Jump to content


Donald Trump 'Ban all Muslims from entering USA"

Recommended Posts

If Muslims were only responsible for fascist regimes, despotic leaders, civil war and poverty you may have a point. They're not so you don't.

 

That's completely illogical. Just because there are other causes of an outcome does not stop a particular cause of an outcome being responsible in a particular case. If country A has a huge drink driving problem and country B has a huge speeding problem both of which result in large numbers of deaths your logic dictates we can blame neither speeding or drink driving as a cause of road deaths as each is not the cause in one of the countries. Thats clearly not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's completely illogical. Just because there are other causes of an outcome does not stop a particular cause of an outcome being responsible in a particular case. If country A has a huge drink driving problem and country B has a huge speeding problem both of which result in large numbers of deaths your logic dictates we can blame neither speeding or drink driving as a cause of road deaths as each is not the cause in one of the countries. Thats clearly not the case.

 

No, my logic suggests that the fascist regimes, the despotic leaders, the civil wars and the poverty are not due to the religion of the people of the region, I think the problems run far deeper. Just like the the fascist regimes, the despotic leaders, the civil wars and the poverty in South East Asia for the later part of the 20th Century and beyond were nothing to do with whatever the religions that the people followed.

 

Saddam Hussein was secular leader, and maybe an Arab nationalist for much of his reign after all, he was more of a Stalinist than a radical Muslim and only asked for the support of his "Muslim brothers" when he thought it would benefit him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It always just ends up being about power and then using other means to justify it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, my logic suggests that the fascist regimes, the despotic leaders, the civil wars and the poverty are not due to the religion of the people of the region, I think the problems run far deeper. Just like the the fascist regimes, the despotic leaders, the civil wars and the poverty in South East Asia for the later part of the 20th Century and beyond were nothing to do with whatever the religions that the people followed.

 

Saddam Hussein was secular leader, and maybe an Arab nationalist for much of his reign after all, he was more of a Stalinist than a radical Muslim and only asked for the support of his "Muslim brothers" when he thought it would benefit him.

 

So the fact the various factions fighting are all split along religious sectarian lines and their goals are for the most part specific to their religion and they are very open about this has nothing to do with religion?

 

in SE asia communism was a huge causal factor. In south America both communism and fascism were causal factors. It's preposterous to say that religion is not a causal factor in the current middle eastern mess, it's like saying german nationalism was not a causal factor in the austrian corporal invading most of Europe.

 

We cannot hope to come up with plans to end the conflicts if we are willfully blind to one of the main causes because it happens to be a religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the fact the various factions fighting are all split along religious sectarian lines and their goals are for the most part specific to their religion and they are very open about this has nothing to do with religion?

 

in SE asia communism was a huge causal factor. In south America both communism and fascism were causal factors. It's preposterous to say that religion is not a causal factor in the current middle eastern mess, it's like saying german nationalism was not a causal factor in the austrian corporal invading most of Europe.

 

We cannot hope to come up with plans to end the conflicts if we are willfully blind to one of the main causes because it happens to be a religion.

 

Yes it's exactly what I'm saying.

 

There were conditions that led to Naziism's rise and fall, and it certainly wasn't a coincidence that political extremism of one flavour or another was on the rise all across Europe at that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes it's exactly what I'm saying.

 

There were conditions that led to Naziism's rise and fall, and it certainly wasn't a coincidence that political extremism of one flavour or another was on the rise all across Europe at that time.

 

Ok, if you think that german nationalism has nothing to do with the nazis ending up in charge then I can see why you think interpretations of islam has nothing to do with the inter-muslim civil wars raging across the middle east.

 

Suffice to say I completely disagree with you as do the protaganists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes it's exactly what I'm saying.

 

There were conditions that led to Naziism's rise and fall, and it certainly wasn't a coincidence that political extremism of one flavour or another was on the rise all across Europe at that time.

 

How much do you know about Islam? Have you read the Qu'ran? The haddiths? Do you know about Islamic history?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, if you think that german nationalism has nothing to do with the nazis ending up in charge then I can see why you think interpretations of islam has nothing to do with the inter-muslim civil wars raging across the middle east.

 

Suffice to say I completely disagree with you as do the protaganists.

 

No I'm not saying that german nationalism had nothing to do with the Nazis ending up in charge.

 

I think that the conditions were ripe for political extremism in Europe when Hitler came to power. If Hitler didn't do it, the communists or maybe even some other nationalist group would have most probably led the continent into conflict.

 

To move the example to the Middle East. Why do you think that different interpretations of Islam do not cause major problems with cilvil wars etc away from unsettled and unstable areas?

 

It's the underlying conditions that cause the conflict, the different interpretations are just the excuse. If it wasn't the different interpretations they'd find another excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I'm not saying that german nationalism had nothing to do with the Nazis ending up in charge.

 

I think that the conditions were ripe for political extremism in Europe when Hitler came to power. If Hitler didn't do it, the communists or maybe even some other nationalist group would have most probably led the continent into conflict.

 

To move the example to the Middle East. Why do you think that different interpretations of Islam do not cause major problems with cilvil wars etc away from unsettled and unstable areas?

 

It's the underlying conditions that cause the conflict, the different interpretations are just the excuse. If it wasn't the different interpretations they'd find another excuse.

 

Where are these areas where the different flavours of islam get along great in significant numbers? Areas with serious religious conflict are not likely to be productive or pleasant to live in, however your approach is to dismiss the religious conflict as the cause of the umpleasantness and illogically claim umpleasantness causes religous conflict.

 

The idea they would be suicide bombing each other over football teams or the best way to make falefal if they were not engaged in a 1500 year old religious conflict rather strains the bounds of credibility. Have you ever served in the middle east theatres or afghanistan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where are these areas where the different flavours of islam get along great in significant numbers? Areas with serious religious conflict are not likely to be productive or pleasant to live in, however your approach is to dismiss the religious conflict as the cause of the umpleasantness and illogically claim umpleasantness causes religous conflict.

 

The idea they would be suicide bombing each other over football teams or the best way to make falefal if they were not engaged in a 1500 year old religious conflict rather strains the bounds of credibility. Have you ever served in the middle east theatres or afghanistan?

 

If that is what you believe I am saying then you haven't understood my point.

 

I think that the underlying reasons for most conflicts are very similar such as poverty, and political, social and financial inequality. I'm not saying that conflict doesn't often have cultural dimensions related to ethnicity or religion, but there are invariably underlying causes that led to ethnicity or religion becoming an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the fact the various factions fighting are all split along religious sectarian lines and their goals are for the most part specific to their religion and they are very open about this has nothing to do with religion?

 

in SE asia communism was a huge causal factor. In south America both communism and fascism were causal factors. It's preposterous to say that religion is not a causal factor in the current middle eastern mess, it's like saying german nationalism was not a causal factor in the austrian corporal invading most of Europe.

 

We cannot hope to come up with plans to end the conflicts if we are willfully blind to one of the main causes because it happens to be a religion.

 

It's a factor, but they were able to live together before. They are more interested in power than religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If that is what you believe I am saying then you haven't understood my point.

 

I think that the underlying reasons for most conflicts are very similar such as poverty, and political, social and financial inequality. I'm not saying that conflict doesn't often have cultural dimensions related to ethnicity or religion, but there are invariably underlying causes that led to ethnicity or religion becoming an issue.

 

A study of most conflicts in human history would give the lie to what you think.

 

Poverty, inequality blah blah, anything other than admit that religous, political and nationalist suppremicism are the actual causes.

 

Why do you think bin Ladin gave up a life of luxury to spend his existance as a hunted issolated rat? I'll give you a clue, it wasn't poverty.

 

---------- Post added 19-01-2016 at 00:06 ----------

 

It's a factor, but they were able to live together before. They are more interested in power than religion.

 

They were able to live together before because of hugely authoritarian dictatorships who tortured and shot anyone who didn't tow the harmonious coexistance line. Once the gun has been removed from the head back to sectarian hatred as has happened across the arab world.

 

As for 'They are more interested in power than religion', who are 'they' and on what basis do you make this claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.