CharlieHebdo

1171820222345

Comments

  • Posts: 4,603
    The trouble is, it's hard to argue, debate, reason with someone who is simply following the word of their God. How do you trump God? Once someone knows that not only are they doing Gods work but they will be rewarded for you work in the afterlife. what can one say? It's a tough one
  • Posts: 15,106
    Getafix wrote: »
    I'm saying that aetheists have presented a much greater threat to freedom of speech in the 20th century than Muslims. And I'd argue the threat from 'Islam' now is exagerated. I don't think Muslims - even the extreme ones - are motivated by a desire to limit the freedom of speech in the west. Their resentments originate primarily in perceived and sometimes real historical humiliations and economic and political set backs.

    I just think Hitchens banging on about Muslims was barking up the wrong tree. Malligning an entire culture primarily because of the acts of a few nutters is unfair. Most Muslims also generally want free speech. In a Muslim country, there might be blasphemy laws (just as there were in the UK up until the late 20th century). That does not make Muslims fundamentally opposed to free speech. In France and the UK today there are limits on what you can do and say - racially offensive language for instance can lead to criminal convictions in the UK. That is what I mean about the danger of Hitchens' absolutism and fundamentalism - it creates artificial walls where there is no need for them and prevents discourse and the opening up of common ground when it's urgently needed. He was a dangerous fundamentalist - not a murderous one like the jihadis - but still dangerous. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and down Hitchen's path lies world-ending culture wars and the clash of civilisations - something that is completely avoidable if we accept that we don't need to impose our views on the rest of the world in order to live peacefully in our own countries.
    There's a French magazine that disagrees with what you said about extremist Muslims not being against free speech. The minor incident of the bloody murder of its staff aside, it has been taken to court by angry religious folks, Muslims and Catholics, who apparently did not like being laughed at.

    As for how dangerous Hitchens was... Well, he defended democracy, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and thought religions were against it... I guess it is dangerous, but I far prefer dangerous free thinkers than dangerous obscurantist.
  • Getafix and bondjames, you write many things about the Charlie Hebdo attacks that are just plain wrong. I mean, about the facts, and not about the motivations and so on. You describe the terrorists sometimes as isolated nutters, sometimes as uneducated poor French people without a job, etc.. Similarly, you write many wrong things about the French reactions and so on.

    So I won't really try to correct you about the facts. But I'd like just to ask you : do you fear to be called racists if you start to agree with other people here that you consider to be frightened and unaware of the real issues, etc, etc ?
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 11,425
    @Suivez_ce_parachute, to be honest I'm talking generally about the issues around Charlie H and Islamic extremism etc. I freely admit I know very little about the Charlie H attacks.

    Am I afraid of being labelled a racist? Well, I like to think of myself as not a racist, so in that sense yes. But I'm not expressing these views out of a fear of being seen as an Islamaphobe - I'm expressing them because I believe them to be true and because I see a lot of hypocrisy in the way that the west treats Muslims.

    Interesting article last week in the London Review of Books:

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n02/tariq-ali/short-cuts

    But any way, I am sure there are errors in what I'm saying. I'm just thinking aloud really. I've found the discussion on here quite interesting and very civilised and it's made me think a lot more about my own attitudes to Muslims and Islam. I have to admit that I do often slip into the kind of casual Islamophobic comments that are common these days, but this whole discussion has actually made me rethink a lot of things.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I'm in agreement with you @Getafix.

    We have been discussing more recently Islam in general and the way it is characterized in the West, rather than CH specifically, which I am not as familiar with as others here.

    I too would prefer not to be labeled a racist, but I'm actually more concerned with using words in a way that might agitate and insult an entire culture and religion. That's not fair to the religion and it's not fair to the culture, because there are peace loving people within that religion and culture, as there are within all religions.

    The murderers/terrorists did their killings in the name of Islam. However, using the term "Islamic terrorist" loosely can potentially make some feel more predisposed to looking differently (if even subconsciously) at all people of Islamic faith - I don't want that to happen because not all people of that faith are bad. The religion is not inherently dangerous, as far as I'm concerned. It has been interpreted (as any religion or ideology can be) dangerously by a few, and it is only those few who should bear the blame. Not all people of that faith by association.

    So words are important, and they must be used carefully.

    I'm not a religious person, but I respect people who are religious as long as they don't try to convert me to their faith. It is their right to be religious just as much as it is mine not to be.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    I respect all people's rights to be silly, but not to take that silly into an arena that dictates death to the non-silly.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I respect all people's rights to be silly, but not to take that silly into an arena that dictates death to the non-silly.

    And that is what islam does, believe it or not but that is a fact.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Very amusing. Classic Boris. Good point at the end.

    “We won’t succeed if western politicians just go around bashing and blaming Islam; that is hopeless … This problem can only be addressed if Muslim authorities and clerics find a powerful and compelling way of setting up an alternative narrative for young people that makes this seem irrelevant.”

  • Posts: 15,106
    I don't think being polite towards Jihadists is an obligation at all, so I agree with Boris's insult. As for blaming Islam, when a terrorist attack is motivated by one's faith, it is difficult not to give it at least some of the blame, if you are intellectually rigorous and honest.
  • Posts: 15,106
    Getafix wrote: »

    I agree with the blogger about mockery being the most potent weapon against Islamist terrorists, or any kind of fanatic. That said, I am all for insulting bat-sh*t crazy fundies, especially when they murdered a few innocent civilians. And because wanting to control other people's sexuality, to submit women, to kill homosexuals, to fantasize about whatever number of virgins waiting for you in heaven for atrocities you committed on earth against your fellow primates... Well, that is sick, perverted, depraved, sadistic, twisted sexuality. No matter how you cut it (and whatever happened during the Crusades).

    And mockery is also a form of insult, let's not forget.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    The crusades were a reaction against jihad taking place in the Middle east, which wasa christian area back then. But that is another story.
  • Posts: 7,653
    The crusades were a reaction against jihad taking place in the Middle east, which wasa christian area back then. But that is another story.

    A nice rewriting of history. ;)
  • Posts: 15,106
    We can argue on whose to blame for the Crusades until the cows come home but one thing is certain: it was not Charlie Hebdo. Neither were they in any way, shape or form big evil Western exploiters.

    And going back to the Crusades, or the Flood, to explain, or somewhat excuse what happened in Paris is absurd.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Ludovico wrote: »
    We can argue on whose to blame for the Crusades until the cows come home but one thing is certain: it was not Charlie Hebdo. Neither were they in any way, shape or form big evil Western exploiters.

    And going back to the Crusades, or the Flood, to explain, or somewhat excuse what happened in Paris is absurd.

    They were violent thugs of the Islamitic persuasion with a sense of importance that was totaly misguided. Anybody cheering for their behaviour is a flipping loon. ;)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Just goes to show that religion is the most useful mind control technique there is.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 2,015
    bondjames wrote: »
    So words are important, and they must be used carefully.

    Yes, try to say "I don't believe in God" in some parts of the world full of peaceful religious people... You may realize they're peaceful as long as you're being religious too.

    But I know you'll prefer to explain this with some economics.

    Hey after all, indeed religion is a very touchy subject if you start to say that it has some disadvantages. In the meantime, it's okay to say that poor people are illiterate puppets that are very dangerous (even though the "fact" that terrorists come from the lowest part of society looks a lot like an urban legend). Economics = Hate for dummies :)

    Oh, btw, in a "France living under fear" (don't forget you claim not to speak about Charlie Hebdo, but you did write such nonsense several times...), "The Interview" has just been released on movie screens. With quite some indifference (200 viewers in Paris on the first showing, compared to 2000 for Imitation game)




  • Posts: 15,106
    Ah, Paris that now lives in terror! And it is all the victims' fault! Because of a complex network of circumstances, starting with the Crusades. I am joking of course, but people did blame the victims and/or excused their murder by a context that was so far from the crime it was downright irrelevant. Blame everything, except the faith of the murderers. Because that is not part of the context.
  • Posts: 7,653
    The US send an awesome amount of stately representatives to the funeral of the Saudi King and yet there was nobody from the US in the most awesome demonstration for freedom of speech in the world in Paris.
    It shows were the US interests lie, namely with economics and democratic values be damned. Because in the Saudi nation you get a 1000 strikes with a stick on your foot soles when you in any way criticize religion. How hypocritical does that make a war in Afghanistan & Iraq look now.
  • Posts: 15,106
    SaintMark wrote: »
    The US send an awesome amount of stately representatives to the funeral of the Saudi King and yet there was nobody from the US in the most awesome demonstration for freedom of speech in the world in Paris.
    It shows were the US interests lie, namely with economics and democratic values be damned. Because in the Saudi nation you get a 1000 strikes with a stick on your foot soles when you in any way criticize religion. How hypocritical does that make a war in Afghanistan & Iraq look now.

    I could understand that they sent representatives to the funerals of the Saudi despot. Deplorable, but understandable because of our dependence on petrol. But not sending anyone in Paris was unforgiveable. I like Obama, but that was a stupid (in)action. Plain stupid.

    On the plus side, Michelle Obama did not wear a veil in Saudi Arabia. I love the First Lady far more than her husband sometimes.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Oh, btw, in a "France living under fear" (don't forget you claim not to speak about Charlie Hebdo, but you did write such nonsense several times...), "The Interview" has just been released on movie screens. With quite some indifference (200 viewers in Paris on the first showing, compared to 2000 for Imitation game)

    Very happy to hear that. I really am. Now just dial back the anger a little @Suivez_ce_parachute, and we'll be ok. ;)

  • edited January 2015 Posts: 2,015
    You're really acting like a psychoanalysis fan :)
    - "Well, my analysis is that your child has autism because you don't love your child"
    - "What ??? This is non sensical, I love him"
    - "You're full of anger because the truth hurts you"

    You say you're happy to hear that, but well, show more interests in facts rather than in decades old theories and you'll be far happier than you think : many of the pro-conspiracy beliefs rely on lies and disinformation... The world is very complex as it is, no need for some real-life SPECTRE behind it to explain it.

    The terrorists have just killed a Japanese hostage, no need to look for some secret conspiracy in which Japan is part of the oppression of the Muslims (it's quite difficult to imagine a powerful country less implied in Middle-East affairs than Japan...), you just have to deal with the fact these people's belief lead them to kill blindly. Yep, religion is more important than economics...



  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Yep, religion is more important than economics...

    Why do you hate economics?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    It's ok @Suivez_ce_parachute, really it is. Let it all out.
  • Posts: 15,106
    @bondjames You lost me too with the economic motivations, if there were any.
  • chrisisall wrote: »
    Why do you hate economics?

    Because that's like psychoanalysis : it's the theories first, and you twist the facts to them. Imagine that in astronomy, you had half of the scientists believing the Earth goes round the Sun, and the other half believing the Sun goes round the Earth :)

    For instance, here, all the explanations/predictions according to which economics will explain terrorism, fails miserably. In France, there has been no single act of terrorism from the lowest classes of society (ie : the Romany people).
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Why do you hate economics?

    Because that's like psychoanalysis : it's the theories first, and you twist the facts to them.
    Heh heh, I can't argue there.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    @bondjames You lost me too with the economic motivations, if there were any.

    @Ludovico, at times during this long thread we have diverged into discussing people of Islamic faith in general. This conversation has gone way beyond the CH attacks on more occassion than one, which is why I find it interesting. What follows is not CH related (for those who do not understand that).

    I have never said that economics is the sole cause of violence by Islamists in general. Not at at all. I have said that it is a combination of culture, religion, education and economics (and by this I do not mean the actual attacker's economic circumstances, but who he may sympathize with - e.g. Bin Laden was a millionaire but he was sympathizing with the Islamic masses in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere - with his money he would have been an idiot to paint a big dot on his forehead and by all accounts he was not an idiot).

    We have on occassion, in our broad discussion, talked about the following:

    1) Islamic youth in the Middle East - many males are jobless and repressed by their own regimes. It's a breeding ground for hatred of the west, who they conveniently blame for everything. These people fill the madrasas and are taught the hatred wahabi garbage and this then poisons them further. They then populate the internet with their hate.

    2) Islamic youth in Europe (including but not necessarily in France) who do not integrate into society and who are economically not well off. It is possible that some of these youth will sympathize with the attackers, even if they did not commit the acts themselves. This is more likely if one is not fully assimilated into the society. Moreover, one is less likely to volunteer information to the authorities about possible suspects & future attacks in these cases. This argument is very similar to what happens among black youth in urban America - some of whom feel an allegiance with other black youth, even if they are criminals.

    I don't know why some are harping on about economics only. They are debating a strawman. There are other issues involved, particularly religion, education, cultural integration (and cultural identity) and economics is only a part of it (or sympathies with the economic situation of people of similar culture and religion in the middle east).
  • bondjames wrote: »
    What follows is not CH related (for those who do not understand that).

    If your theory cannot explain what actually happens, but works only as a theory about the "motivations" and so on, then you'll feel you're always right, but this is self-delusion.
Sign In or Register to comment.