Ramadan Bomb-a-thon blast wounds 8 soldiers in Thailand

[longknife]

Oh it's time alright... for our annual Ramadan Bombathon scorecard, which we tally for those critics who ask: "What about other religions?"

Each year, during Islam's holiest month, we keep track of deadly terror attacks that occur in the name of any religion, then categorize and count them. (For good measure, we even throw in killings by "Islamophobes').

See report and read story @ Ramadan Bomb-a-thon blast wounds 8 soldiers in Thailand - Atlas Shrugs and let's not hear the screams of “Islamophobe!” because she provides LINKS!!!

 

[Osomir]

The problem with the premise of your article is that Thailand's conflict situation doesn't really simply revolve around religion. If it did then the 2006 coup would have settled things with the Islamic council. It didn't. It also ignores that many of the policemen and a vast majority of victims overall from the violence are Muslims. The southern conflicts have more to do with ethnicity (southern Malays vs majority Thais) than they do religion, so the oversimplification isn't very intellectually honest.

It is also a pretty shallow way to look at conflict in general.

 

[longknife]

Ramadan Bomb-a-thon Car Bomb in Iraq kills 53

Day 2 - And so the month of terror begins:

Ramadan Bomb-a-thon Car Bomb in Iraq kills 53 - Atlas Shrugs for the scorecard.

 

[longknife]

The problem with the premise of your article is that Thailand's conflict situation doesn't really simply revolve around religion. If it did then the 2006 coup would have settled things with the Islamic council. It didn't. It also ignores that many of the policemen and a vast majority of victims overall from the violence are Muslims. The southern conflicts have more to do with ethnicity (southern Malays vs majority Thais) than they do religion, so the oversimplification isn't very intellectually honest.

It is also a pretty shallow way to look at conflict in general.

The premise of this - and following - posts is the slaughter that will go on during Ramadan, a Holy Muslim Festival.

 

[Osomir]

The premise of this - and following - posts is the slaughter that will go on during Ramadan, a Holy Muslim Festival.

Right, even though theologically one isn't supposed to engage in violence during the four holy months within Islam.

The problem here is that your are overplaying the religion causal variable. Most violence in this world isn't really because of religion; it's because of power seeking, money, or perceived injustice of some sort.

 

[longknife]

The premise of this - and following - posts is the slaughter that will go on during Ramadan, a Holy Muslim Festival.

Right, even though theologically one isn't supposed to engage in violence during the four holy months within Islam.

The problem here is that your are overplaying the religion causal variable. Most violence in this world isn't really because of religion; it's because of power seeking, money, or perceived injustice of some sort.

Just what am I 'overplaying?" That Muslim violence continues while non-Muslim "terrorist" is nonexistent?

Read this:

Ramadan Bomb-a-thon: Jihad Bombers Strike Somali capital

On pro-al-Shabab websites, the jihadist group said it targeted the convoy because a number of US officials were travelling in it. So Muslims will slaughter Muslims for the glory of allah. "We are behind the martyrdom explosion... The Americans were our main target," its spokesman Abdiasis Abu Musab told Reuters news agency.

Somali capital Mogadishu hit by 'suicide attack' BBC, July 12, 2013

W/links @ Ramadan Bomb-a-thon: Jihad Bombers Strike Somali capital - Atlas Shrugs

Wish I could copy the chart but I can't. So I'll try to sum it up here:

Day 4
Terror attacks in the name of the religion of peace = 27
Dear bodies in the name of the religion of peace = 112
Terror attacks and dead bodies in the name of any other religion = 0 and 0
The same by IslamoPhobes

 

[Moonglow]

will there be a tally of Ramadan deaths due to trampling?

 

[AVG-JOE]

The premise of this - and following - posts is the slaughter that will go on during Ramadan, a Holy Muslim Festival.

Right, even though theologically one isn't supposed to engage in violence during the four holy months within Islam.

The problem here is that your are overplaying the religion causal variable. Most violence in this world isn't really because of religion; it's because of power seeking, money, or perceived injustice of some sort.

Violence is also happening because various assholes want their neighbors to live by their religion in practice if not in faith.

 

[Osomir]

The premise of this - and following - posts is the slaughter that will go on during Ramadan, a Holy Muslim Festival.

Right, even though theologically one isn't supposed to engage in violence during the four holy months within Islam.

The problem here is that your are overplaying the religion causal variable. Most violence in this world isn't really because of religion; it's because of power seeking, money, or perceived injustice of some sort.

Violence is also happening because various assholes want their neighbors to live by their religion in practice if not in faith.

For the most part that isn't really true. In terms of most global conflict that is a side issue rather than an actual underlying cause. I'd be glad to talk about specific examples if you'd like if you'd care to give me some with regards to what you are referencing.

 

[AVG-JOE]

First example coming to my mind is the Sunni -vs- Shiite bullshit.

 

[Osomir]

First example coming to my mind is the Sunni -vs- Shiite bullshit.

We've already talked about this though, that doesn't really fit into what you are talking about because the violence base there are based more around political identity and power and not theology.

In parts of the Middle East political structures and parties can tend to revolve around religious lines (like they can revolve around ethnic lines in say Africa), so political violence tends to also be sectarian violence much in the same way that African ethnic violence tends to be expressions of political violence.

 

[alpine]

First example coming to my mind is the Sunni -vs- Shiite bullshit.

We've already talked about this though, that doesn't really fit into what you are talking about because the violence base there are based more around political identity and power and not theology.

In parts of the Middle East political structures and parties can tend to revolve around religious lines (like they can revolve around ethnic lines in say Africa), so political violence tends to also be sectarian violence much in the same way that African ethnic violence tends to be expressions of political violence.

I think the part you are insisting to ignore is that islam is a political religion. It has specific instructions on how to run a state that no other religion has in its context.

So, islam is NOT just a religion as you paint and wish it to be. It is an institution that claims power on people and the state at the same time, pretty much like the church in the mid ages.

Once you miss this nuance, of course you miss the whole point afterwards.

 

[hobelim]

First example coming to my mind is the Sunni -vs- Shiite bullshit.

We've already talked about this though, that doesn't really fit into what you are talking about because the violence base there are based more around political identity and power and not theology.

In parts of the Middle East political structures and parties can tend to revolve around religious lines (like they can revolve around ethnic lines in say Africa), so political violence tends to also be sectarian violence much in the same way that African ethnic violence tends to be expressions of political violence.

Catholic/ Protestant violence is also about seeking political power but it is based entirely on religious differences. Each party wanting to wield power over the other to protect its assertion of religious superiority by making laws and customs designed to force everyone else to conform to their brand of perversity.

To ignore the religious roots of such violence in the Sunni/ Shiite Muslim or Catholic/Protestant Christian communities by limiting the discussion to politics is to insure such violence will never end.

 

[Osomir]

Just what am I 'overplaying?" That Muslim violence continues while non-Muslim "terrorist" is nonexistent?

That's just the thing though a lot of violence in this world has absolutely little to nothing to do with Islam. Take the largest international conflict since WWII which still has small scale associated fighting ongoing. It is in the DR Congo and neighboring countries, which aren't even majority Muslim countries let alone have anything to do with the religion of Islam.

Even most violence that your site would like to classify as "Islamic" violence has much more secular and non-religious roots, as I pointed out with your story on Thailand's southern conflict.

Read this:

Ramadan Bomb-a-thon: Jihad Bombers Strike Somali capital

On pro-al-Shabab websites, the jihadist group said it targeted the convoy because a number of US officials were travelling in it. So Muslims will slaughter Muslims for the glory of allah. "We are behind the martyrdom explosion... The Americans were our main target," its spokesman Abdiasis Abu Musab told Reuters news agency.

Somali capital Mogadishu hit by 'suicide attack' BBC, July 12, 2013

Why wouldn't Al Shabaab attack us? We bombed them under Bush and backed an Ethiopian invasion of their country, then with their emergence as a separate entity we continued to bomb them and hit them with drone strikes. We not only have directly attacked them (and did so first), we backed the occupation of their country by Somalia's oldest enemy: Ethiopia.

And continue to support military coalitions against them (such as Kenya's invasion of southern Somalia).

 

[Osomir]

First example coming to my mind is the Sunni -vs- Shiite bullshit.

We've already talked about this though, that doesn't really fit into what you are talking about because the violence base there are based more around political identity and power and not theology.

In parts of the Middle East political structures and parties can tend to revolve around religious lines (like they can revolve around ethnic lines in say Africa), so political violence tends to also be sectarian violence much in the same way that African ethnic violence tends to be expressions of political violence.

I think the part you are insisting to ignore is that islam is a political religion. It has specific instructions on how to run a state that no other religion has in its context.

So, islam is NOT just a religion as you paint and wish it to be. It is an institution that claims power on people and the state at the same time, pretty much like the church in the mid ages.

Once you miss this nuance, of course you miss the whole point afterwards.

The problem with what you are suggesting if that, if true, all Muslims would have be be Political Islamists. They aren't though, so that rather shatters your theory there, nor do other Muslim majority countries outside of the Middle East and former Ottoman holdings have the same sort of sectarian struggles which also shatters your uniform understanding of Islam.

Once again I feel inclined to point out that Islam is bigger than your Middle Eastern understanding of it.

 

[Osomir]

First example coming to my mind is the Sunni -vs- Shiite bullshit.

We've already talked about this though, that doesn't really fit into what you are talking about because the violence base there are based more around political identity and power and not theology.

In parts of the Middle East political structures and parties can tend to revolve around religious lines (like they can revolve around ethnic lines in say Africa), so political violence tends to also be sectarian violence much in the same way that African ethnic violence tends to be expressions of political violence.

Catholic/ Protestant violence is also about seeking political power but it is based entirely on religious differences. Each party wanting to wield power over the other to protect its assertion of religious superiority by making laws and customs designed to force everyone else to conform to their brand of perversity.

To ignore the religious roots of such violence in the Sunni/ Shiite Muslim or Catholic/Protestant Christian communities by limiting the discussion to politics is to insure such violence will never end.

I disagree greatly. we didn't have to kick out or even dramatically change Christianity theologically in order for us to develop and live in peace. Now it has undergone changes, but they have mainly been a reflection of changes that had already been taking place or taken place within Europe. That is to say, realities on the ground changed before the theological interpretations did.

Also, i disagree with your premise simply based on Europe's own history such as the 100 years war, where you had Catholic generals fighting for protestant armies and religion eventually played major roles in power politics concerning land holdings and taxation. To blame stuff like the 100 years war simply on Christian theology would be to miss the main underlying causes of the conflict.

Religion of course is an element there, but we shouldn't overplay it as a causal variable, many early leader converts to protestantism had little to do with zeal and more to do with a liking of the notion of being able to confiscate papal property and political power and consolidate it under their own leadership. Simply focusing on religion is to ignore very important political and economic realities that existed at the time.

 

[alpine]

We've already talked about this though, that doesn't really fit into what you are talking about because the violence base there are based more around political identity and power and not theology.

In parts of the Middle East political structures and parties can tend to revolve around religious lines (like they can revolve around ethnic lines in say Africa), so political violence tends to also be sectarian violence much in the same way that African ethnic violence tends to be expressions of political violence.

I think the part you are insisting to ignore is that islam is a political religion. It has specific instructions on how to run a state that no other religion has in its context.

So, islam is NOT just a religion as you paint and wish it to be. It is an institution that claims power on people and the state at the same time, pretty much like the church in the mid ages.

Once you miss this nuance, of course you miss the whole point afterwards.

The problem with what you are suggesting if that, if true, all Muslims would have be be Political Islamists. They aren't though, so that rather shatters your theory there, nor do other Muslim majority countries outside of the Middle East and former Ottoman holdings have the same sort of sectarian struggles which also shatters your uniform understanding of Islam.

Once again I feel inclined to point out that Islam is bigger than your Middle Eastern understanding of it.

Islam has roots in the mid east, thats the whole problem with islam.

If you know what the mid east that gave birth to islam, it is a geography that daylight can become the darkness in minutes, because of giant sand storms. It lacks of resources (of course except oil) and all climate extremes are seen often.

When this geography produces a religion, unavoidably it is brutal.

Lack of resources, extreme nature caused by the extreme conditions of its birth place, you got yourself the greatest and most brutal violence enabler one can create. You can see the results in Syria where public beheadings are becoming more and more common.

Conflicts between people are unavoidable. But if you have a conflict with your neighbor in a westerns society, you go to court. If in Syria, you behead them.

Islam as a result of the extreme conditions still dictates its extreme on people, although human science and technology(and the greens off of oil) was able to reduce its effects on people. Arabs are living a much more confortable life than their predecessors (thanks to western tech) but because islam has a hard copy of itself unlike other religions (koran), nobody can do anything to alter the religion to fit in todays world. That's the reason you still can see imams claiming the world is flat, or that you can marry and have sex to a 9 year old, or can have 4 wives and on and on and on...

And, on top of all this, islam has the instructions on how to run the state that comes with it. So the extremes of Arab peninsula that feeds the roots of islam finds its way to government structures that are recognized as legit source of power in todays world.

Your point "why not all muslims are political islamists" is ridiculous. One can easily see the popular support for political islam all over the islamic world. If you are a politician in any of the islam countries, there is no way you will get elected to any office if you are not using islam as a tool for yourself. This is the reality of the politics of islam.

So when you look at this picture all together, islam is like the perfect storm.

 

[Osomir]

Islam has roots in the mid east, thats the whole problem with islam.

And yet it is practiced differently all over the world. Your focus on the Middle East is important for the history of Islam, but really reduces your ability to understand its modern scale and diversity.

If you know what the mid east that gave birth to islam, it is a geography that daylight can become the darkness in minutes, because of giant sand storms. It lacks of resources (of course except oil) and all climate extremes are seen often.

When this geography produces a religion, unavoidably it is brutal.

You don't really see that in the theology though, that more so comes across in the Quranic depictions of Paradise which is a lush resource filled paradise.

Lack of resources, extreme nature caused by the extreme conditions of its birth place, you got yourself the greatest and most brutal violence enabler one can create. You can see the results in Syria where public beheadings are becoming more and more common.

And yet one of the most brutal empires ever to have existed (the Mongol Empire) didn't need Islam to blanket its gains in fields of bones, long before Islam became a part of it.

If Islam is also so brutal then why did Muhammad defy every pre-Islamic Arabic custom and tradition by not putting Mecca to the sword and pillaging it when it surrendered to him? That rather flies in the face of your notion of necessary brutality, particularly when it almost cost him the support of some of his most loyal followers of the day.

Islam as a result of the extreme conditions still dictates its extreme on people, although human science and technology(and the greens off of oil) was able to reduce its effects on people. Arabs are living a much more confortable life than their predecessors (thanks to western tech) but because islam has a hard copy of itself unlike other religions (koran), nobody can do anything to alter the religion to fit in todays world.

And here you are once again only focusing on Arabs and only 20% of the global Islamic population. Seriously, the world is larger than the Middle East.

That's the reason you still can see imams claiming the world is flat, or that you can marry and have sex to a 9 year old, or can have 4 wives and on and on and on...

while it is true that this happens (Yemen, Sudan and Pakistan for example) It also hardly needs Islam. The largest country for child brides in the world is India, and child brides are large issues in Christian Sub-Saharan Africa as well. While they try to root it in hadiths as a justification that desire to do so often is reflective of an already established local tradition of underage marriages.

Your point "why not all muslims are political islamists" is ridiculous. One can easily see the popular support for political islam all over the islamic world. If you are a politician in any of the islam countries, there is no way you will get elected to any office if you are not using islam as a tool for yourself. This is the reality of the politics of islam.

Then how did Muslim majority Senegal vote for a Christian leader immediately after its independence from France? Doesn't seem to correspond well with your blanket statements, and that is why I have a problem with them, they ignore the huge diversity that exists within this world. Senegal was just one example.

 

[hobelim]

We've already talked about this though, that doesn't really fit into what you are talking about because the violence base there are based more around political identity and power and not theology.

In parts of the Middle East political structures and parties can tend to revolve around religious lines (like they can revolve around ethnic lines in say Africa), so political violence tends to also be sectarian violence much in the same way that African ethnic violence tends to be expressions of political violence.

Catholic/ Protestant violence is also about seeking political power but it is based entirely on religious differences. Each party wanting to wield power over the other to protect its assertion of religious superiority by making laws and customs designed to force everyone else to conform to their brand of perversity.

To ignore the religious roots of such violence in the Sunni/ Shiite Muslim or Catholic/Protestant Christian communities by limiting the discussion to politics is to insure such violence will never end.

I disagree greatly. we didn't have to kick out or even dramatically change Christianity theologically in order for us to develop and live in peace. Now it has undergone changes, but they have mainly been a reflection of changes that had already been taking place or taken place within Europe. That is to say, realities on the ground changed before the theological interpretations did.

Also, i disagree with your premise simply based on Europe's own history such as the 100 years war, where you had Catholic generals fighting for protestant armies and religion eventually played major roles in power politics concerning land holdings and taxation. To blame stuff like the 100 years war simply on Christian theology would be to miss the main underlying causes of the conflict.

Religion of course is an element there, but we shouldn't overplay it as a causal variable, many early leader converts to protestantism had little to do with zeal and more to do with a liking of the notion of being able to confiscate papal property and political power and consolidate it under their own leadership. Simply focusing on religion is to ignore very important political and economic realities that existed at the time.

I don't understand your initial disagreement when your conclusion was essentially an agreement.


No matter what the religion or lack of religion there may be at the center of any conflict whose aim is power and control over the opposition and no matter how many adherents may be decent moderate people the conflict is caused by those beliefs. At least those beliefs play the most important part in the conflict as the basis for their claim to moral authority which is in itself religious in nature and based directly on whatever holy book they happen to be following.

I understand you may be sensitive and defensive about Islam like many Catholics are sensitive and defensive about their faith.

What I am saying is that any Catholic who subscribes to the official teaching of the church is complicit in any atrocity committed by any extremist if the fundamental teaching of that church condones such an atrocity.

Case in point. The Church teaches that the commands of Jesus are to be taken literally, such as 'eat my flesh'. However many hundreds of years Catholics might peacefully exist among peoples of other faiths it is only a matter of time before some lunatic reads Luke 19:27; "But as for those enemies of mine who would not have me for their king, bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.", and realizes based on church teaching that it is a religious duty to kill Jews.


The danger here is that any genius like Mohammed or Hitler who comes along seems to be a candidate for being the returning Christ if they advocate the murder and persecution of Jews, based on an ignorant literal interpretation of Jesus' command to slaughter instead of making the connection to a sublime teaching about ritual slaughter demanded by Kosher law that has nothing whatever to do with violence.

That's why Christians were unable to stop Hitler. He seemed to just have a greater faith than they did by advocating the literal fulfillment of the words of the man who they claim to believe is God when he began the slaughter than most rational humans couldn't stomach.

The same problem exists in Islam however many decent moderate Muslims there might be.

For as long as the fundamental teaching of the Koran is to do violence there will always be fundamentalists committing violence and moderates standing by with their thumbs up their assess..

 

[Osomir]

I don't understand your initial disagreement when your conclusion was essentially an agreement.

No matter what the religion or lack of religion there may be at the center of any conflict whose aim is power and control over the opposition and no matter how many adherents may be decent moderate people the conflict is caused by those beliefs. At least those beliefs play the most important part in the conflict as the basis for their claim to moral authority which is in itself religious in nature and based directly on whatever holy book they happen to be following.

I disagree with your assertion that religious theology and religion in general are the most important aspects of conflict. I think you are overplaying it as a causal variable when much of that conflict had more to do with money and political power, and not theological adherence and when we saw theological changes come primarily as a reaction to worldly realities and not the other way around which would be the case if religion were actually the most important factor.

I'm not suggesting we ignore religion in these contexts, I'm suggesting that you guys are focusing too much on it as an explanatory variable.

I understand you may be sensitive and defensive about Islam like many Catholics are sensitive and defensive about their faith.

I was baptized protestant, attended Catholic school and am an atheist. I have never been nor has anyone in my family ever been a Muslim. the closest would be Maronite Christians from Lebanon, on my mother's side.

What I am saying is that any Catholic who subscribes to the official teaching of the church is complicit in any atrocity committed by any extremist if the fundamental teaching of that church condones such an atrocity.

that's a problem with the premise though because Islamic institutions aren't set up the same way christian ones are. Catholicism has a much more rigid religious ruling system for its adherents than Islam ever has with perhaps the exclusion of the time of Muhammad himself. There is no Islamic pope, and even fatwas are merely theological speaking, suggestions of worldly individuals, and not divine decree (generally speaking depending on the branch, some minority groups practice it differently).