Another London terror attack

[NineBerry]

No one says that any criticism of Islam is racism. This is a strawman.

[JimC]

No one says that any criticism of Islam is racism. This is a strawman.

I have certainly heard it from a variety of commentators on the left, possibly with the mild hedge involving "almost all criticism"

It's another example of the polarisation that occurs in this sort of debate.

[NineBerry]

You should have your hearing checked.

[JimC]

Check your privileges, Kraut!

[NineBerry]

I check them every evening. They are perfectly fine and growing constantly under my loving care.

[laklak]

...getting into bed with rednecks.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Come on, you know you would...

[Hermit]

There wasn't the need to engage in the classic acts of "terrorism" that we see today, because they had the institutional power at the time.

...

It was the breakup of the Ottoman Empire that has caused the aggression and oppression of Islam to change into the form we began to see during the 20th century.

Full marks for effort, but the gap between the fall of the Ottoman empire and the advent of Islamic suicide bombers makes it a total fail.

[pErvinalia]

And pointing to generalised violence as some sort of proof is decidedly lacking as well. The west was horrifically violent back then too.

[JimC]

There wasn't the need to engage in the classic acts of "terrorism" that we see today, because they had the institutional power at the time.

...

It was the breakup of the Ottoman Empire that has caused the aggression and oppression of Islam to change into the form we began to see during the 20th century.

Full marks for effort, but the gap between the fall of the Ottoman empire and the advent of Islamic suicide bombers makes it a total fail.

I think there is still a grain of truth in 42's analysis, in the sense that terrorism was not a meaningful option during Ottoman rule. The time delay can be explained by the time taken before bushels of oil money later in the 20th century both allowed funding of islamic terrorism, and by relatively rapid economic development, started to make the fundamentalists worried about being polluted by Western values. Add to that the Israel/Palestine conflict, and you've got a perfect storm...

[pErvinalia]

The problem, in my view, is not Muslims, it's Islam.

Where were the suicide bombers, al Quaida, IS, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc in the first half of the last century?

Well, here's how the Islamic Ottoman Empire started the first half of the 20th century.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Ottoma ... 07-to-1920

[pErvinalia]

There wasn't the need to engage in the classic acts of "terrorism" that we see today, because they had the institutional power at the time.

...

It was the breakup of the Ottoman Empire that has caused the aggression and oppression of Islam to change into the form we began to see during the 20th century.

Full marks for effort, but the gap between the fall of the Ottoman empire and the advent of Islamic suicide bombers makes it a total fail.

I think there is still a grain of truth in 42's analysis, in the sense that terrorism was not a meaningful option during Ottoman rule. The time delay can be explained by the time taken before bushels of oil money later in the 20th century both allowed funding of islamic terrorism, and by relatively rapid economic development, started to make the fundamentalists worried about being polluted by Western values. Add to that the Israel/Palestine conflict, and you've got a perfect storm...

How's that any different to saying that violence is inherent in Christianity but it is not manifest much at the moment due to the current social situations in the West?

[Svartalf]

There wasn't the need to engage in the classic acts of "terrorism" that we see today, because they had the institutional power at the time.

...

It was the breakup of the Ottoman Empire that has caused the aggression and oppression of Islam to change into the form we began to see during the 20th century.

Full marks for effort, but the gap between the fall of the Ottoman empire and the advent of Islamic suicide bombers makes it a total fail.

and anyway islamic terrorist suicide attacks go back at least to Hassan al Sabbah and his Hashishins

[JimC]

There wasn't the need to engage in the classic acts of "terrorism" that we see today, because they had the institutional power at the time.

...

It was the breakup of the Ottoman Empire that has caused the aggression and oppression of Islam to change into the form we began to see during the 20th century.

Full marks for effort, but the gap between the fall of the Ottoman empire and the advent of Islamic suicide bombers makes it a total fail.

I think there is still a grain of truth in 42's analysis, in the sense that terrorism was not a meaningful option during Ottoman rule. The time delay can be explained by the time taken before bushels of oil money later in the 20th century both allowed funding of islamic terrorism, and by relatively rapid economic development, started to make the fundamentalists worried about being polluted by Western values. Add to that the Israel/Palestine conflict, and you've got a perfect storm...

How's that any different to saying that violence is inherent in Christianity but it is not manifest much at the moment due to the current social situations in the West?

Well, the main difference is that I am suggesting some actual details that lead (IMO) to the current social situation re islamic terrorism. And I don't think violence is inherent to christianity, but it can certainly emerge in the right context, one that is now mostly in the past. I can imagine the possibility of a totally non-violent Islam, but that would require some serious social changes...

[pErvinalia]

I'm also addressing that to the others who said that violence is inherent in Islam.

[JimC]

I reckon you could make an argument that, although both religions clearly have a potential to use violence in the name of their religion, aspects of its founding and religious literature make Islam somewhat more likely to use it. And that is not using the merely historical fact that, for whatever series of reasons, christianity is currently in a relatively non-violent phase (unlike much of its past) whereas Islam currently has a core of violence firmly ensconced within it.