HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » cpwm17 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »

cpwm17

Profile Information

Name: Paul
Gender: Male
Hometown: Florida
Home country: USA
Member since: Wed Mar 31, 2010, 02:20 PM
Number of posts: 3,829

Journal Archives

In the 20th Century there was a lot of killing by a lot of different groups.

Muslims didn't come close to standing out as more brutal than other groups:

If we're going to be pointing fingers of blame for the savageness of the Century -- and you know you want to -- raw numbers are probably not enough. There have been plenty of episodes of concentrated brutality that don't show up on the list above simply because the affected population is so small. Meanwhile, a major reason that Russia and China stand so prominently at the top of the list is that they have so many potential victims to begin with. Therefore, I've taken all the episodes of mass killing of the 20th Century and divided them by the population of the country that suffered the losses.

The 25 highest percentages of national populations killed during periods of mass brutality (20th Century):



If you look carefully at the chart with the intention of determining which race, religion or ideology has been the most brutal, you'll see a pattern emerge. It's quite a startling pattern, so I'd rather you find it by yourself. Go back and take a second look. I'll meet you at the next paragraph after I explain that, honestly, I did not manipulate the data. I simply took the most likely death toll (military and civilian) among the natives of each country (such as all the South Vietnamese -- ARVN soldiers, civilians and Viet Cong -- who were killed in the Vietnam War), and divided it by the population of that country (prewar). I didn't take, say, only the military dead, or only the victims of genocide. I didn't arbitrarily decide to split one horror into two in order to make each seem smaller (the only borderline case is that I calculated the Russians dead from WW2 and Stalin separately. A judgement call.), or eliminate countries of a certain size. No, I had no predetermined point to prove. I did the math and let the chips fall where they would. (Here are the raw numbers if you want to check behind me.)

That's why I was so startled to discover that there is absolutely no pattern to the chart. If I had simply picked 25 countries out of a hat, I could not have gotten a more diverse spread than we've got here. We've got rich countries and poor countries; industrial and agrarian; big and small. We've got people of all colors -- white, black, yellow and brown -- widely represented among both the slaughterers and the slaughterees. We've got Christians, Moslems, Buddhists and Atheists all butchering one another in the name of their various gods or lack thereof. Among the perpetrators, we've got political leanings of the left, right and middle; some are monarchies; some are dictatorships and some are even democracies. We've got innocent victims invaded by big, bad neighbors, and we've got plenty of countries who brought it on themselves, sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind. Go on -- take a third look. Find any type of country that is not represented among the agents of a major blooding, and probably the only reason for that is that there aren't that many countries in that category to begin with (There are no Hindu or Jewish countries on the chart, but then, there's only one of each on the whole planet, and they're both waiting in the wings among the next 25.).

In a way, it's rather disheartening to realize that we can't smugly blame the brutality of the century on the Communists, or the imperialists, or the Moslem fundamentalists, or the godless. Every major category of human has done it's share to boost the body count, so replacing, say, Moslem rulers with Christian rulers, or white rulers with black rulers, is not going to change it at all.

Predominately the discussions centers around Muslims rather than Islam.

As an atheist, I have no love for Islam, or any other religion. I don't understand religious thinking or why religion should be admired.

But the discussions generally center around the behavior of Muslims. Muslims are people. All evidence indicates that they are not uniquely bad or more prone to violence. They tend to be rather conservative, which isn't my cop of tea, but beyond that, they are pretty much like most people in this world.

One major difference: Muslims are uniquely vilified:

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/12/eye-opening-graphic-map-of-muslim-countries-that-the-u-s-and-israel-have-bombed/
This “three-decade war for domination of the Middle East” becomes apparent when we consider how many Muslim countries the peace-loving United States and her “stalwart ally” Israel have bombed:...

Under Barack Obama, the U.S. is currently bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. According to some reports (see here and here), we can add Iran to this ever-expanding list. [Update: An Informed Comment reader named Shannon pointed out that in fact the United States bombed Iran in 1988 during Operating Praying Mantis, an act that “cannot be justified” according to the International Court of Justice.]

Thanks to American arms and funding, our “stalwart ally” Israel has bombed every single one of its neighbors, including Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. Israel has also bombed Tunisia and Iraq (how many times can Americans and Israelis bomb this country?).

The total number of Muslim countries that America and Israel have bombed comes to fourteen: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iran, Sudan, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Tunisia.


There have been throughout my entire life efforts to dehumanize Muslims in the US. It has been very successful. The US treats them like cannon fodder. Various pro-war interests like the results.

It's strange that many people that support US aggressive wars or politicians that support aggressive wars complain that Muslims are particularly violent. Self awareness is a virtue, American exceptionalism is not.

Exactly!

It's only through a selective interpretation of history and current events that people from a Muslim background are determined to be more violent. The facts don't back that up. Bill Maher is clearly a bigot.

It is often people that support aggressive wars or support politicians that support aggressive wars by the US that make this claim.

Bill Maher has stated that Muslims are more violent and the way to deal with Muslims is with violence. That's why he likes Netanyahu, a lover of violence.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/30/7951309/islam-violence

Predominantly, Muslim countries average 2.4 murders per annum per 100,000 people, compared to 7.5 in non-Muslim countries. The percentage of the society that is made up of Muslims is an extraordinarily good predictor of a country's murder rate. More authoritarianism in Muslim countries does not account for the difference. I have found that controlling for political regime in statistical analysis does not change the findings. More Muslims, less homicide.


In the 20th century Muslims did not lead the world in violence, not even close. At this moment in history there are some problems in parts of the Muslim world, much of it caused by outside forces, especially the US. Certainly no one in the US that supports any candidate for president that supported the aggressive war against Iraq has any standing to condemn Muslims for being violent - screw that tribal American exceptionalism crap.

The mythical special privilege granted to Islam strikes again.

In reality, it's the other way around. Muslims receive special condemnation. They are vilified as a group when it is they that are often victimized as a group - look at all of the Muslim majority nations the US has recently bombed.

There are Muslims that behave badly, but it is they that are collectively guilty. They are not people or individuals, but a collective mass of Islam. So when someone defends them as a people, they are accused of defending the worst of Islam.

The US, a Christian majority nation

has murdered millions of innocent people in the world during my lifetime. Why don't you blame Christians, as a group, for these atrocities? That wouldn't be fair, of course, even though a large percentage of Americans, and Christians, supported these atrocities.

The unprovoked attack against Iraq was supported by huge number of Americans, including the media. Shouldn't that be held against us far more than what you posted should be held against Muslims?

This logic makes no sense: Muslims are magically more guilty for violence commited by other Muslims than other groups.

The 20th century is famous for its brutal wars and mass killings, most of it not by Muslims. I fact, Muslims were under represented in the mass murder of the 20th century.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/12/eye-opening-graphic-map-of-muslim-countries-that-the-u-s-and-israel-have-bombed/
This “three-decade war for domination of the Middle East” becomes apparent when we consider how many Muslim countries the peace-loving United States and her “stalwart ally” Israel have bombed:...

Under Barack Obama, the U.S. is currently bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. According to some reports (see here and here), we can add Iran to this ever-expanding list. [Update: An Informed Comment reader named Shannon pointed out that in fact the United States bombed Iran in 1988 during Operating Praying Mantis, an act that “cannot be justified” according to the International Court of Justice.]

Thanks to American arms and funding, our “stalwart ally” Israel has bombed every single one of its neighbors, including Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. Israel has also bombed Tunisia and Iraq (how many times can Americans and Israelis bomb this country?).

The total number of Muslim countries that America and Israel have bombed comes to fourteen: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iran, Sudan, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Tunisia.


If she gains the presidency

we all should post pictures of the results of her military leadership, which will predictably be mangled bodies of dead and injured brown people. Since that is the known results of her past and future aggressive wars, then obviously that is what many here must want.

I'll start with a predictable result of the past aggressive war she enthusiastically supported:

Her family was massacred by US troops.

What's Sam Harris' excuse for being such a blood thirsty bigot?

He's clearly a fundie nut-case.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sam_Harris

Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death.

Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.

I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror.

The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.

To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization. We are at war with Islam. It may not serve our immediate foreign policy objectives for our political leaders to openly acknowledge this fact, but it is unambiguously so. It is not merely that we are at war with an otherwise peaceful religion that has been hijacked by extremists. We are at war with precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran.”

We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it.

Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies.

In their analyses of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so (LIE). Muslims routinely use human shields, and this accounts for much of the collateral damage we and the Israelis cause; the political discourse throughout much of the Muslim world, especially with respect to Jews, is explicitly and unabashedly genocidal.

We cannot let our qualms over collateral damage paralyze us because our enemies know no such qualms. Theirs is a kill-the-children-first approach to war, and we ignore the fundamental difference between their violence and our own at our peril. Given the proliferation of weaponry in our world, we no longer have the option of waging this war with swords. It seems certain that collateral damage, of various sorts, will be a part of our future for many years to come.


Nobody is more dangerous than one who is so full of himself, such as this ignorant "new atheist" war-mongering bigot.

We target Israel's neighbors where it had been/is safe to be a religious minority

since those nations are the biggest threat to Israel's total dominance. Other pro-war interests find the neocons, and other Israel worshipers, convenient allies in their war-making wealth-acquiring schemes.

If you don't want the results of aggressive wars supported by your candidate exposed

don't support candidates that support aggressive wars.

We know that what one observes in chemistry, biochemistry and physiology

exists, so obviously what we observe is possible. It's self-contradictory to claim what we know is real is too complex to be possible, and then claim that an undefined something much more complex must have made it.

We have zero evidence for any god and no precise definition for what this god is or what it does.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is arguing against specific claim about a god. You can claim that your definition for a god is different than what Neil deGrasse Tyson is arguing against. That doesn't invalidate Neil deGrasse Tyson argument.

You do seem to be using an intelligent design argument so Neil deGrasse Tyson still seems to apply.

Our Universe may be infinite and there is very likely much more beyond. In our Universe there are trillions of planets in the visible Universe. That's a lot of lottery tickets to produce a planet that can evolve intelligent life. Likely there are enumerable universes and perhaps other realms unknowable to us beyond our Universe. A lot is going to happen in such a large reality, obviously including life.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »