'd just use a different tool.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. No it is the argument you seem to be making.

You are fobbing off the massive problems with Marxist ideology as "some sociopaths did bad". That is a really specious argument.

McVeigh was also an adherent of a very flawed Christian Nationalist ideology, and pretending that there wasn't something wrong with that ideology, and that McVeigh was just using it as an excuse to commit his crimes is, as I noted above, a maddeningly dishonest argument.

Who the fuck said "it's a problem unique to Islam"? I certainly haven't made that argument, so if that is your point it is just another strawman.

[jeff47]

20. A metric shitload of people on DU and the TV are claiming it's a problem unique to Islam

Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of people are saying it's a "muslim" problem, demanding muslims denounce the attacks, and claiming their religion is better because it doesn't (currently) have terrorists using it.

As for flaws in marxism and McVeigh's ideology, a hammer with a bad grip can still pound in a nail. It doesn't have to be a perfect tool to be useful to someone.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. well then you should have no problem pointing to one post on DU

that claims that this is a problem unique to islam.

[jeff47]

22. Or you could actually look at the thread referenced in the OP.

You'll find lots of posts that blame Islam for the attacks.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. So you've got nothing. nt

[Fumesucker]

4. In that case then the content of the cartoons is immaterial and irrelevant

[jeff47]

11. It's only relevant in that it's a scapegoat they can use to manipulate. (nt)

[LostOne4Ever]

5. I would say its about both

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Just about every action people take is in some way about power dynamics. The question is not about whether this was about power, but if religion also played a role.

In the killer's mind, religion undoubtedly played a role and motivated them. They specifically stated as much, and there is no evidence to that this was some false flag on their part. All evidence points to them being adherents who believed that they and their religion had been insulted in such a horrible way that the only solution was to execute the violators.

Could the killers have been manipulated by some other cause? Certainly, and the parts of that cause that lead them to thinking violence was okay should also receive its share of the blame. Similarly, could the killers have been manipulated into their actions by some nefarious power hungry clerk? Definitely, but you can not say that religion did not play some role in that manipulation.

The specific doctrines or passages that convinced these killers to commit these vile acts need to be condemned for their role in what happened. This is not to say that we blame all Muslims for the actions of these whackjobs (we don't), just the people and dogmas that actively contributed and supported to the idea that killing people for insulting their prophet was justified.[/font]

[bvf]

6. Yes and no.

"In these recent attacks, religion is not the motivation. Religion is the tool being used to manipulate people."

"The attacks aren't about religion. They're about power."

Sadly, religion is (perceived) power to the religious. It is a means to "understanding" the world for those with the inability to think critically, and thus makes them useful tools.

[AlbertCat]

9. religion is not the motivation.

Nah.... it's just religious people killing because someone apparently insulted their religion. But religion has NOTHING to do with it.

[AlbertCat]

10. The attacks aren't about religion.

See.... that ignores the motives of the actual attackers. They COULD have used another excuse to kill... BUT THEY DIDN'T.

[jeff47]

12. They used the most convenient tool they had.

If someone is bludgeoned with a wrench instead of a hammer, we don't say it was the wrench's fault. The attacker grabbed the most convenient tool available.

[AlbertCat]

13. we don't say it was the wrench's fault.

No but we DO say that the belief that the attacker thought he was justified in using the wrench is at fault.

The tools are irrelevant. The system of beliefs that the perpetrators justify their acts ARE very important. In this case, Islam.

Your argument is ridiculous.

[jeff47]

15. No, we say that the attacker was at fault.

Holy war is what these terrorists want. You are doing a fantastic job of pushing for it.

The sooner we realize that it's about sociopaths and not bronze-age fairy tales, the better. Because then we respond to the sociopaths, and not everyone who likes a particular bronze-age fairy tale.

[trotsky]

14. Yet sometimes the job is to push in a nail.

A wrench might work, but a hammer does it better.

[jeff47]

16. But when you don't have a hammer, a wrench will do the job just fine.

The problem is the sociopaths, not the tool they used in any particular case.

[Lordquinton]

23. So, religion isn't the problem, mental illness is?

Where have we heard that before?

A side note, most of these attrocites are carried out by mentally normal people, unless you happened to have a nice sitdown psycho analysis of the attackers and know otherwise.

[jeff47]

24. I'm not using the clinical term, I'm using the vernacular.

I have no idea if they are actually mentally ill.

A side note, most of these attrocites are carried out by mentally normal people

The people pulling the triggers, yes. The people that got them to pull the triggers, no.

AFAIK, Stalin himself killed almost no one. But he convinced a lot of other people to kill millions.

The entire point that you've leapt over is that blaming these attacks on religion doesn't fix the problem, and in fact does exactly what the terrorist leaders want. They want a holy war. We don't have to give it to them.

[Lordquinton]

25. And removing religion from the picture doesn't help them?

By excusing religion completely you encourage extremism because they can always hide behind the exact same logic as everyone else. Until we can accept the yes, religion does in fact cause people to do terrible acts in it's name, then people will continue to do these terrible acts because no one can admit that there is a flaw in their beliefs.

You can quote the Bible/Koran/Torah/whatever for just about any stance and you will be not be misinterpreting it. I ask why the Bible has directions on how to treat slaves? The common refrain is about how it was for a different time, the obvious follow up is why hasn't that bit been removed?

As long as the books still contain the passages "Kill the unbeliever" then the excuse that it's not religiously motivated is complete bunk, and actively harming the world.

As for it just being about power, it is. It's about the religion gaining power.