Sweden on the Brink of CIVIL WAR

[Shiranu]

...Is Islam the root cause of things like terror attacks on Europe from middle easterners, or is rather a part of something larger?

It is, imo, a catalyst and a tool to instigate and motivate terrorism, but ultimately the reason terror attacks happen on Europe, particularly France and England, are rooted in general, imo, much more in historical-political issues rather than religious issues. It's easy to think of Colonialism as "the past", but there are still hundreds of millions of people alive who can remember a time when Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. were colonies of France and Britain, many, many more who lived through Democratically elected, secular rulers being overthrown in Iran by England and the U.S. to protect oil interests, who lived under totalitarian regimes backed by the West in Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and so on.

To narrow it down to one cause is simply impossible, but I think these things have a much more pertinent impact on why we see terrorists from these countries attacking England and France in particular, because these terrorists were raised by parents, grandparents who lived in a time when their countries were direct territories of those two. And as for attacks on Germany, the U.S., and the E.U. ... practically every terrorist has lived themselves in a world that was directly hurt by these powers.

England and France today have a joking relationship of animosity between the two due to their hundreds of years of war and conflicting interests, but within just the last 100 years that joking, friendly rivalry was much more serious. Go back 200 years, and it was outright hostile. These things take time to lose their edge in the collective memory of a people, and we are at most only a generation removed from colonial-era oppression. We simply cannot expect them to have forgiven and forgotten already. It really fucking sucks that the sins of our fathers effect the world today, but that is simply the way the world works. The best we can do is combat the radicals in what ways we can while restoring cordial relationships with the overwhelming majority who may have cultural animosity towards us but not violent animosity towards us, and building up trust and respect between the two so that in a hundred years from now, their children and grandchildren will view us as a positive outside force rather than a negative. Unfortunately, that isn't the direction our politicians have wanted to take us in.

Will it be an easy direction to travel? No. But nothing this important ever is, but ultimately the resistance will come from a hateful minority, and we cannot punish the majority who at the end of the day just want to live their lives and put food on their families' plate. That is exactly what the radicals want, and to give in to fear and belief that they are all potential enemies, or fundamentally different human beings than us, means we have lost that war.

Nowhere in the Qu'ran (and I meant to retort to pr's remark about me not knowing about it by posting a picture of the one I keep at work, full of highlights and underlines, but the locker room is current inaccessible) does it tell Muslims specifically to pack themselves with explosives and set them off in the middle of a crowd. Like any other religion, it contradicts itself; sometimes it says it's permissible to kill in certain situations, other times it's not. It all depends on how the Qu'ran is interpreted. Unfortunately, a very literal and very radical interpretation is popular in certain cliques of the Middle East, and it's these cliques that are the most powerful (again to mention history, thanks to the backing of Western powers [although the Saudi kingdom, one of the largest proponents of violence, was already powerful in itself before Britain and the U.S.'s backing]) and export their ideology across the Islamic world.


Despite these powerful groups, terrorism against civilians is extremely unpopular within the Middle East, and those numbers have steadily been declining over the last couple of years. Unfortunately, yet again, it's a hateful minority that makes life terrible for the overwhelming majority, and it's something we have to look at and understand for what it is rather than taking the knee jerk reaction of thinking it is the norm.

Finally, terrorism in itself is a means to a goal and not a goal itself, and it's a means often employed by groups of a certain socio-economic class, or a group of a certain power, rather than a religious mandate. Terrorism is predominately a tool used by groups that have no actual chance of winning a traditional war against a power, and thus resort to tactics that destroy the enemies moral while preserving their numbers to the greatest extent; we saw it in Central and South America from drug cartels, we see it in India and Pakistan between Hindus and Muslims (which if one knows about the partition one knows that the violence is completely political in nature [and, unfortunately, yet again a product of British Empire influence]), we saw it in the American Revolution, in the French Revolution, the Spanish Civil War, the Balkans... shit, an entire World War, with over 16 million killed and god knows how many injured and displaced was sparked by the terrorism of 5 Serbians and a Bosniak seeking independence for their country in the only way they could see possible with no way to actually fight the Austrian-Hungarian Empire.

This post is getting too long, but unfortunately it is a subject that cannot, despite what pr might try, to sum up in two or three sentences. To say that 7 run on paragraphs are a disservice to how deep of issue this really is is an understatement; a 7 page research paper would be too short to really do justice to all the causes that go into play on why terrorism in the Middle East is an issue we deal with today. This is not to say Islam does not play a role, but in the grand scheme of things it is nowhere near the most pertinent reason as to why the world is as it is.

[Shiranu]

The history of christianity and moslems goes far back.  Moslems attacked North Africa and genocided the christians there.  They went into Spain and ruled over christians.  They attacked Eastern christian Europe and took Constantinople.  All on their own.  Without specific cause other than expanding their theism by the sword.

Now, I'm not christian, but fair is fair. 

When the christians got damn tired of the moslem attacks, they fought back.  The Crusades the Moslems screech about were a reaction to the Moslem attacks in SW and E Europe.  The Crusaders were no saints for sure.  It was a centuries-long bloody battle of religious nutso thugs on both sides.

The Moslem butchery across Northern Africa and into Spain and Eastern Europe is a far too often ignored part of world history.  And, BTW, do you know WHO Vlad Drucul earned his bloody reputation fighting?  Invading Moslems.

I think both sides are crazy lunatics.  But the Moslems started it.  That matters to me.

I get your point, and even liked the post, but I feel like we could therefor then say some really...weird... things about a whole host of countries that were previously annexed or attacked by empires of the past. You could say the Middle Eastern assault on Europe was then just born of revenge against the Greeks and Romans, thus Europeans, who had invaded and occupied the region for hundreds upon hundreds of years; ergo, Christians and Europeans started it.

I also don't think the Reconquista is all that ignored in world history. I remember learning about it in at least 6th grade if not earlier, and it's been mentioned ever since. Eastern Europe though I think is probably ignored, but I think that can be said about Eastern Europe in general rather than just that period (long term effect of Communism v. Capitalism maybe?).

[Cavebear]

I liked both of your previous posts on the subject.  It is a pleasure to reply to someone who thinks.

But it is a sort of curse to be both a political and world history major and minor.  I can't escape the overview.  And not being a member of any particular religious group, my world view is even farther outside of my particulars.

The Middle Eastern peoples were not divided artificially by Europeans at the time of the Moslem conquests.  And I doubt the Moslems had much concern or even knowledge over the ancient Alexandrian conquests through Persia to India. 

The Moslem conquest across Northern African Christian settlements there was not because the Greeks came through centuries before.  It was for Allah and conversion.  North African Christians who refused to convert was killed.  And there WERE bloody fights about it.  The North African Christians didn't just say "Oh sure, Allah, fine with us".  They died on fanatic Moslem swords.  As did the Christians in Spain and Eastern Europe. 

If the European Christians hadn't also been fighting the marauding Vikings, they might have put up a better struggle.  Indeed, it was the Moslem invasions at both ends of Europe and the Viking attacks that forced the Europeans to shift from minor Dukedoms to full nations.

You are on weak ground claiming the Moslems were angry at European Christians for the Alexandrian historical attacks (Alexander was not Greek, BTW).  The Greeks were more Asian than European anyway, Alexander was no different from the Persians, Babylonians, etc.  Just another conqueror marching through. 

The Romans never reached the true Middle East.  Israel was about as far as they got and their influence there never affected anyone Arabic.  And they were several centuries removed.

You need a better historical perspective.  The Moslems started the fight with they crazy Christians at swordpoint, and they screamed bloody murder when the invasions were turned against them.

I don't think much of either side, but I do care who starts fights and then complains about it feeling all aggrieved.

[Shiranu]

I won't necessarily respond to most of the above because I agree with most of it, the Roman/Greek remark was more a statement of you could take the argument there that they would see Europeans as an "other" who needed to be fought rather than a statement that I actually believe. My fault for not clarifying that.

You need a better historical perspective.  The Moslems started the fight with they crazy Christians at swordpoint, and they screamed bloody murder when the invasions were turned against them.

I think the thing here is that can be said of many religions and cultures in general though; Christianity vs Pagans for awhile, Christianity vs Islam afterwards, Ashoka's Buddhism before his conversion to Jainism, various Animist groups in Africa... it always goes one of two ways; you either start the fight and complain when you don't get an absolute victory, or get an absolute victory. That, or you yourself convert to the religion or culture of the invaded (Mongols becoming Chinese, barbarians becoming Roman, etc.). Unless you completely wipe out your enemy, the aggressor always complains that it is the victim who is ruining things in one way or another, and vice versa the victim will complain (and then later become the aggressor).

I don't think much of either side, but I do care who starts fights and then complains about it feeling all aggrieved.

I get where you are coming from there, and again actually agree with it to an extent, but I think the problem lies in that both sides do the exact same thing. Muslims may have started the original fight, but I think the "war" between Christianity and Islam today arguably has little to do with the original conflicts and more to do with post-Colonial grievances, in which case they would be right in stating the Christians started it. There have been hundreds of years of relative peace (or at least ignoring each other) between the two since the Reconquista, and I think those conflicts need to be seen as completely separate events. The average, or even non-average, Arab has for all intents and purposes zero ties to the Iberian Muslim, and the modern American or British Christian who cries that Muslims started it (as an excuse for why they hate Islam and not from a strictly historical standpoint) has as well zero practical ties to the Eastern Europeans and Spaniards/Portuguese who fought the Muslims. Arguably less, given England's departure from Catholicism and America's mixed Protestant/Anglican heritage.

Of course I bring a bias into it, since I am a mutt of both sides; I have strong Catholic Italian and Greek heritage, but also Levant heritage, so I have cultural reasons to see both sides as having validity..

[Cavebear]

I get where you are coming from there, and again actually agree with it to an extent, but I think the problem lies in that both sides do the exact same thing. Muslims may have started the original fight, but I think the "war" between Christianity and Islam today arguably has little to do with the original conflicts and more to do with post-Colonial grievances, in which case they would be right in stating the Christians started it. There have been hundreds of years of relative peace (or at least ignoring each other) between the two since the Reconquista, and I think those conflicts need to be seen as completely separate events. The average, or even non-average, Arab has for all intents and purposes zero ties to the Iberian Muslim, and the modern American or British Christian who cries that Muslims started it (as an excuse for why they hate Islam and not from a strictly historical standpoint) has as well zero practical ties to the Eastern Europeans and Spaniards/Portuguese who fought the Muslims. Arguably less, given England's departure from Catholicism and America's mixed Protestant/Anglican heritage.

Of course I bring a bias into it, since I am a mutt of both sides; I have strong Catholic Italian and Greek heritage, but also Levant heritage, so I have cultural reasons to see both sides as having validity..

Yet, didn't you start by blaming Christians for the fight?  I personally don't have a side here.  I can watch world history unfold with a sort of studied disinterest not particularly on anyone's side.  Religion?  Stupid.  Racism?  Stupid.  Ethnicity?  Stupid.

Was the division of the Middle East after WWI stupid?  Sure.  Was taking Middle East land to create Israel stupid?  Sure.  Most international political decisions are stupid.  They just deal with the messes of the day and let the future deal with it. 

But one that really gets in my craw is Muslims screaming at Europeans as "Crusaders".  Objectively and logically, that really sucks.  When that argument is dropped the future end of anger has a better chance to end there.

[Shiranu]

Yet, didn't you start by blaming Christians for the fight?

For the current fight, yes. Though I use Christian in a more generic, "European" term and their political actions than a religious group (and same for when I use Muslim). Though let's be honest... European colonialism was done under the guise of Christianity very often, even if it was, much like the modern issue, a tool of propaganda for the real reasons rather than the reason for colonialism itself.


To properly clarify, I don't think there is any relevant "start" to something that has gone on for so long and has had such long periods of peace in between. Only if you are viewing it in a historical context can you really have any reason to bring up who started it.

But one that really gets in my craw is Muslims screaming at Europeans as "Crusaders".  Objectively and logically, that really sucks.  When that argument is dropped the future end of anger has a better chance to end there.

I completely agree with that, which is why pr annoys me because he is the European equivalent. Both are using events they have zero historical or cultural tie (only Imperial ties to) to to justify their bigotry.


Unrelated note, but hurrah to English for to to to making grammatical sense.

[Baruch]

Let's dig deeper, cultural backgrounds that form around an ideology can impact on people's outlook. Is Islam the root cause of things like terror attacks on Europe from middle easterners, or is rather a part of something larger?

Muslim psychology is part of human psychology (unless you think Muslims are undermenschen.  Tom Holland, a British historian who did a recent great book on the birth of Islam (and the other related cultures at that time ... Persia, Byzantium) has made this very clear in a 2014 colloquium to the British Humanist Association.  Islam is fundamentally different, but still human.  The Quran is fundamentally different ... and how Muslims choose to interpret it ... is fundamentally different.  But what can anyone do about that?  European Communism was fundamentally different from what came before (though based on the French Revolution) and look what a mess that created, and is still creating thru socialism.

But don't ascribe anything to a single cause.  A mess is a mess ... and simple answers are bad answers.

[Baruch]

Except just like Islam, blaming the holocaust as violence instituted primarily by Christianity would be stupid and historically inaccurate.

Christianity was a co-conspirator ... if you mean HaShoah ... but there were other factors involved.  We aren't living in the Middle Ages anymore.

[Cavebear]

For the current fight, yes. Though I use Christian in a more generic, "European" term and their political actions than a religious group (and same for when I use Muslim). Though let's be honest... European colonialism was done under the guise of Christianity very often, even if it was, much like the modern issue, a tool of propaganda for the real reasons rather than the reason for colonialism itself.


To properly clarify, I don't think there is any relevant "start" to something that has gone on for so long and has had such long periods of peace in between. Only if you are viewing it in a historical context can you really have any reason to bring up who started it.

See, this is where we disagree.  You are trying to relate the actions of history of a religion that started around 600 AD with a Europe that was in a deep Dark Age at the same time and thinking that it was influencing Islam at the same time. 

And them comparing that to the 1900s after a World War that had the (totally improper) division of the (by then) completely disorganized Middle East.  It wasn't Christianity that chopped up the disorganized Middle East into "nations"; it was political empires in Europe that were (in reality) no more Christian than I am, just political professionals. 

The whole modern use of religion on both sides of this debacle is a side event to equally idiotic Realpolitics. 

"Drums keep beating a rhythm to the brain..."  The reptilian territorial brain, that is.  I don't hear that drum beat.  And you are still hearing an echo of it.  1900s Europeans saw the world as a game of Risk.  You ever played that?

[Baruch]

I liked both of your previous posts on the subject.  It is a pleasure to reply to someone who thinks.

But it is a sort of curse to be both a political and world history major and minor.  I can't escape the overview.  And not being a member of any particular religious group, my world view is even farther outside of my particulars.

The Middle Eastern peoples were not divided artificially by Europeans at the time of the Moslem conquests.  And I doubt the Moslems had much concern or even knowledge over the ancient Alexandrian conquests through Persia to India. 

The Moslem conquest across Northern African Christian settlements there was not because the Greeks came through centuries before.  It was for Allah and conversion.  North African Christians who refused to convert was killed.  And there WERE bloody fights about it.  The North African Christians didn't just say "Oh sure, Allah, fine with us".  They died on fanatic Moslem swords.  As did the Christians in Spain and Eastern Europe. 

If the European Christians hadn't also been fighting the marauding Vikings, they might have put up a better struggle.  Indeed, it was the Moslem invasions at both ends of Europe and the Viking attacks that forced the Europeans to shift from minor Dukedoms to full nations.

You are on weak ground claiming the Moslems were angry at European Christians for the Alexandrian historical attacks (Alexander was not Greek, BTW).  The Greeks were more Asian than European anyway, Alexander was no different from the Persians, Babylonians, etc.  Just another conqueror marching through. 

The Romans never reached the true Middle East.  Israel was about as far as they got and their influence there never affected anyone Arabic.  And they were several centuries removed.

You need a better historical perspective.  The Moslems started the fight with they crazy Christians at swordpoint, and they screamed bloody murder when the invasions were turned against them.

I don't think much of either side, but I do care who starts fights and then complains about it feeling all aggrieved.

Vendetta is the oldest form of social justice.  And it never ends.  And Muslim rhetoric at present is like Western rhetoric ... it is deceptive and political.  Don't believe anything anyone says.  Erdogan is clearest in their intention, to resume Turkish conquest of E Europe.

There are reasons why the high tide of Western invasion ebbed, and so did the high tide of Arabic/Berber/Turkish invasion ebbed.  Difference in language, when you rule an empire.  Having many languages, particularly if they aren't in the same language family, makes administration a nightmare.  This is why the Austro-Hungarian Empire lasted for less than a century.  The languages in N Africa (Berber mostly) and in the N East (Aramaic and Aramaic mostly) were hard to deal with by Greek and Latin speaking people.  The people's involved were fundamentally different.  Similarly with the expansion first of Arabs, then Berbers, then Turks.  Turks have only been able to hold Turkey, because of all the ethnic cleansing and genocide they have done ... it was Greek and pre-Greek Anatolian when they got there.  E Europe and Spain of course have European-family languages that are different from Arabic and Berber.  But the Arabs were able to hold N Africa, precisely because Arabic and Berber are related ... but neither could hold Spain.

[Baruch]

Yet, didn't you start by blaming Christians for the fight?  I personally don't have a side here.  I can watch world history unfold with a sort of studied disinterest not particularly on anyone's side.  Religion?  Stupid.  Racism?  Stupid.  Ethnicity?  Stupid.

Was the division of the Middle East after WWI stupid?  Sure.  Was taking Middle East land to create Israel stupid?  Sure.  Most international political decisions are stupid.  They just deal with the messes of the day and let the future deal with it. 

But one that really gets in my craw is Muslims screaming at Europeans as "Crusaders".  Objectively and logically, that really sucks.  When that argument is dropped the future end of anger has a better chance to end there.

Muslims engage in stupid rhetoric too.  So don't let it bother you.  But also they have a much longer view of history than a baby American.  They really do butt hurt over stuff from 900 years ago.  And that is stupid too.

[pr126]

Baruch wrote

They really do butt hurt over stuff from 900 years ago.  And that is stupid too.

1. It confirms their victim status. 2. Enforces the guilt complex for the Europeans.

History lessons keep quiet about that the crusaders were a response to a 400 year Muslim conquest, plunder and slave taking.

History also doesn’t mention the 14 century long Muslim conquests, massacres (270 million), eradicating civilisations, enslaving hundreds of millions.

And Islam haven’t finished yet. There is still more to take.

[Shiranu]

History lessons keep quiet about that the crusaders were a response to a 400 year Muslim conquest, plunder and slave taking.

My god, you really do try to manage compressing innumerable factors into one sentence so well, and to do their accuracy so poorly.

[pr126]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ilFbbk9jw4

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Except just like Islam, blaming the holocaust as violence instituted primarily by Christianity would be stupid and historically inaccurate.

The point is that Christians claim atheists do terrible things without acknowledging that Christians do so as well.