Posted on Nov 23, 2015
Do you agree that Blaming Islam For Paris Attacks Is Both Immoral and Bad Strategy?
6.18K
57
40
6
6
0
Do agree that Blaming Islam For Paris Attacks Is Both Immoral and Bad Strategy?
The outpouring of anti-Islamic and anti-refugee sentiment is a gift for Islamic extremist recruitment.
RP Members do you agree or disagree with the author on this one? I still have my reservations about the refugee situation here in the United States! Your thoughts?
http://taskandpurpose.com/blaming-islam-for-paris-attacks-is-both-immoral-and-bad-strategy/
On Nov. 13, three separate attacks in Paris shocked us. Without a doubt, the attacks in Paris were hideous. The perpetrators, planners, and supporters of these acts deserve nothing less than death. Following the attacks social media erupted with sympathy for the victims, but also vitriol and rage. Much outrage was, and continues, to be directed at the Islamic faith as a whole and specifically at the Syrian refugee population. These angry sentiments are counterproductive to an effective response. Anger is understandable, but not toward an entire religion or refugee population.
In any group there is a broad range of beliefs. Members of the Islamic faith are the same. It is a massive community with a wide spectrum of viewpoints. Some members of the Islamic faith are the enemies of the West, nothing less. Yet, others are not. Some of those could be enemies, but are not yet. Portions subscribe to versions of Islam that perpetuate and support terrorism, and other barbaric acts. There are some members of the Islamic faith who choose to be enemies of the West, while others are not; their choice of opposition is political. As politics shift, so do our future enemies and allies.
The outpouring of anti-Islamic and anti-refugee sentiment is a gift for Islamic extremist recruitment.
RP Members do you agree or disagree with the author on this one? I still have my reservations about the refugee situation here in the United States! Your thoughts?
http://taskandpurpose.com/blaming-islam-for-paris-attacks-is-both-immoral-and-bad-strategy/
On Nov. 13, three separate attacks in Paris shocked us. Without a doubt, the attacks in Paris were hideous. The perpetrators, planners, and supporters of these acts deserve nothing less than death. Following the attacks social media erupted with sympathy for the victims, but also vitriol and rage. Much outrage was, and continues, to be directed at the Islamic faith as a whole and specifically at the Syrian refugee population. These angry sentiments are counterproductive to an effective response. Anger is understandable, but not toward an entire religion or refugee population.
In any group there is a broad range of beliefs. Members of the Islamic faith are the same. It is a massive community with a wide spectrum of viewpoints. Some members of the Islamic faith are the enemies of the West, nothing less. Yet, others are not. Some of those could be enemies, but are not yet. Portions subscribe to versions of Islam that perpetuate and support terrorism, and other barbaric acts. There are some members of the Islamic faith who choose to be enemies of the West, while others are not; their choice of opposition is political. As politics shift, so do our future enemies and allies.
ISIS
Islam
Paris
Strategy
What Would You Do
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 17
6
6
0
Is blaming Islam for Paris attacks both immoral and bad strategy? A few questions:
- Is it true? If it is true, how can it be immoral? If it is true, basic problem solving methodology starts with defining the problem. A properly defined problem is more likely to lead to a good strategy than an improperly defined problem.
- I fail to see how labeling terrorists as "radical islamists" is an attack an all Muslims. If that is true then accurately calling someone an "illegal immigrant" is an attack on all migrants into the US. I know some people believe this but I do not. Words matter. Proper and precise words should be used to define and describe the problem we are facing.
- The fight against radical Islam is an ideological and a kinetic fight. This is not a new phenomenon. The Western Allies engaged and successfully defeated several ideological and kinetic fights in the 20th Century to include: communism (Cold War), socialism (mainly 1930s but after as well), and Nazism (WWII). Let's not reinvent the wheel here.
- Is it true? If it is true, how can it be immoral? If it is true, basic problem solving methodology starts with defining the problem. A properly defined problem is more likely to lead to a good strategy than an improperly defined problem.
- I fail to see how labeling terrorists as "radical islamists" is an attack an all Muslims. If that is true then accurately calling someone an "illegal immigrant" is an attack on all migrants into the US. I know some people believe this but I do not. Words matter. Proper and precise words should be used to define and describe the problem we are facing.
- The fight against radical Islam is an ideological and a kinetic fight. This is not a new phenomenon. The Western Allies engaged and successfully defeated several ideological and kinetic fights in the 20th Century to include: communism (Cold War), socialism (mainly 1930s but after as well), and Nazism (WWII). Let's not reinvent the wheel here.
(6)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sir, as you said "Words matter. Proper and precise words should be used to define and describe the problem we are facing." I have said a very similar phrase in the past.
One of the problems we have faced is that people in general have not used proper nor precise verbiage. When caveats like "radicalized" are removed from "radicalized Islamists" it changes the dialog in an extreme fashion.
Although radicalized religious members are the ones perpetuating the vast majority of these events, specifically naming the religion becomes a distraction to the argument, even if it is accurate.
One of the problems we have faced is that people in general have not used proper nor precise verbiage. When caveats like "radicalized" are removed from "radicalized Islamists" it changes the dialog in an extreme fashion.
Although radicalized religious members are the ones perpetuating the vast majority of these events, specifically naming the religion becomes a distraction to the argument, even if it is accurate.
(1)
(0)
COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM
SGT Kennedy,
- I understand what you are saying but disagree that naming the religion becomes a distraction to the argument.
- Begs the question: becomes a distraction to whom? The Allied western audience? The worldwide Muslim audience? The radicalized Muslim audience? All the above?
- People messing with Christians but not Muslims when it comes to radicalization is like PETA messing with actresses who wear fur but not bikers who wear leather. The probability of getting your ass kicked in response creates double standards.
- I understand what you are saying but disagree that naming the religion becomes a distraction to the argument.
- Begs the question: becomes a distraction to whom? The Allied western audience? The worldwide Muslim audience? The radicalized Muslim audience? All the above?
- People messing with Christians but not Muslims when it comes to radicalization is like PETA messing with actresses who wear fur but not bikers who wear leather. The probability of getting your ass kicked in response creates double standards.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Sir,
The article does not describe the label of terrorists as radical Islamists as an attack on all Muslims. I agree words matter, but the article does not do as you state.
The article does not describe the label of terrorists as radical Islamists as an attack on all Muslims. I agree words matter, but the article does not do as you state.
(0)
(0)
Maj Chris Clark
Truth and morality are not always the same thing. Islam is in fact the mother of radical Islam. The problem is there are maybe 200,000-300,000 true radical Islamic types. If Islam wants to counted among the civilized "tribes" of the earth, then they absolutely must stand against their children, the radicals. If not, then they are tacitly approving of them. Unfortunately, there is no in between. In this realm, they are either with the world or for radical Islam.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
I think we should always keep the distinction between Islam and radical islamic extremists. However, the success of the Paris attacks is a much greater gift for islamic extremist recruitment than any hand-wringing exercise in semantics. We must destroy the core, present a better ideal, live a better life than their alternative, and remain vigilant, in order to reduce their recruiting, success rate, and limit the damage they cause.
(6)
(0)
4
4
0
Blaming a quarter of the population of the Earth (23%~ at between 1.6B-2.2B) for the actions of a handful of Radicalized Individuals, regardless of what their specific faith is, is frankly asinine.
Extremists of any Religious or Ideological Affiliation are the problem. It doesn't matter which.
Extremists of any Religious or Ideological Affiliation are the problem. It doesn't matter which.
(4)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
During WWII the average German citizen turned a blind eye to the atrocities carried out under hitler. At some point, with over a billion strong religion, you would think that the moderates (who we are told are the majority) would take a stand, wouldn't you? Their silence is deafening.
http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/oscilloscope/whatourfathersdidanazilegacy/
http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/oscilloscope/whatourfathersdidanazilegacy/
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Cpl (Join to see) - During WWII the vast majority of Americans turned a blind eye to Japanese American internment camps. It makes us just as complicit. We can drop Godwin's Law all day long, but I can point out just as many atrocities that WE committed. Maybe they weren't of the same level... maybe they were considering we're supposed to better than that.
(1)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
Sure the democrats interred the citizens of Japanese decent, but you cannot compare that the to the extermination camps in Germany. Godwin's law was created to deter the use of historical precedence. Do you see any muslim country defending Israel or the Jewish faith? I'm not referring to the one-off individuals, I'm talking about the muslim governments. Do you?
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Cpl (Join to see) - The "Democrats" didn't inter Citizens of Japanese decent. America did. Let's get that straight right now. Claiming that one subset of our society is responsible for the atrocities committed by the whole of our nation, is just "blamethrowing." We (our parents and grandparents) made mistakes. There is nothing wrong with making mistakes if we own up to them. It's when we say they weren't ours, that's when there is a problem.
Godwin's Law was created to highlight hyperbolic argumentation, not to deter the use of historical precedent. It links to half a dozen or so logical fallacies, therefore when someone invokes the comparison to Nazi's or Hitler their argument can easily be torn asunder.
As for Non-secular countries defending any faith not their own, that is counter to their purpose. We however are a secular nation, and have a vested interest in defending all faith.
Godwin's Law was created to highlight hyperbolic argumentation, not to deter the use of historical precedent. It links to half a dozen or so logical fallacies, therefore when someone invokes the comparison to Nazi's or Hitler their argument can easily be torn asunder.
As for Non-secular countries defending any faith not their own, that is counter to their purpose. We however are a secular nation, and have a vested interest in defending all faith.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google