Reset the political mind set in the Middleeast.

Drive extremist out, DRIVE THEM OUT!!!... Check!

BTW, how can I correct the title? (mindset and Middle East)


And they never extremed ever again


Ajc,where have you been?



mtierney said:

Ajc,where have you been?

I'm right here in paradise, where I've been for 71 of my 77 years, and loving life... If you mean where have I been on MOL; well you could say I've been a fly on the wall. Truthfully, all my liberal pals have been pretty boring. Trump's first overseas trip has activated my political juices again. And, the contrast between the fake news folks and the reality needed a little support. Combating extremist ideology doesn't seem to interest the left as much as destroying his presidency.

Just say'n.... and how cool is this new Center for Combating Extremist Ideology in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia


Drive out "Islamic extremists" not a great juxtaposition of words! Why couldn't he just say "extremists?" Its not the Islam that makes the extremism. It's poverty and repression that makes impulsive violence seem to be the only road. How stupid can they be? And do you think those weapons won't fall into the wrong hands?


"It's poverty and repression that makes impulsive violence seem to be the only road."

That's an old idea, a cop out; and a sick excuse for murdering innocent civilian men, women, and children. There's an awful lot of poverty and repression in the world where the people don't rise to the level of violence we see coming from the Islamic extremists.

I believe it's much more than poverty and repression, its more about the quest for power of a small minority of world leadership, to achieve the domination of the innocent an unarmed majority. Just say'n, President Trump has set us on a new road to peace; not only in the Middle East, but in the world.


it's not an excuse, just an explanation. It's also, macrosociologically, about tribal regions with ancient cultures, having to jump into 21st century national communities with political institutions replacing cultural ones. Just  because terrorists from the ME show signs of  loyalty to.Islam, it's not coming from the teachings of Islam. Even Trump knows that.




ajc said:

Drive extremist out, DRIVE THEM OUT!!!... Check!

BTW, how can I correct the title? (mindset and Middle East)

Hit the edit button on the thread title. Then say something really silly.


Ajc, what are you doing to help "drive out" Christian extremists from our own country?


Are you really a Chump supporter?


Someone remind me of how many of the 9-11 terrorists were Saudis?


9-11 terrorists were not poor at all, nor uneducated.

Still believe if they could drink, go to bars, have sex, they would much happier.


Almost all theocracies today are Muslim.  See http://www.worldatlas.com/arti...  Making civil and criminal decisions based on the dictate(s) of a holy book is one definition of extremism.


*      *      *      *      *      *      *      *      *

Theocracy is a form of government in which a deity is the source from which all authority derives. The Oxford English Dictionary has this definition:

Theocracy is a form of government in which a deity is the source from which all authority derives. The Oxford English Dictionary has this definition: 1. a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god. 1.1. the commonwealth of Israel from the time of Moses until the election of Saul as King.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...


fairplay said:

Drive out "Islamic extremists" not a great juxtaposition of words! Why couldn't he just say "extremists?" Its not the Islam that makes the extremism. It's poverty and repression that makes impulsive violence seem to be the only road. How stupid can they be? And do you think those weapons won't fall into the wrong hands?



Last time that I checked, Christian extremists are not anywhere near creating a theocracy.

spontaneous said:

Ajc, what are you doing to help "drive out" Christian extremists from our own country?




RealityForAll said:

Last time that I checked, Christian extremists are not anywhere near creating a theocracy.
spontaneous said:

Ajc, what are you doing to help "drive out" Christian extremists from our own country?

No, they just blow up buildings selected purposely because they have a daycare center on site.  


RealityForAll said:

Last time that I checked, Christian extremists are not anywhere near creating a theocracy.

That just brought to the front of my mind: Trump and Pence both spoke at Christian/Catholic colleges' graduation ceremonies this month. They do like to play their Christian card.  


True, though I'm not sure that this observation tells us much of anything. Drop the "today" qualifier and the observation becomes much less interesting, no? There's plenty of theocracy in Christian history. And what of the future? Who's to say that in 100 years one won't be able to say "All theocracies today are Christian"? 

No, I think your "today" qualifier does more work than you realize, calling attention that we're not really talking about religion here, but about specific geopolitical situations.


RealityForAll said:

Almost all theocracies today are Muslim.  See http://www.worldatlas.com/arti...  Making civil and criminal decisions based on the dictate(s) of a holy book is one definition of extremism.




krugle said:

9-11 terrorists were not poor at all, nor uneducated.

Still believe if they could drink, go to bars, have sex, they would much happier.

Saudi = Wahhabism = ISIS. 


Christian history is replete with theocracies.  However, the West and Christianity have thrown off that yoke for the most part long ago.  

1.)  Your observation makes more sense and becomes relevant if you believe that the West's progress vis-a-vis theocracy is merely a temporary phase (high tide which will inevitably be followed by low tide).  

2.)  Rather, than an evolution of the West from theocracy to democracy and human rights for all within those realms of democracy.  

I choose the latter (namely, the West has evolved from theocracy to democracy with a commitment and stalwart effort for human rights for all).

PVW said:

True, though I'm not sure that this observation tells us much of anything. Drop the "today" qualifier and the observation becomes much less interesting, no? There's plenty of theocracy in Christian history. And what of the future? Who's to say that in 100 years one won't be able to say "All theocracies today are Christian"? 

No, I think your "today" qualifier does more work than you realize, calling attention that we're not really talking about religion here, but about specific geopolitical situations.



RealityForAll said:

Almost all theocracies today are Muslim.  See http://www.worldatlas.com/arti...  Making civil and criminal decisions based on the dictate(s) of a holy book is one definition of extremism.



@spontaneous  why don't you compile a scorecard of Muslim extremist acts over the last ten years versus Christian extremist acts over the same period.  You appear to be making a false equivalency argument between the groups.  There are relevant differences such as the theocracy angle.

How many incidents of mayhem, death, and terror have we had here in the US where the pereatrators were shouting "Allah Akbar" during the commission of such acts.  Off the top of my head:  Miami night club, TN armed force recruiting station, San Bernadino, TX Army/Air Force base.  I am sure that I missed many more.

spontaneous said:



RealityForAll said:

Last time that I checked, Christian extremists are not anywhere near creating a theocracy.
spontaneous said:

Ajc, what are you doing to help "drive out" Christian extremists from our own country?

No, they just blow up buildings selected purposely because they have a daycare center on site.  



@RealityForAll

The Georgia State researchers report that the database catalogs 110 terrorist attacks in the U.S. over the most recent five-year span period in the database. (Globally, there were more than 57,000 terrorist attacks during that period.) In some cases, the media tended to report several attacks perpetrated by the same people as a single combined story; following their lead, the researchers reduce the number to 89 attacks.

... For those five years, the researchers found, Muslims carried out only 11 out of the 89 attacks, yet those attacks received 44 percent of the media coverage. (Meanwhile, 18 attacks actually targeted Muslims in America. The Boston marathon bombing generated 474 news reports, amounting to 20 percent of the media terrorism coverage during the period analyzed. Overall, the authors report, "The average attack with a Muslim perpetrator is covered in 90.8 articles. Attacks with a Muslim, foreign-born perpetrator are covered in 192.8 articles on average. Compare this with other attacks, which received an average of 18.1 articles."

http://reason.com/archives/201...


@spontaneous, thanks for the link.  I would love to read the analysis on this issue.

spontaneous said:

@RealityForAll

The Georgia State researchers report that the database catalogs 110 terrorist attacks in the U.S. over the most recent five-year span period in the database. (Globally, there were more than 57,000 terrorist attacks during that period.) In some cases, the media tended to report several attacks perpetrated by the same people as a single combined story; following their lead, the researchers reduce the number to 89 attacks.


... For those five years, the researchers found, Muslims carried out only 11 out of the 89 attacks, yet those attacks received 44 percent of the media coverage. (Meanwhile, 18 attacks actually targeted Muslims in America. The Boston marathon bombing generated 474 news reports, amounting to 20 percent of the media terrorism coverage during the period analyzed. Overall, the authors report, "The average attack with a Muslim perpetrator is covered in 90.8 articles. Attacks with a Muslim, foreign-born perpetrator are covered in 192.8 articles on average. Compare this with other attacks, which received an average of 18.1 articles."

http://reason.com/archives/201...



there is also a tendency to assume that Muslim people who engage in terroristic attacks are sane and acting rationally, while many white Christians committing similar attacks are assumed to be mentally ill.  The descriptions of the Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter made him sound as likely to be suffering from mental illness as someone like Dylan Roof or Jared Loughner.  And yet, most people don't think of him as a random "nut job," but instead as an "Islamic terrorist."


Who can doubt that our greatest hypocrisy is being in bed with the Saudis, who breed terrorists like we breed those silly little pocket dogs.

This current deal gives Saudis jobs and loads of weapons to prop up a failing economy with oil never expected to reach the prices that allowed the government to employ the majority of Saudi workers, provide healthcare and education.


And, the FBI has not allowed the tapes of discussions between negotiators and Mateen to be transmitted to the general public except for a portion of less than three ("3") minutes. In Mateen's comments in the linked video, Mateen sounds very upset about US bombing in Syria but rational.   It would be helpful if we could hear all of the tapes with Mateen on that fateful night so that the public can make up their own mind as to his sanity.


See the following:

ml1 said:


there is also a tendency to assume that Muslim people who engage in terroristic attacks are sane and acting rationally, while many white Christians committing similar attacks are assumed to be mentally ill.  The descriptions of the Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter made him sound as likely to be suffering from mental illness as someone like Dylan Roof or Jared Loughner.  And yet, most people don't think of him as a random "nut job," but instead as an "Islamic terrorist."



+10 (I did not think you and I would ever be on the same side of any issue.  I think you have this one analyzed accurately).

GL2 said:

Who can doubt that our greatest hypocrisy is being in bed with the Saudis, who breed terrorists like we breed those silly little pocket dogs.

This current deal gives Saudis jobs and loads of weapons to prop up a failing economy with oil never expected to reach the prices that allowed the government to employ the majority of Saudi workers, provide healthcare and education.



@spontaneous, I took a look at the methodology of Messr. LaFree (Director of the National Center for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) and Professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland).   See https://www.researchgate.net/p... and  https://phys.org/news/2011-12-....

It appears START and Messr. LaFree are lumping non fatal attacks in with fatal attacks.  This methodology  distorts the START statistic that you cite, namely:  "Muslims carried out only 11 out of the 89 attacks, yet those attacks received 44 percent of the media coverage."   

I think the relevant question is what percentage of fatal attacks were carried out by advocates of Islam or Muhammed?  I will do some more checking to see if we can ascertain the relevant statistic..


spontaneous said:

@RealityForAll

The Georgia State researchers report that the database catalogs 110 terrorist attacks in the U.S. over the most recent five-year span period in the database. (Globally, there were more than 57,000 terrorist attacks during that period.) In some cases, the media tended to report several attacks perpetrated by the same people as a single combined story; following their lead, the researchers reduce the number to 89 attacks.


... For those five years, the researchers found, Muslims carried out only 11 out of the 89 attacks, yet those attacks received 44 percent of the media coverage. (Meanwhile, 18 attacks actually targeted Muslims in America. The Boston marathon bombing generated 474 news reports, amounting to 20 percent of the media terrorism coverage during the period analyzed. Overall, the authors report, "The average attack with a Muslim perpetrator is covered in 90.8 articles. Attacks with a Muslim, foreign-born perpetrator are covered in 192.8 articles on average. Compare this with other attacks, which received an average of 18.1 articles."

http://reason.com/archives/201...



if he's upset about the U.S. bombing Syria, his motivation isn't that his religion simply told him to kill non-believers.

It's overly simplistic to call these acts "radical Islamic terrorism" when the U.S. actually is engaged in the process of killing many thousands of people in predominantly Muslim countries.  Until we stop doing so, it's impossible to disentangle religious motives from military and political motives.

RealityForAll said:

And, the FBI has not allowed the tapes of discussions between negotiators and Mateen to be transmitted to the general public except for a portion of less than three ("3") minutes. In Mateen's comments in the linked video, Mateen sounds very upset about US bombing in Syria but rational.   It would be helpful if we could hear all of the tapes with Mateen on that fateful night so that the public can make up their own mind as to his sanity.




See the following:



ml1 said:



there is also a tendency to assume that Muslim people who engage in terroristic attacks are sane and acting rationally, while many white Christians committing similar attacks are assumed to be mentally ill.  The descriptions of the Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter made him sound as likely to be suffering from mental illness as someone like Dylan Roof or Jared Loughner.  And yet, most people don't think of him as a random "nut job," but instead as an "Islamic terrorist."



Honestly, I've become increasingly skeptical of the idea that history has a "direction." (to the point that although in the American political context you could slot me under the "progressive" category, I'm uneasy with that label and the understanding of history it implies).

Humans like narratives, and we tend to tell our stories with our selves in the starring role. I think the choice to view history as an evolution, from theocracy to democracy, is indeed a choice, and not a reflection of reality. A certain kind of Christian, for instance, could cite exactly the same facts and tell a story of the loss of Christendom, a regress rather than a progress. Is one of these the "right" history? I think neither. Both are a form of temporal solipsism. The past is not merely a preface to our current time and place, and the people who lived before us not merely characters lending a nice bit of backstory to our own. 

RealityForAll said:

Christian history is replete with theocracies.  However, the West and Christianity have thrown off that yoke for the most part long ago.  

1.)  Your observation makes more sense and becomes relevant if you believe that the West's progress vis-a-vis theocracy is merely a temporary phase (high tide which will inevitably be followed by low tide).  

2.)  Rather, than an evolution of the West from theocracy to democracy and human rights for all within those realms of democracy.  

I choose the latter (namely, the West has evolved from theocracy to democracy with a commitment and stalwart effort for human rights for all).



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.