Islam, Free Speech, & the West

[braces_for_impact]

An article sparked some interest for me today.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/recruiting-for-isis-60-minutes/

I can't imagine someone like Choudary in the U.S. I've followed his exploits for some time, and find him weasely and repugnant.

The Christians here (many of them anyway) are already deathly afraid of Islam; it shows in their end time "prophecies", their sermons, and their intolerance and hatred.

I'm very big into free speech, but guys like Choudary are inciting violence, and it seems a difficult tightrope to walk. I'm curious as to how our UK members assess such a situation.

If someone here was as open and loud as Choudary, I think there are many here that wouldn't be so tolerant as people have been for him there.

I'm curious as to what people feel the differences are between the UK and the US here...

So enlighten me guys, what do you think?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As far as I'm concerned people like that are far over the line.

He's aiding and abetting the enemy in times of war. The fact that the war is religious doesn't somehow change this basic fact.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

As far as I'm concerned people like that are far over the line.

He's aiding and abetting the enemy in times of war. The fact that the war is religious doesn't somehow change this basic fact.

If he actually is helping to recruit for Isis, how is it that he has not been arrested?

 

[ksen]

The War on Terrorism is just about as effective as the War on Drugs.

It doesn't actually try to win, it just tries to maintain enough to keep the money flowing.

 

[dismal]

The War on Terrorism is just about as effective as the War on Drugs.

It doesn't actually try to win, it just tries to maintain enough to keep the money flowing.

That's why we should stick to wars that can be won by giving women free birth control.

 

[ksen]

Sure, kind of like the war on creative driving.

 

[dismal]

Air ball.

 

[Togo]

An article sparked some interest for me today.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/recruiting-for-isis-60-minutes/

I can't imagine someone like Choudary in the U.S. I've followed his exploits for some time, and find him weasely and repugnant.

The Christians here (many of them anyway) are already deathly afraid of Islam; it shows in their end time "prophecies", their sermons, and their intolerance and hatred.

I'm very big into free speech, but guys like Choudary are inciting violence, and it seems a difficult tightrope to walk. I'm curious as to how our UK members assess such a situation.

If someone here was as open and loud as Choudary, I think there are many here that wouldn't be so tolerant as people have been for him there.

I'm curious as to what people feel the differences are between the UK and the US here...

So enlighten me guys, what do you think?

I think that you either have free speech, or you don't. Choudry is very clever to make sure he never publically encourages an individual to do anything illegal, so he's probably going to stay free. It's annoying, but it's better than the alternative.

 

[Warpoet]

I think that you either have free speech, or you don't. Choudry is very clever to make sure he never publically encourages an individual to do anything illegal, so he's probably going to stay free. It's annoying, but it's better than the alternative.

This.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The War on Terrorism is just about as effective as the War on Drugs.

It doesn't actually try to win, it just tries to maintain enough to keep the money flowing.

The "war on drugs" hasn't done a lot to stop drug usage. The "war on terrorism" has prevented additional "9-11s". So, I don't think that comparison has much credence.

 

[bilby]

The War on Terrorism is just about as effective as the War on Drugs.

It doesn't actually try to win, it just tries to maintain enough to keep the money flowing.

The "war on drugs" hasn't done a lot to stop drug usage. The "war on terrorism" has prevented additional "9-11s". So, I don't think that comparison has much credence.

There is still plenty of terrorism in the world. That a once only event has not been repeated is hardly evidence of successful mitigation.

By that standard, we could claim that the war on meteorites has prevented additional Chicxulub impacts.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The "war on drugs" hasn't done a lot to stop drug usage. The "war on terrorism" has prevented additional "9-11s". So, I don't think that comparison has much credence.

There is still plenty of terrorism in the world. That a once only event has not been repeated is hardly evidence of successful mitigation.

By that standard, we could claim that the war on meteorites has prevented additional Chicxulub impacts.

As an American, I'm primarily concerned with Islamic terrorism in the US. Islamic terrorism is currently mostly confined to the countries in the mid east.

 

[bilby]

There is still plenty of terrorism in the world. That a once only event has not been repeated is hardly evidence of successful mitigation.

By that standard, we could claim that the war on meteorites has prevented additional Chicxulub impacts.

As an American, I'm primarily concerned with Islamic terrorism in the US. Islamic terrorism is currently mostly confined to the countries in the mid east.

Why would you care about Islamic terrorism? If you care about religiously motivated terrorism in the US, then Jewish terrorism is a bigger threat; and if you care about terrorism in the US regardless of motive, right-wing extremist terrorism is bigger still. And none of these is big enough to be worth worrying about - unless you work as an anti-terrorism officer for the FBI or a similar policing agency.

Islamic terrorism gets a lot of press; and the Islamic terrorists made big news by hitting a very visible target in Manhattan on the eleventh of September 2001; but that was more than thirteen years ago.

Even when the September 11 attack is included, the level of terrorism in the USA is close enough to nil that it isn't worth worrying about; You are statistically more likely to be killed by yourself than by terrorists if you live in the USA. And that was true before the 'war on terrorism'; That is is still true afterwards simply proves that the 'war' has successfully prevented a non-threat. Like scattering elephant repellent in your backyard, the 'war on terror' has eliminated a threat that was never there surprisingly effectively; But the same result could have been obtained a LOT more cheaply by simply not doing anything at all.

 

[Jokodo]

There is still plenty of terrorism in the world. That a once only event has not been repeated is hardly evidence of successful mitigation.

By that standard, we could claim that the war on meteorites has prevented additional Chicxulub impacts.

As an American, I'm primarily concerned with Islamic terrorism in the US. Islamic terrorism is currently mostly confined to the countries in the mid east.

Wrong. Islamist terrorism has always been largely confined to the countries of the Mid East. If anything, deadly Islamist attacks on Western soil have become more common in the wake of the "War on Terror". The Madrid train bombings were 2004, the London underground bombings 2007. No comparable attacks by Islamist extremists happened anywhere in Europe or North America in the 10 years prior to 2001 (and beyond, but 10 years is enough for a fair comparison).

 

[Shadowy Man]

The "war on drugs" hasn't done a lot to stop drug usage. The "war on terrorism" has prevented additional "9-11s". So, I don't think that comparison has much credence.

There is still plenty of terrorism in the world. That a once only event has not been repeated is hardly evidence of successful mitigation.

By that standard, we could claim that the war on meteorites has prevented additional Chicxulub impacts.

I'm selling some elephant repellant if you are interested...

 

[Harry Bosch]

As an American, I'm primarily concerned with Islamic terrorism in the US. Islamic terrorism is currently mostly confined to the countries in the mid east.

Wrong. Islamist terrorism has always been largely confined to the countries of the Mid East. If anything, deadly Islamist attacks on Western soil have become more common in the wake of the "War on Terror". The Madrid train bombings were 2004, the London underground bombings 2007. No comparable attacks by Islamist extremists happened anywhere in Europe or North America in the 10 years prior to 2001 (and beyond, but 10 years is enough for a fair comparison).

Where am I wrong? I want to lesson Jihadist activities in the US, where I live, because I'm anti getting killed. I think that killing Jihadist leaders and preventing them from having a base where they can plan sophisticated attacks will diminish future 9-11s in the US.

 

[Axulus]

The War on Terrorism is just about as effective as the War on Drugs.

It doesn't actually try to win, it just tries to maintain enough to keep the money flowing.

The "war on drugs" hasn't done a lot to stop drug usage. The "war on terrorism" has prevented additional "9-11s". So, I don't think that comparison has much credence.

How do you know it has prevented additional 9-11s? Perhaps it is the case that no 9-11 has been attempted since then, and the war on terror had little to nothing to do with it.

Take a look at the list here:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255a.html

The number of casualities before and after 9-11 related to Islamic terrorism in the US is largely unchanged (at near zero). With the Boston marathon bombing, it has arguably increased after 9-11 compared to the decade before 9-11.

For a similar analogy, it's like saying that Dodd-Frank has prevented future great recessions or greatly diminished their likelihood by stabilizing the financial sector. How would one support or refute that claim?

 

[Harry Bosch]

The "war on drugs" hasn't done a lot to stop drug usage. The "war on terrorism" has prevented additional "9-11s". So, I don't think that comparison has much credence.

How do you know it has prevented additional 9-11s? Perhaps it is the case that no 9-11 has been attempted since then, and the war on terror had little to nothing to do with it.

Take a look at the list here:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255a.html

The number of casualities before and after 9-11 related to Islamic terrorism in the US is largely unchanged (at near zero). With the Boston marathon bombing, it has arguably increased after 9-11 compared to the decade before 9-11.

For a similar analogy, it's like saying that Dodd-Frank has prevented future great recessions or greatly diminished their likelihood by stabilizing the financial sector. How would one support or refute that claim?

Wow, did you look at your own link? In 2014, 13 Americans killed by Jihadists. Fewer in 2013. 9-11 had more than 3,000 dead - in one attack. I'll trade lone wolf attacks vs planned 9-11's anyday.

 

[bilby]

Wrong. Islamist terrorism has always been largely confined to the countries of the Mid East. If anything, deadly Islamist attacks on Western soil have become more common in the wake of the "War on Terror". The Madrid train bombings were 2004, the London underground bombings 2007. No comparable attacks by Islamist extremists happened anywhere in Europe or North America in the 10 years prior to 2001 (and beyond, but 10 years is enough for a fair comparison).

Where am I wrong? I want to lesson Jihadist activities in the US, where I live, because I'm anti getting killed. I think that killing Jihadist leaders and preventing them from having a base where they can plan sophisticated attacks will diminish future 9-11s in the US.

That's the bit where you are wrong; it is an unsupported assumption, and given that killing people who are assumed to be Jihadist leaders, and doing so in a way that also kills other people in their communities, tends to increase the number of people in those communities who hate the USA and wish to harm her, it is quite probably exactly wrong.

The history of terrorism shows that the more 'hard line' the action taken against terrorist groups is, the more support those groups have. It is something that we saw in Northern Ireland, and that we can still see in the Israel/Palestine conflict - when the major power is ruthless in their use of force against terrorists and terrorist suspects, acts of terror tend to increase in both frequency and violence.

 

[Axulus]

How do you know it has prevented additional 9-11s? Perhaps it is the case that no 9-11 has been attempted since then, and the war on terror had little to nothing to do with it.

Take a look at the list here:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255a.html

The number of casualities before and after 9-11 related to Islamic terrorism in the US is largely unchanged (at near zero). With the Boston marathon bombing, it has arguably increased after 9-11 compared to the decade before 9-11.

For a similar analogy, it's like saying that Dodd-Frank has prevented future great recessions or greatly diminished their likelihood by stabilizing the financial sector. How would one support or refute that claim?

Wow, did you look at your own link? In 2014, 13 Americans killed by Jihadists. Fewer in 2013. 9-11 had more than 3,000 dead - in one attack. I'll trade lone wolf attacks vs planned 9-11's anyday.

And where were the terrorist attacks before 9-11, before the war on terror? What I am saying is that 9-11 was a one off. You can't draw a trend (or lack thereof) from a single data point, just like you can't say "where is the financial system instability since Dodd-Frank was passed?"