patrick.net

thunderlips11 says

No, PC folks are like "We gotta bring them over here by the boatload, and soon, by god! Every moment we waste on triage or identifying them, no, bring them here in large numbers as soon as possible! Anything less proves that we are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic evil people!"

The question of refuges is even worse. A small elite is trying to shame the people of Europe and the US into accepting millions of refugees, clearly against the will of a majority of people.

marcus says

How could anyone have missed knowing how flawed their religion is ?

it seems our president missed it.

and again, role models are important. the president is a role model, and people repeat what he says.

How is having everyone acknowledging how terrible they really are supposed to help the world ?

you can't fix a problem if you won't admit it exists.

the reason islam requires death for people who disparage it is that free speech is exactly their weak point.

they are very afraid of open rational commentary on the actual nature of islam. that is why we must talk about it. it is our best defense, actually.

this essay is very well done, imho:

http://patrick.net/Islam

it's sympathetic, supposedly by a former muslim himself, lots of actual quotes from the koran, and pleads for muslims to re-join humanity.

you'd get killed for distributing that in saudi.

Is it like this ?

First we shun the entire Islamic world. Basically we send them to their room, without any dinner, to reflect on what kind of people they want to be. In a little while, they will realize we are right, that they have been behaving badly, or their extremists have. And they better get their extremists under control if they want to be able to rejoin the rest of us in the modern world. If not we will relegate them to some very large part of the world where they can be poor and reproduce like crazy,... until ?

Surely that will work.

i don't think isolating them will help them see the true nature of islam, but it will help protect the random innocent civilians that they routinely massacre, and that's the more urgent task, even if it's not the more important task (which is open public statements by everyone on earth simply pointing out and rejecting the violence inherent in islam)

it seems our president missed it.

Why ? Because he shows a little respect for a group of people and a religion that includes over well over 1 billion people ?

You think it would be wise for a President to condemn an entire religion, and indirectly entire countries that affiliate themselves with that religion ?

you can't fix a problem if you won't admit it exists.

Nobody is denying it. Islam takes a huge PR hit, every time something like this last weekend happens. The thing that will kill Islam the fastest is more of that kind of behavior, and the Islamic world, at least the smarter 2/3 of it, knows that well.

this essay is very well done, imho:

http://patrick.net/Islam

Yes, but there's a strong anti Muslim bias there. It's sort of like when an exChristian rails against fundamentalist Christianity. Not that most of what he would say isn't true, but it's a very biased view.

Just like the bible, the Koran can be taken literally by idiotic fundamentalists, or it can be taken as symbolic and metaphorically with some little sections ignored as pertaining to another millenium by moderate practitioners. This can be easily verified by anyone who is interested in doing as you say, their homework.

Here is the type of reading that I find informative and less biased, even if it is complex and doesn't lend itself to simplistic platitudes. If you're looking for something to reinforce your hate, you won't like it.

But you might be able to get something out of it. Maybe not. Maybe it's all all lies and PC nonsense to you.

http://americanhumanist.org/humanism/Islam_and_Terrorism:_a_Humanist_View

I'm going to get a lot of flak because of the source.

Modern Muslim terrorist groups are more rooted in national liberation ideologies of the 19th and 20th centuries than they are in the Islamic tradition. Although these terrorist groups adopt various theological justifications for their behavior, their ideologies, symbolism, language and organizational structure reflect the influence of the anti-colonial struggle of the developing world. For instance, the groups often use expressions . . . imported from national liberation struggles against colonialism [which] did not emerge from the Islamic heritage. In short, modern Muslim terrorism is part of the historical legacy of colonialism and not the legacy of Islamic law. According to the Islamic juristic tradition, terrorists would have no quarter.

Heraclitusstudent says

The question of refuges is even worse. A small elite is trying to shame the people of Europe and the US into accepting millions of refugees, clearly against the will of a majority of people.

Great example. Bowling Green, KY gets two Al Qaeda Operatives.

Of the 31 states that have declared their opposition to taking in Syrian refugees, one state, Kentucky, has a specific reason to be wary of the background check process: previously two Iraqi refugees who settled in Bowling Green turned out to be al Qaeda-linked terrorists with the blood of American soldiers on their hands, an ABC News investigation found. Both pleaded guilty to terror-connected charges after trying to acquire heavy weapons while in America’s heartland.

The 2013 ABC News investigation also revealed that several dozen other suspected terrorist bombmakers, including some who were believed to have targeted U.S. troops, may have mistakenly been allowed to move to the U.S. as Iraq and Afghanistan War refugees, among the tens of thousands of innocent immigrants.

The Obama administration insists now that Syrian refugees are subjected to intense vetting before they’re allowed to settle in the U.S. and that a vast majority of the millions of refugees the U.S. has resettled since the 1970s are normal, peaceful people, but the program has had serious security problems before. In 2009, a flaw in background screening of Iraqi refugees allowed the two al Qaeda-linked terrorists to settle in Bowling Green

The two men, Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, were caught on surveillance video in 2010 in a storage locker in Kentucky handling heavy weapons, including a Russian-made machine gun and a Stinger missile launcher, which the FBI said the men thought would be smuggled to insurgents in Iraq.

An FBI agent assigned to the sting operation that eventually nabbed Alwan and Hammadi told ABC News for its original report that Alwan had bragged to an informant about killing American soldiers in Iraq.

"He said he had them 'for lunch and dinner,'" FBI Louisville Supervisory Special Agent Tim Beam told ABC News in 2013.

Quick! Quick! We gotta get them in or it'll be a humanitarian disaster. No time to worry about IDs and vetting. Hurry, for humanity's sake, as many as possible, as fast as possible, or we're homophobe racist monsters!

Heraclitusstudent says

Yes, I have seen plenty. Even today I saw someone on FB saying France caused the attack by bombing Isis.

I've seen the same kind of self flagellation with the Charlie attack: "they looked for it".

This was the same as after 9/11--Noam Chomsky, et al, were thrilled.

By the way, US Refugee Tsar did not know Tzarnev brothers were refugees.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/01/u-s-refugee-chief-didnt-know-boston-bombers-were-refugees/

Osho was an elightened master and he has given discourses on verses of enlightened masters from all over the world. He was such a learned man , he gave discourses on Ikkyu ( enlightened master from Japan) , Gurdjieff ( from Germany )......He literally spoke on everyone but He did't speak on Koran

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=155819433

I think , There needs to be a debate and some of the very belief system needs to be openly discussed .

bgamall4 says

They didn't kill anyone. You know that.

You only have scratched the surface of the plot, Gary.

I say no more. I've already provided you with too much information.

bgamall4 says

now we find out France may impose free speech limitations on people speaking about conspiracies, but of course you will still get to insult Allah.

The policies of France on the matter are patently stupid. They imposed free speech limits already (terrorist apology) following terrorist attacks on free speech.

marcus says

Just like the bible, the Koran can be taken literally by idiotic fundamentalists, or it can be taken as symbolic and metaphorically

Except a large share of Muslims do insist in taking this literally.
You are right they don't have to. And they must be persuaded not to.
Someone has to talk to them, and tell them "Look this is evil, what you are doing is evil, and the rules that led you there are medieval sadism. Give it up."
We are not doing that.

marcus says

Islam takes a huge PR hit, every time something like this last weekend happens. The thing that will kill Islam the fastest is more of that kind of behavior, and the Islamic world, at least the smarter 2/3 of it, knows that well.

No it won't. It's a PR hit in the west only. Most Muslims think it is ok, and many rejoice. As Harris is saying, horror pictures from ISIS are used as recruitment tools.
You assume everyone thinks like you. They don't. .

marcus says

Why ? Because he shows a little respect for a group of people and a religion that includes over well over 1 billion people ?

You think it would be wise for a President to condemn an entire religion, and indirectly entire countries that affiliate themselves with that religion ?

This is where you need to separate the people from the ideas. You need to say "these acts are evil. The beliefs that led to these acts are obvious evil, for any man of good faith. Muslim needs to consider why they insist in believing in such rules as part of a spiritual path."

It would be very easy for Obama to pick out the most egregious acts done in the name of Islam and denounce them in that kind of terms.

marcus says

In short, modern Muslim terrorism is part of the historical legacy of colonialism and not the legacy of Islamic law.

muslim terrorism is not part of the historical legacy of muslim terrorism?

instead the west is to blame for guys yelling allahu akbar and machinegunning civilians?

they might be mad you're trying to let the west take credit when they worked so hard to kill those people.

marcus says

Nobody is denying it.

they are all denying it.

name one mainstream media source that admits islam is directly responsible for islamic terrorism.

Strategist says

What good is Islam?????

It keeps birth rate up.

The fundamental problem we face today in Western modern society is the collapse of human fertility. If this demographic trend continues, we are doomed just like late Roman secularists (including Hypatia) were doomed by the early Christians, by sheer numbers as each generation of early Christians far out-reproduced the secularists. The Dark Age followed after the religious zealots took over.

If during the month of 150 deaths in France, Isis can cause the deaths of 15,000 muslims in the same month in the middleast via their instigation of the internecine wars there, and suck 1500 French muslims to the middleast to be legally droned to death there instead of converting more French women to Islam, it may well be an institution worthy of clandestine funding.

The fundamental solution to the problem has to be a demographic solution: how to encourage western women to produce more children born into surroundings where they can be raised in rational non-violent fashion, with constant attention from parents when toddler then shown proper role models of diligent work ethics by their parents as they enter pre-teen and teenage years, so they can grow up to be rational independent adults, not fearful of risks, not afflicted with the superstitions of power (whether in the name of "god" or "government").

One solution is a 10% tax credit for every child in the household (i.e. 10% reduction in total tax due for every child; 5 children and your total tax liability is cut in half, as your family is raising the next generation for the society), combined with mandatory birth control for receiving any welfare, applied to all welfare recipients native or immigrant. That would quickly optimize the next generation towards a more productive demographic, instead of the current nightmarish breeding of dependent population subsidized by taxes and public borrowing.

bgamall4 says

How did the French Jews know that there would be an imminent attack on Friday Morning of the attack?

I have a lot of questions.

Well France is at fault. Netanyahu did warn them a year ago...
http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-netanyahu-warns-of-grave-mistake-if-france-recognises-palestine-2014-11

thunderlips11 says

Missing the point. If 35% of Southerners thought Lynchings were okay, you wouldn't be saying

"Well, that doesn't mean they think that the lynching of ordinary criminals awaiting trial is okay... maybe just blacks".

Which is exactly the point Sam Harris is making. We don't go out of our way to justify this with ourselves or really anybody, except Muslims.

That's stupid. I'm not going out of my way to justify.

But when you have 3 words allocated for a statistic, it's worth thinking about what it means.

I actually think that the fact that 65% say suicide bombing in NEVER justified is a good number, and I'm not at that surprised that 35% think it's ever justified.

Not defending it. Just saying it doesn't make me thinki Muslims are more violent than I thought they were, in fact it supports the idea that they are less violent than you and Patrick think they are. That is if most of the 35% that think it is ever justified are thinking of Palestinians.

Apparently you missed the point.

they are all denying it.

name one mainstream media source that admits islam is directly responsible for islamic terrorism.

You are so full of it Patrick. They are known by all as radical Islamic terrorists. I've never NEVER heard the Islamic part denied.

Sure some say that the Islam part isn't the cause in a vacuum, and anyone who is not retarded knows this to be true.

Heraclitusstudent says

Someone has to talk to them, and tell them "Look this is evil, what you are doing is evil, and the rules that led you there are medieval sadism. Give it up."

We are not doing that.

Everyone agree that that has to come from their own communities. And everyone agrees it has to happen more than it does, But it does happen. With a little searching you can find the list of Islamic clerics and Islamic government leaders that condemn these acts.

And only someone with severe cognitive deficits would not understand the degree to which this is a direct hit to Islam.

It's not intellectuals that are crying out that Islam must be blamed, it's fucking everyone !

The loudest are going to be the right wingers, and the uneducated, that can't handle complexity, which is why I'm surprised to hear Patrick taking such a simplistic view.

But also he and T-lips are kind of fighting a wierd straw man, because it's not like I don't agree with a big part of what they are saying. It's just that I'm also looking at the bigger picture, and understanding there is not an easy solution to this. And my point is that, not only are fear and hate not a solution, if fear and hate is all we've got, it could make the problem worse.

marcus says

You are so full of it Patrick. They are known by all as radical Islamic terrorists. I've never NEVER heard the Islamic part denied.

i'm sorry to say you're also full of it marcus.

the president ALWAYS says "these people are not true muslims" or some bullshit like that.

the president ALWAYS says "these people are not true muslims" or some bullshit like that.

He's right. There's far more difference between the beliefs of different Muslim groups than there are between say Unity Christian church and radical Baptists. Most true muslims do not agree with the terrorists. You can split hairs, over irrelevant semantics, but what Obama means is that the terrorists don't represent the typical Muslim, and that is undeniably true.

Heraclitusstudent says

Talking of Pew:

Look at the percentages that say suicide bombing is never justified.

What is it exactly that you want ? And please describe how even in some fantasy world what you would want would help.

Also please consider how it might harm, by inciting violence against innocent Muslims.

marcus says

the president ALWAYS says "these people are not true muslims" or some bullshit like that.

He's right.

wait, you just ignored the point where you said you NEVER heard the islamic part denied.

and i pointed out you're just making up bullshit, because the president ALWAYS says that islamic terrorists are not islamic.

and you ignored my calling out your bullshit.

and we're not splitting hairs here. islam explicitly and repeatedly calls for violence against non-believers.

Heraclitusstudent says

No it won't. It's a PR hit in the west only. Most Muslims think it is ok, and many rejoice. As Harris is saying, horror pictures from ISIS are used as recruitment tools.

Right. ISIS Videos include beheadings and include throwing haram doers off buildings. Because it excites and is liked by Muslims and makes ISIS look like the Good Guys to them. They think justice is being done on the gays and the non-burka wearers and the infidels and want to joint to help.

Remember, Islam must cover the Earth to bring in the End of Days. There must not be one disbeliever left. Christianity's end of days is a mystery; Judaism has no end of the world.

"Please consider the harm, Winston, by going after Hitler constantly. You're just motivating the Nazi's grievances. Proving to them that the British want to keep them down. Besides, they can be useful against Russia."

wait, you just ignored the point where you said you NEVER heard the islamic part denied.

That's right. I've never heard anyone deny that the individual terrorists are Islamic extremists, nor have I heard anyone deny that they profess their religious beliefs to be a key part of their reason for the attacks. (although I think especially in the case of Palestinians - we know it's very much about other things).

Not only is it not denied, it is always very well understood BY EVERYONE that the terrorists are Islamic extremists. ALWAYS.

But at the same time I have heard politicians and various other leaders say essentially that the terrorists are not representing true Islam or something to that effect. I do not find this to be a lie.

I take it to mean that they do not represent the beliefs of most practitioners of Islam. YOu want to quote arcane scripture to tell you what Islam is. I find it more appropriate to consider what a super majority of members of Islamic faiths actually believe !

and you ignored my calling out your bullshit.

Actually, I'm calling you out on yours. Because we both know that what Obama means is that the terrorists do not represent the beliefs of the typical Muslim. The religion is best defined by what most of it's members actually believe.

About 70% say they NEVER think a suicide bombing is justified.

And of the 30% that think they are sometimes justified, a majority are probably thinking about Palestinians.

Therefore a very large majority of Muslims do not have beliefs that are consistent with those of the terrorists.

You're too hung up on parsing a phrase, and not looking at what Obama's intention and meaning are. Part of it is, that if he were to imply that all Muslims are to blame, then random acts of violence against good muslims can be justified in some circles. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend ?

thunderlips11 says

You only have scratched the surface of the plot, Gary.

That's just great Thunder. We as Zionists, are expressly forbidden to reveal this information to Gary. Now he will figure out our plans and reveal them to the whole world.

islam explicitly and repeatedly calls for violence against non-believer

Even in that one interpretation, the context is usually relating to the types of wars that occurred more than a millenium ago. Plenty of current Muslims interpret these in a much different way (either as relating to an internal struggle or as irrelevant to modernity), or they don't even care about literal interpretations of scripture. This is something Islam has very much in common with Christianity. The moderate majority are not so in to literal translation and application of ancient scriptures to modern problems.

When current radicals do embrace the violent aspect of scripture, it's usually because they perceive other reasons for a modern fight against an oppressor. I'm not defending this. Simply observing that this piece usually exists on top of the religious part. But yes, they use religion in these cases to justify a particularly ugly and immoral form of warfare.

Your entire argument is based on generalizing the very worst aspects of the very worst of the fundamentalists, on to an entire religion which happens to include many tens of millions in the the modern western world who totally disagree with and condemn terrorism.

Fucked By Goats Ironman says

When claiming the moral imperative of attacking ideas, religious ideas mind you, instead of the actions of religions' extremists as such you're going to see hesitation in others which you shouldn't be quick to characterize as apology or support.

Sam Harris is not a right wing nut aiming for the conclusion that anything remotely Islamic or Arab should be systematically destroyed. He is a philosopher, a neuroscientist, and a liberal.
Maajid Nawaz is a former member of a radical Islamist group and went to prison for that. He is now a liberal. That gives him a slight authority to talk about these ideas.

These 2 are not trying to imply that Islam should just be bombed into oblivion as Strategist too easily imply. They know ideas are not destroyed by bombs and as such any military action can only be a partial solution. Instead they are talking about a pragmatic plan to reform it. And the first step of any such plan is to stop denying there is a problem with these ideas. If you don't do that, then there is no solution. You just let things fester as they are. Maybe when we are talking yellow mushrooms you will finally change your mind?

All the points raised in this thread:
- "modern Muslim terrorism is part of the historical legacy of colonialism and not the legacy of Islamic law"
- "just another bigoted prick"
- "attacking ideas, religious ideas mind you, instead of the actions of religions' extremists as such you're going to see hesitation in others which you shouldn't be quick to characterize as apology or support"
- "Before the rise of Islamic extremism and Islamic terrorism nobody gave a shit about the heinous ideas at the heart of it. "
- "What not to do is the easy part: 1. Anything that resembles the Iraq war "

were already answered in the video and the link I posted here: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sleepwalking-toward-armageddon

Just look at this thread: just raising the prospect of a discussion of religious ideas brings a barrage of comments from the left claiming that either:
- "the problem is in fact not with these ideas."
-> which is a form of pure denial of what the texts are in fact saying, and the actions they lead to, and as such it is intellectual dishonesty.
- "yes there is obviously a problem but there is nothing we can do, the problem is too big, or that will piss out a billion Muslim and maybe Christians too, and maybe restrict religious liberties."
-> Pointing at the scale of the problem to do nothing is just moral cowardice in the face of evil. Nazi Germany was big too. So were the Soviets. The question is are we going to continue doing nothing and continue to tolerate and give a huge space to these ideas?

Fucked By Goats Ironman says

Dialogue is vital, but what are you prepared to do if non-violent Muslim Americans refuse to condemn these portions of their holy scripture?

I'm prepared to continue pointing out the result of violent actions and pointing out that these beliefs continue to lead to evil. Until it is obvious that they are.

Fucked By Goats Ironman says

you can't accomplish that by vilifying non-violent Muslims who remain devout and embrace scriptural infallibility.

I'm obviously not proposing to vilify the non-violent Muslims, and yourself point out, yes infallibility is a problem but all "infallible" scriptures are subjected to layers of interpretations. Such interpretations in fact almost always become the center of any religion. So it can be done.

thunderlips11 says

You're just motivating the Nazi's grievances

Impressive. Resorting to Nazis.

You know that means you don't have a leg to stand on, right ?

Meanhile you have no clue even what my point is. That is what I agree with you on, what I disagree with you on.

You have no coherent point.

Where as I do. My point is simply that you guys are spewing a bunch of irrational emotional hogwash. And even you don't know what your fucking point is.

marcus says

What is it exactly that you want ? And please describe how even in some fantasy world, how what you would want would help.

marcus says

Your entire argument is based on generalizing the very worst aspects of the very worst of the fundamentalists, on to an entire religion

1 - The most extreme fundamentalists (just like for nazis or communists) often carry the day
2 - if you look at a map the countries where islamic jihadists are a problem, this is not a minority of muslim countries: everywhere you look: Middle East, Asia, Africa, there are large problems
3 - A large share Muslims in fact believe in the DIRECT application of sharia law and a LITERAL interpretation of the texts. We are not just talking of suicide bombers, we are talking of slavery, mutilations and murder within Muslim populations themselves.

Why are you guys so eager to deny there is in fact a problem?

Fucked By Goats Ironman says

I think your and Lips' characterization of liberals apologizing for and begging for trainloads of un-vetted refugees is specious and lazy. Beyond that, it is my impression that the only American conservatives split on the notion of banning ME refugees are the evangelicals. Does that surprise either of you?

As far as refugees are concerned, I''m not even talking of the US but of Europe. And it's not me who is lazy.
- Look first why so many people are suddenly moving: not because they are suddenly all a risk of a terrible death. Many come from territories where fighting isn't happening. In fact many of them are not even Syrians or just pretending to be Syrians with fake passports. They move because they suddenly see a chance at a different life based on Germany and Sweden open door policy. In other words: they are not war refugees, they are economic migrants.
- What happens to arabs in Europe? They are grouped in poor suburbs (Saint Denis, Molenbeek, you name it), where they stick together, watch Arab TV networks on satellites, have almost no economic opportunities. Crime is rampant in these cities. "Integration" is non-existent. They are widely rejected by the rest of the population. They basically form a intrusive foreign group within European societies. Given this is the case, how stupid does any one has to be to add millions of people to that problem? I can't even imagine.
- I'm not even talking of Isis operatives but with millions, it would be VERY surprising if dozens or even hundreds are not Isis operatives.

The only argument in favor of adding this population is economic. And arguably for some people, it's all that counts. But in view of the other problems, it is almost silly.
There won't be an economy if there is a civil war.

marcus says

Impressive. Resorting to Nazis.

You know that means you don't have a leg to stand on, right ?

No, it doesn't. Godwin's law is more about "The Nazis wanted to ban smoking too. Because you want to ban smoking, you're a Nazi."

I'm not making comparisons about what Nazis wanting the same thing as Islam. I'm making a comparison about what the majority of the British Elite told Nazi Critics like Churchill when they criticized Nazism. Sympathy with the Nazis went as far as the Royal Family.

Heraclitusstudent says

2 - if you look at a map the countries where islamic jihadists are a problem, this is not a minority of muslim countries: everywhere you look: Middle East, Asia, Africa, there are large problems

Yep, As far as Nigeria, clear on the West Coast of Africa thousands of miles from Saudi Arabia.

In fact, by confirmed deaths, Boko Haram is more dangerous than ISIS.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/11/17/nigeria-bombing/75960116/

This isn't just Iraq and Syria. It's also Nigeria, where we have not been bombing. It ain't all about us.

The solution is requiring mandatory contraception as condition for receiving welfare; it is more humane and more feasible than removing altogether the welfare state that is both attracting the economic migrants and inducing laziness.

To make up for the population loss due to this mandatory contraception, there should be a tax incentive for people to make more babies: 20% income tax credit instead of a fixed amount for every baby.

It is not possible to suppress a virulent religion using secularist force of arms (ref. Soviet experience in Afghanistan and Roman experience suppressing early Christianity). The real danger we face is muslims taking advantage of existing mandatory wealth transfer systems in western society to multiply like the early Christians did and making Islam into a mandatory religion in the West in a century or two, just like Christianity became official religion by 313AD, and Hypatia was murdered by a Christian mob a century later. That would be the dawn of a new dark age. In order to delay that from happening, there has to be a set of incentives for secular women to produce more children.

As for turning Islam into a more peaceful religion, we need to recognize that Christianity did not become a tolerant religion until after the 30 Year War, a genocidal war waged in central Europe between Catholics vs. Protestants, with the French siding with Protestants despite being Catholics themselves due to political balance of power reasons. After the Sunnis and Shiites throw a few nukes at each other, Islam will become a peaceful religion; the voices for reason among muslims can only cower in fear until that happens first.

Aside from helping bringing about that as soon as possible, we need to stay the heck out of middle east and increase our own numbers in the western world.

Heraclitusstudent says

Why are you guys so eager to deny there is in fact a problem?

Who's eager to deny that ? Nobody, I assure you. In fact it's because of how important a problem it is, that I think what we do about it (or don't do) is so important.

We regularly hear that the behavior of today's Muslim terrorists is nothing new - that 'they' have been arguing, fighting, and killing one another for ages, and that the deep-seated hatred on display today is ingrained in their culture. I disagree.

I am no historian on the religious and cultural history of the Middle East, but I for one have found scant evidence that Muslims have been murdering large groups of innocent men women and children (in ADVANCE of strategic battles) specifically to create fear of their efforts and to call attention to their beliefs. There are always cherries to be picked in an historical context, but as far as I am concerned, what is going on in our generation is something new.

It is possible that YouTube and instantaneous internet is as responsible as the zealotry of religious conviction for their sociopathic behavior.
If some dusty nutcase sawed off some innocent foreigner's head to make a dramatic point back in the 80's, Peter Jennings et al would hardly have mentioned it on the News at 9. It would be like giving free publicity to Lennon's assassin, after he revealed that that is precisely why he killed John.

Religion may not be the cause, but only the excuse for extremist behavior. Even atheists will gravitate towards placing faith in something they do not understand which they hope is true. They certainly will not call it "God", but it will have all of the trappings of the Unknowable and Untouchable Thing that steers mortals by fear or unattainable promise toward some lofty goal.

The INTERNET itself for example. It was created by no one. It cannot be stopped, unplugged, fully controlled, or fully understood. It has its prophets and gatekeepers. It is everywhere and nowhere; it is the key to knowledge; it allows any 'follower' to see anywhere across the globe in the blink of an eye. It eats and reproduces but lives forever. It is a map to everywhere. We can address it by talking to it. It tailors its message to our needs. It is a deity as worthy of worship as ever was the Sun. And we give it a single name.

Religion is a side effect of cognitive dissonance, and atheism does not truly exist at all as long as humans remain curious and afraid of things they don't understand - be that the world-wide web, distant cultures, or climate change. How do you derail human curiosity and fear? eab

deepcgi says

I am no historian on the religious and cultural history of the Middle East, but I for one have found scant evidence that Muslims have been murdering large groups of innocent men women and children (in ADVANCE of strategic battles) specifically to create fear of their efforts and to call attention to their beliefs. There are always cherries to be picked in an historical context, but as far as I am concerned, what is going on in our generation is something new.

Would you consider slave raids and piracy to be terror?

Islamic Slave Raids landed as far as Ireland and Iceland. Terror Attacks to loot and rape. Millions of Europeans were taken in slavery to Muslim Lands, not just in the Balkans by the Ottomans. These weren't once in a while things, they were as regular as clockwork. Barbary Piracy continued into the 19th Century.

"From the Halls of Montezuma... To the Shores of Tripoli..."

The USMC Song is not referring to 1986.

As for imperialism and oppression, just a few hundred years ago Islamic Imperialists conquered more than a quarter of Europe, taking sons from families and cutting their balls off to be servants or soldiers. Ask anybody from the Balkans, they can tell you about the Islamic History that wasn't covered in US or English Schools.

deepcgi says

Religion is a side effect of cognitive dissonance, and atheism does not truly exist at all as long as humans remain curious and afraid of things they don't understand - be that the world-wide web, distant cultures, or climate change. How do you derail human curiosity and fear?

When faced with the unknown, some people take their best guess and act on it. Other people make a big deal over and celebrate the ability to have faith that there is a god controlling things. These are two very different responses. For some reason that I don't understand, the people who celebrate having faith always try to say that the other people have faith too, just in something else. Otherwise, you bring up some good points, especially with regard to the impact of technology.