Swat is one of the northwesternest regions of Pakistan. Mingora, where the carvings are, is in southern Swat, not northwest Swat.
There was 1 (2?) attempted attacks IN Swat about 7 years ago, where there IS a 40m high carving, but it certainly wasn't destroyed, and the actual carving itself wasn't damaged either.
Its hard to find because that is the extent of it. I'm certainly not saying that it is ok because nothing happened, but you initially claimed "Pakistan was supposed to be a role model of an islamic state and one of the first things they did was destroying the old buddhist statues", where no parts of that statement are true at all, however, it may possibly be considered true for Afghanistan (still isn't, really).

And what on earth are you on about what happened to Jainists in Pakistan? There were atrocities (that nobody at all denies) on both sides of the border to all manner of religions, why would I ignore (or unfairly emphasise) what happened to the Jains?

So the Spiegel lied?

http://m.spiegel.de/international/world/a-515958.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer=http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=spiegel%20pakistan%20swat%20statue&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Finternational%2Fworld%2Fthe-talibanization-of-pakistan-islamists-destroy-buddhist-statue-a-515958.html&ei=PrCxVJr9IMjWPbTcgLAG&usg=AFQjCNGGp7r1QtjlMpy28PbwEH5VDgky4Q

I've seen a documentary about buddhist carvings/statues in Pakistan an they mostly got their faces deliberately scratched off quite a while ago.

Speigel doesn't seem to know itself what happened :D. At first they say that the statue was destroyed, then they say "it was damaged". The BBC, however, reporting the same incident, say the statue remained intact. Perhaps in the original german they are more clear about what they believe happened?

I am not indifferent to my death.

I wish I might die with dignity should it come to me as it did to Charlie Hebdo people, but I do think that in all plausibility it would involve involuntary bowel and bladder movement (= shitting and pissing my pants to be blunt) out of sheer horror of it.

I would care also deeply and personally about a number of other persons, whose violent death would be a violation to me.

I think there is simply a matter of inalienable human dignity - and this is EU fundamental value as well - so it does not really matter who I am, or what I think.

And Charlie Hebdo deaths have become a symbol, for all practical purposes, like it or not.

This discussion won't be fruitful if we don't accept the same rules for logic, at least in a very basic sense.
I already explained twice why you automatically made a comparison between religions and scriptures despite saying you didn't. Here's what you wrote in post 121:

"I obviously don't want to start a Christianity/Judaism/Hinduism/Whateverism vs Islam discussion, but they can be interpreted as having just as many, if not more "direct orders for violent acts" as Islam."

And in post 131, you wrote:

"I made sure not to mention any specifics with regards to scripture at all, not even which religion's scripture, so I'm not sure what you speak of. Again, as I said, I don't feel this would be the most appropriate place to begin a debate on scripture vs scripture. "

Why am I being such a pedantic stickler about the fact that your general comparison does in the way it's formulated automatically include specifics such as Quran vs Bible? Because as I wrote above, no discussion can be fruitful if we don't stick to the same requirements for logic.
One can say that such topics are doomed to be non-fruitful either way because they'll inevitably invite posts that are going to be looked at as "hate speech" and eventually result in thread lock-down, but I think this is a crucially important topic that can't be ignored by anyone. Even if, in the end, there are slim chances anything good can come from this discussion as it is probably almost as impossible for you to make me less critical about Islam than it is impossible for me to get you to want to decisively reform Islam and actively oppose fundamentalists. Sadly, I've so far not heard a Muslim tell me "yes ok, we need to -do- something about those Islamists. They are causing too much trouble for the Muslim community. We must actively ostracize the extremists from the religion, even if we have to reform our religion and include footnotes in the Quran that put problematic verses into a clear historical context and point out that this isn't to be taken literally in the present day."
Naturally, no Muslim can say that, as that is considered apostasy/heresy and punishable by death in the eyes of the extremists. The progressive Muslims who do call for reform do sadly receive their fair share of death threats.
Even if Islamists abuse the religion, they are still self-confessed Muslims and are damaging the reputation of all those who aren't taking the scriptures literally and/or out of context.

I can understand why you have no other choice but to go on the defense, whether in denial or out of fear, and the direct honest approach towards you isn't having any positive effect. I have the impression you're trying to stall and deflect rather than absorb criticism. So perhaps this is why most people stay away from these topics with a 10-foot pole, either they are in denial too, or too scared of being politically incorrect, or they "just don't care". All 3 options being unfortunate.

I actually agree with you that almost any scripture can be twisted and perverted to suit terrorist needs. But that's an inert statement. If you count all the terrorism in the world, Islamic terrorism plays only a minor part. But if you look at all the -religiously motivated- terrorism in the world, Islamic terrorism seems to vastly outclass its competition. Even when Islamic terrorism is both geopolitically -and- religiously motivated as in the case of the Kouachi brothers, they take diligent care to very clearly state that this was not only an act of revenge for geopolitical actions but an act of revenge for religious offense. The target they picked was not the French government but Charlie Hebdo so clearly the religious offense component was more important to them than the geopolitical component. And I'm not seeing such religiously-motivated terrorism from other religions nowadays, in no comparable quantity or quality.

You can try the "correlation doesn't imply causation" argument but that's somewhat pointless because if you take away Islam as a common factor between the various attacks, then what is left? Race, education, economic factors, sexual frustration? I don't think any of that can count as a common factor because people from all kinds of backgrounds have ended up carrying out terrorist acts in the name of Islam, and the only common factor is that they shared the same religion. The fact that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful does not disprove the theory that the problem could lie within the faith.
There's no use trying to deflect by saying that past centuries were different, that's only going to waste time and effort on a historical debate (that wouldn't turn out the way you like anyway) and I'd rather address the here and now.


Even if you were somehow able to prove that the US are some kind of malicious Christian fundamentalist terror state or whatever, how exactly does that address the criticism towards Islam? Does it make any criticism less pressing? Or are these classic deflections yet again, that prevent any serious discussion from taking place.

Oddly vague statement, compared to the very specific cases of Islamic terrorism like Charlie Hebdo with people dying for very specific reasons (insulted the Prophet via depiction) in very specific ways (shot dead with AK-47).

That's quite a lot of deflection yet again, I can't even address all this in a timely fashion. So again, how does any of that make Islamic fundamentalism any less of a problem? What Christian countries have the death penalty for sodomy? If such countries exist, it only proves that this isn't -exclusive- to fundamentalist Islamic countries, it doesn't change the fact that it is a reality. As far as I can see, there seems to be nothing 100% clear about the topic in the Quran but as always, one has to look at how a religion is practiced, there is no point in saying a religion is harmless if it's only harmless in theory and in practice you then have several Islamic countries that e.g. impose the death penalty on sodomy and claim to do this in the name of Islam.

Perhaps you could. But likely, you can't. As mentioned above, I see little use in going back centuries because we must deal with issues as they are now.
It appears we all want the same which is that the 5,5 Billion non-Muslims and 1,5 Billion Muslims can live in peace on the same planet. But I can't see any consensus in this discussion, nor do I know how to achieve it. You might not feel that I'm trying to find some constructive solutions but in that case the problem would be that you're too easily offended. You should see how harshly I talk to my best friend about his religion, he's a devout Catholic and I'm -way- harder on him than I'm on you. If I just wanted to troll and offend you, it would be super easy.
Somehow, I still have slight hopes that the religious extremism, and very specifically including Islamic extremism, can be overcome but that can only ever happen if people stop holing up in defense and deflection and start to reform that which needs to be reformed. The whole geopolitical problems and basic human nature problems are still likely to put an end to human civilization on this planet eventually but if we can take religious extremism out of the equation as a contributing factor (and it is contributing a lot) then that would be a very good start.

Then hopefully you can understand what I'm talking about now: I did not give "Christianity" any special treatment in my statement, simply mentioned it along with 2-3 other religions. YOU are the one who latched on to Christianity for some reason. Odd you did not start an argument with me about Hinduism, when THAT might be considered the odd one out. When I said "I am not going into any specifics", I meant something like "This verse here says this, this verse here says this and in this scripture, this verse says this". Specifics of the religion. Saying that "[All these religions] can be interpreted as having just as many direct orders for violent acts" without specifically emphasising any one religion or scripture or verse, THAT is "not going into any specifics" and "Not starting a Islam vs _____" (see how stupid that looks?) discussion. You seem to be trying your damnedest to turn this into something like that, and I really don't care to.
Hopefully clearer now?

See, the way you frame the entire discussion implies that Islam is wrong, and the wrongness is Islam, so why would a muslim agree with you, or even acknowledge the meaningfulness of your statement? What is "Islamist"? Do I have to accept the validity of such a word with the meaning you give it? What does "actively ostracising extremists" mean, and what makes you think it isn't already being done? And who is "We"?

And then you go into a condescending tone about how I am fearful or in denial and that is why I'm on the defensive and a liar?

I'm sorry, I don't see it as a deflection or a "waste" at all. If you are claiming that Islam is the root cause. Since Islam has existed for the last 1400 years, then there should be a constant and consistent comparison between other religions over all other factors, that makes out Islam to be worse, and there isn't.

Since you belabour this same point with 4 separate quotes from me, I think you missed the initial part of the discussion, although I thought I explained it to you before. I'll repeat the exact words I addressed to you before again, so perhaps you can understand this time:
"Klumpen was attempting to provide a case for the argument that Islam is uniquely violent. That is all I was trying to disprove. I wasn't using it as an excuse for anything."

It does not appear that we are having the same discussion.
Perhaps I can also make this clear: If you are attempting to turn this into a "Superiority of cultures" or "Superiority of religions" discussion, I'm sorry, but I have no interest in participating. Nowhere in any of my statements here did I make the claim that Islam is BETTER than anything else (although I may personally believe this). All I said was that the idea that Islam is UNIQUELY WORSE, in and of itself, is misguided.

The strawman about comparing religions is useful to not have a very honest argument... if I say Hinduism is better than Christianity is better than Islam first thing I think you should ask is what I mean by better, because we may be thinking different things.

Now I think it's factual to say Islamic terrorism is bigger, stronger, 'better' than any other religious terrorism. This is true in absolute terms as well relative, by which I mean the number of Islamic terrorists is higher than any other religious terrorists, and the percentage of terrorists to believers is higher than any other religion.

Does anyone disagree? I assume not, especially since these Islamic terrorists are very open about being Islamic. You may disagree with them theologically, say and believe they are not true Muslims, yet their motivation to identify with the religion is factual.

Does this mean Islam is better or worse than other religions? Define better / worse and we might even agree something. The correlation is clear, and many see clear causation mechanisms. The mechanisms assumed to cause this radicalism are not unique to Islam, yet appear to be stronger, better. Other causes are possible, but don't change the facts.

It's a problematic statement, because currently, it seems "terrorism" has been redefined to mean "bad things that muslims do".
Otherwise, your statement is not true at all.
The article is 4 years old and focuses mostly on the US, but it serves as a good example.

If you actually address me directly, kindly reply mate. In case you thought I was addressing you directly earlier, let me assure you I was not... but whatever, grammar about the impersonal you, versus possesive 'your' which is definite, is likely too pedantic here. Still it's an example of what I believe are your typical misunderstandings, and how you personalize debates. I'm replying this once, as I don't expect you will actually reply to what I'm saying.


Now you basically make two points. First on terrorism definition and second on muslims in general.

On the second, your link is an example of what? Terrorism =/= religious terrorism, and as you said, the US is not the world, especially where it comes to terrorism it's not representative. Since I never said Islamic terrorism was the majority of terrorism, your link is a complete non sequitur, which to me rather demonstrates your defensiveness on this topic. We all know not all muslims are terrorist. I didn't say they were. Consider I didn't even say Islamic terrorism is the majority of religious terrorism, so you could post a link on "not all religious terrorists are muslims" and it would still be a non sequitur. Since you might not understand me already let me give some numeric example. Let's say Islamic terrorism is 40% of total religious terrorism, it is not a majority vs non Islamic, however the remaining 60% may be split between Christianity, Hinduism etc... in such a way that no other religion has a larger proportion than those 40% for Islamic terrorism. This is what I said precisely, nothing more, nothing less, and without providing a number: Islamic terrorism is both in absolute and relative terms the largest religious terrorism.

Regarding definitions of terrorism. Feel free to suggest specific examples of actions that you believe I would consider terrorism because of them being practiced by Muslims. Good luck, you'll need it to find anything. Also I think it's obvious in context that we are talking about stuff like the Charlie Hebdo attack. I really doubt your misunderstanding of what you read could go so far that you think anyone is talking about email threats of violence, or shouting insults at someone on the streets, or even spitting at someone. Of course, there is a tendency to look at such hateful actions and consider them terrorism. Me I might disagree with hate and defend tolerance instead, but I would rather say terrorism is bombings, assassination raids, etc... especially committed by paramilitary groups. I am strict in relation to what I consider terrorism. The other side are the ones trying to define more and more things as terrorism, partially to obfuscate that when it comes to 'terrorism terrorism', Islamic radicals are in the premier league pretty much without competition.

Suggested reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_and_other_violent_events_by_death_toll#Terrorist_attacks

Exercise for the reader: In the second link, add up numbers for Jihadism and calculate percentage of total.
For further credit: Write an essay on whether other "political ideologies" other than Jihadism have a religious component, and present a comparative analysis between how different religions may contribute to terrorism.

Since the statement that Islam/muslims are the most "representative" religion when it comes to terrorism (you phrased it as them being the largest individual segment of religious terrorism), is not yours alone, the "you" I used could've been general, but yes, I was addressing your comment.

And I'm sorry, you're still mistaken. For example, the link I provided showed that jewish terrorism is actually the largest religious terrorism in the US. And that right there is your example of a "political idealogy" other than "Jihadism" (whatever that may be, I assume you mean terrorism with an islamic component) which has a religious component. While I can't speak of absolute terms, most definitely, in relative terms (considering the corresponding populations), terrorism with a jewish component is far ahead. Of course, this is no reflection on everyday jews, and nobody is going to go around telling them "You should take care of the extremists in your midst" and "Are you sure you condemn these bad guys and aren't secretly supporting them? Or maybe you're afraid of them?". Because that would be bigoted and stupid.

Other examples are Hinduism (as I mentioned in a previous post, has a dangerous and significant ultranationalist strain), many countries with Buddhism as their state religion have it automatically become part of their political idealogy, with disasterous results for their non-buddhist minorities. Those two, however, are mostly centred around their own areas. For a much more insidious example, look to the christian component to American expansionism- often explicitly phrased as christian (Crusades, invoking God, etc). You might not define it as "terrorism" (which, as I said, is a problematic word these days), but then again, the the end results are the same, only the perpetrators are much bigger.

Thanks for this post, it includes most I would have written if I had seen any sense in taking the time to sort it out.
It may not be honored by the ones you want to reach, but surely by others.

How can you say that when knowing so little about other religions than the one you got randomly born into?

No, they can not.
This only shows how few you know about other religions, again I recommend studying more other religions, this may give you some interesting insights.
I already asked you, please show me such orders in the Dhammapada or the Dao-De-Ging/Tao-Te-King.
I'm sure there are many other religions where you wouldn't find something like this either and definitely not as explicit and unmistakable as in yours.
Even if every religion would be violent (which is not the case), the logical thing to do would abandon them altogether, unthinkable for you? You'd rather deflect and defend your violent religion in any case as it seems, this is unwise.
Islam is quite the extreme of direct orders to really nasty stuff out of reasons like "the are nonbelievers who neither want to convert, nor see us as superior and pay no Jizya.
Yes, Islam is a peaceful religion, under very specific terms (and those are not nice).
Ignorance of this will kill more people, you should get your fellow believers together and reform this whole kaboodle oh and by the way, please get rid of your (meaning your religion's) stance regarding ridda/apostasy, faith can't be worth sh** if it's only forced and fake, right?
There's a lot to do for you, if you really want more peace in spite of Islam, so get on with it.

How would you know? What makes you think I was randomly born into the religion I am in now? When I said I didn't know much about taoism, because I didn't really perceive it as a religion at all, more a way of thinking. I certainly knew enough of it that I felt it wouldn't cover my needs insofar as spiritual beliefs go.
And why would I only focus on the Dhammapada? There is loads more Buddhist scripture, and Buddhism HAS been used to justify war before (in Sri Lanka, for example), by Buddhist monks. You might very well say "Oh, but they're not real buddhists, but then...right back at you about every religious tradition that does "bad" things.

I initially responded to your assertion that Islam was uniquely violent or worse. If you had said "All religions are bad, they all need to die!" or some such thing, I probably wouldn't be having this discussion with you. I'm not "defending" anything, just pointing out hypocrisy. I love how so many people are trying to repeatedly belittle my points by dismissing them with "Oh, you're just trying to defend your religion". Followed by mangled quotes from the Quran "proving" your point.

For other religions: "There are nuances! There are different points of view! Those who are violent are going against their religion! They're interpreting it wrong! They're just an extremist minority!"

For Islam: "LOOK AT THOSE EVIL PEOPLE DOING EVIL THINGS. ISLAM IS SO EVIL! IT'S THE MOST EVIL! NONE OF THE ABOVE POINTS APPLY!"

Sadly you are still ignoring many important points of various people here in your defensive stance but this aside:
What is your personal opinion regarding the spirituality and ethics of the terrorists who are (if you like it or not) your brothers in faith? Would you say they are no true muslims?

Deduction and probability.
Be honest: Are you not?

Since objectivity is an obvious problem here like with all religious topics, I'm trying now what I always try to avoid in discussions: the personal level.

I wouldn't know. I've never met one. In the absence of a religion, they'd use one of the many hundreds of other justifications available (that they still use anyhow).
"Deduction and probability" seems to be just another expression to excuse easy bigotry and prejudice. The person is brown, so he must be muslim. The person is not brown, so he must not be muslim. The person is wearing a burqa/hijab, so she must be oppressed. The person is black so he must be a criminal. The person lists "Pakistan" in his "from", so he must be an religious ignorant who knows no better.
No, I was not.