CharlieHebdo

18911131445

Comments

  • Posts: 15,106
    jobo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    He also built a strawman saying Sam Harris was for genocide. Aslan is smart, but sometimes full of himself and often gives islam a free pass.

    When did he say that?

    http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-mechanics-of-defamation

    Saw your reply first now. So it was all down to a retweet twitter. Thought so... The most shocking about this link is Harris' statement. Its absolutely no wonder why it caused some reactions.

    The quote on the meme is a complete fabrication.
  • Posts: 11,425
    SaintMark wrote: »
    having read how us colonial parties managed to mess up large parts of the world and then buggering off without real aftercare was probably not the best solution after WWII, but one we got shoved down our throat and as such is a bill we still get to pay.

    I don't think it's fair to just beat up on the US for its imperialist adventures. The French and British were historically as bad, if not worse, and continue to do very silly things - like creating chaos in Libya.
  • Posts: 7,507
    Ludovico wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    He also built a strawman saying Sam Harris was for genocide. Aslan is smart, but sometimes full of himself and often gives islam a free pass.

    When did he say that?

    http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-mechanics-of-defamation

    Saw your reply first now. So it was all down to a retweet twitter. Thought so... The most shocking about this link is Harris' statement. Its absolutely no wonder why it caused some reactions.

    The quote on the meme is a complete fabrication.

    But the meaning was essentially the same. Wether it is "believing in a proposition" or just "believing".
  • Posts: 15,106
    Getafix wrote: »
    I have read before that French Muslims (probably mainly of North African heritage) are much more likely to identify as French first and Muslim second than British Muslims (predominantly Pakistani and Bangladeshi heritage) who identify as Muslim first. So France seems to have been doing something right.

    I think it is a by product of republicanism. With it came secularism. France is not always inclusive, but it certainly gives room to inclusion. All faiths are seen with the same amount of healthy skepticism, which helps. And many Muslim families came to France to avoid religious wars or religious oppression, so they don't take kindly to religious fanaticism, especially of the Islamic kind. One of a friends of a Facebook friend is French Algerian, and she was furious about the attacks, not only because of the vile act itself, but because her parents left Algeria to escape from religious zealots.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I feel for the peaceful Muslims who do identify as French first, because they now likely feel uncomfortable and ashamed (through no fault of their own) due to the vile disgusting acts committed by others in the name of their religion.
  • Posts: 725
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I don't know for this forum, but many people refuse to blame Islam out of fear of offending Muslims. In France, in the UK, everywhere. I have heard people saying the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists had it coming. I have heard people saying the crimes was somewhat excused.

    This made the presence Sunday of the King of Jordon particularly brave as he is risking alienating a sizable portion of his population. Sadly, it is obvious that many moderate Muslims are terrified about speaking out. It was a good sign that many Muslims participated in Sunday's event. One of the major excuses for the increasing slaughters in Europe is that young Muslim men living in poverty are driven to terrorism out of economic desperation. What of the radical Islamic killings taking place all over the globe and not just in Europe. What about the slaughter of Christians in Iraq. What about the horrible slaughter in Syria. The mall slaughter in Africa. Explain Bin Laden? He was a millionaire. His family are billionaires. Some of the 9/11 terrorists were well educated, middle class and did not live in poverty in the west. This is a hell of a lot more complex than economic issues in No Go Zones, or the Iraq war, or Israel. These issues just go back decades. Root conflicts in the Islamic world go back centuries..

    The argument that these poor Muslims are unwillingly isolated is weak. In America, Hispanic and Asian immigrants want to assimilate. They want to be Americans. The huge problem in Europe, is that large elements of these Muslim populations do not want to assimilate. They do not want any part of western culture or western law. They want to impose Shariah law. It's fine when it is imposed locally in their neighborhoods and only within their population. But when Sharia law, and the way extreme elements interpret it, conflicts with the laws and culture of the host country they have immigrated to, we are in for some increasingly dangerous conflicts.

    Freedom of expression and freedom of the press, no matter how offensive to some, are the very bed rock of western culture. Attack that, and you kill freedom. You start to make allowances for cultural sensitivities and where does it stop. These radical Islamic attacks are taking place all over the world. It is not just about the press, and cartoons. They are kidnapping and killing girls who want an education, they are killing school children in Pakistan. They are killing off ancient Christian sects in Iraq. Where are the nasty cartoons and "No Go Zones" causing these killings in non western countries? There is a ton of hypocrisy on the left when they try to defend and explain these attacks by Islamic radical factions that are violently opposed to everything the left is supposed to stand for.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Although I'm not fully knowledgeable about the religion, my understanding is that Islam is a way of life. So it's a little more all encompassing than a religion perhaps.

    Therefore it may in fact not be fully compatible with a secular society, if one takes it literally.

    Again, I'm not sure, but this is what I'm being led to believe from talking with people.

    Perhaps it is in fact not possible to be a 'good' Muslim in the strictest sense and live in an integrated fashion within a secular, modern society. I don't know, but I'm throwing this out there.
  • Posts: 15,106
    jobo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    He also built a strawman saying Sam Harris was for genocide. Aslan is smart, but sometimes full of himself and often gives islam a free pass.

    When did he say that?

    http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-mechanics-of-defamation

    Saw your reply first now. So it was all down to a retweet twitter. Thought so... The most shocking about this link is Harris' statement. Its absolutely no wonder why it caused some reactions.

    The quote on the meme is a complete fabrication.

    But the meaning was essentially the same. Wether it is "believing in a proposition" or just "believing".

    No it was not. Read his post. The meme was slander, plain and simple. And Aslan's accusation as stupid as it was vile.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Getafix wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    having read how us colonial parties managed to mess up large parts of the world and then buggering off without real aftercare was probably not the best solution after WWII, but one we got shoved down our throat and as such is a bill we still get to pay.

    I don't think it's fair to just beat up on the US for its imperialist adventures. The French and British were historically as bad, if not worse, and continue to do very silly things - like creating chaos in Libya.

    Like the recent wars in the middle east and the far east, it could have used some restraint and some smarter people at the helm, a book like Ghost wars by Steven Coll is scary to read. Like the books by Ahmed Rashid on Jihadis and Taliban they are essentially eye openers that will make you approach the subject more informed.

    As for the imperialist adventures of all colonial nations, they could have done a much better job instead of the rush job they did when leaving. The US is not alone in its messing up, the west is pretty good at it in their allied form.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    The bottom line is these countries are not familiar with democracy. You either have an autocracy or you have a theocracy generally, like Iran.

    If you take out the autocratic leader like in the case of Libya or even if the leader is taken out from within like in Egypt, you cannot expect a secular democracy to just flourish immediately. Either you get a theocracy, like what happened in Egypt with Morsi, or you get another dictator, again like what happened in Egypt post-Morsi

    There is a wrenching adjustment process that may take decades even. Eventually democracy will take root, but only in time. In the meanwhile, there is a void, and radical Islam/ideologies and hatred can take hold as people don't have opportunities.
  • Posts: 725
    bondjames wrote: »
    The bottom line is these countries are not familiar with democracy. You either have an autocracy or you have a theocracy generally, like Iran.

    If you take out the autocratic leader like in the case of Libya or even if the leader is taken out from within like in Egypt, you cannot expect a secular democracy to just flourish immediately. Either you get a theocracy, like what happened in Egypt with Morsi, or you get another dictator, again like what happened in Egypt post-Morsi

    There is a wrenching adjustment process that may take decades even. Eventually democracy will take root, but only in time. In the meanwhile, there is a void, and radical Islam/ideologies and hatred can take hold as people don't have opportunities.

    Very good point. As you note, it takes decades and almost ideal conditions for democracy to take root. These Middle Eastern countries have so many conflicting factions and historically, many of them had western colonial countries drawing artificial bounderies that often did not reflect the populations within, and a host of other problems. So you wind up with a country like Iraq with three factions at each other's throats, and only a strong man like Hussein keeping the country together. No wonder Bush Senior didn't want to enter Bagdad after the first Iraq war.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    smitty wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The bottom line is these countries are not familiar with democracy. You either have an autocracy or you have a theocracy generally, like Iran.

    If you take out the autocratic leader like in the case of Libya or even if the leader is taken out from within like in Egypt, you cannot expect a secular democracy to just flourish immediately. Either you get a theocracy, like what happened in Egypt with Morsi, or you get another dictator, again like what happened in Egypt post-Morsi

    There is a wrenching adjustment process that may take decades even. Eventually democracy will take root, but only in time. In the meanwhile, there is a void, and radical Islam/ideologies and hatred can take hold as people don't have opportunities.

    Very good point. As you note, it takes decades and almost ideal conditions for democracy to take root. These Middle Eastern countries have so many conflicting factions and historically, many of them had western colonial countries drawing artificial bounderies that often did not reflect the populations within, and a host of other problems. So you wind up with a country like Iraq with three factions at each other's throats, and only a strong man like Hussein keeping the country together. No wonder Bush Senior didn't want to enter Bagdad after the first Iraq war.

    You're absolutely right. Good point re: the artificial boundaries too.

    What worries me is once the strong man is taken out (as was the case with Hussein) and the vacuum is created (since democracy was not allowed to take root organically, but rather was forced from the top down) then you have an opening for the likes of ISIL to come in and spread its poisonous and extreme brand of Islam.

    That's why the US and the west have no choice now. They created this mess by toppling Saddam Hussein in Iraq without a proper backup plan and a naive hope of democrary flourishing. Now they have to stop ISIL taking a stronghold, because they are trying to create a theocracy for the whole of the middle east and not just Iraq/Syria. It's easy for them because Sunni Islam is the one thing holding the place together (as you said, the boundaries were always artificial). The other demarcation of course is Shia/Sunni
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 4,603
    Islam for many is a way of life. Many people within modern western liberal cultures have forgotten what religion is and how much it really means to people who follow it. The C of E is just a kind of very lite non offensive religion, its close to not being a religion at all, it has given up so much. It has been forced to give things up in the face of an increasingly secular and educated public who would rather go down the pub, visit Ikea or watch premiership football (none of things used to be allowed on Gods special day). There is a massive contrast between the C of E and Islam in terms of the strength of connection. And that passion and commitment that exists within Islam can become misplaced. Does anyone remember the very mild and well mannered demonstrations that took place when The Life of Brian was released? Well imagine of the did The Life of Brian 2 - but this time Brian was mistaken for Mohammed. Some how I don't think the demonstrations would be so mild. So its not the actual piece of art (movie, cartoon etc) it is the target audience and how strongly they feel. But that does not mean we should only make fun of religions who dont really get upset as thats another form of victimisation. All sets of ideas can be subject to ridicule in my book
    And to those who claim that Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion, its a pity they dont have web cams in Saudi Arabia so we could all watch the regular public floggings handed out by the Islamic government as punishment for insulting Islam.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    jobo wrote: »
    No one is suggesting that all Muslims are evil but hand wringing liberals in fear of offending the wider Muslim community in the west desperately contorting themselves to come up with any excuse for these actions does no one any good. The undeniable common link between all these attacks is Islam, be it a perverted version of Islam or not, and rather than shy away from this we need to address it head on. The first step to tackling a problem is to admit you have one and so I would just ask what is it about Islam in particular that makes the conditions ripe for people to hold others lives, and more crucially their own lives so cheaply?

    I don'tknow what you are refering to here. Who have been coming up with excuses for these actions? Certainly no one on this forum. And the thought that the only reason to defend Islam as an ideology is for fear of offending the Muslim community... you are hilarious! :) What is important is to understand the underlying reasons for theze actions in a broader perspective. To claim its all about a "disease" called religion is certainly not the way to do it. Religion, as all ideologies, can be used to promote both peace and violence. That's why we need to know why some poeple choose to use it for the latter.

    The general notion amongst antireligious seems to be that all religious scriptures have to interpreted in a fundamentalistic fasion. That in fact makes you just as fundamentalist as the very people you criticize. Its simplistic thoughts like these which leads to the violence in the first place, so congratulations...

    Did I say I was talking about anyone here?

    I'm pretty sure I also differentiated between kindly and harmless religious people and fundamentalists:

    Where at one of end of the spectrum of mental illness you have the harmless person who mumbles to themselves in the supermarket or has to arrange their soup tins in alphabetical order on the shelf at the other you have a serial killer or someone who kills themselves. So it is with religion - at one end you have the kindly person who believes lighting a candle and kneeling before a statue will be enough to cure their grandmothers dodgy hip and at the other you have the suicide bomber.

    Yep there it is. But don't let me stop you from censoring someone's post to make your point in a debate about freedom of speech. Who's hilarious?

    Anyway I don't know where you live but anyone from the UK will recognise this as barely satire it is so worryingly close to the truth in this country:
    http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/what-if-icharlie-hebdo-i-had-been-published-in-britain/16443

    And was proven to be bang on the money by this contemptible moment from the BBC:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/09/bbc-muhummad-charlie-hebdo-question-time_n_6444182.html

  • edited January 2015 Posts: 4,603
    Religion can be dangerous in different ways. Lighting a candle and praying to cure a dodgy hip is a dangerous thing in that it undermines centuries of medical work. There are cases where parents have with held back medical treatment from their kids as they were secure in the knowledge that prayer and a few candles would save their child. Of course it did not and the kids die. IMHO anytime you pass responsibility of your own well being and that of others to an invisible guy in the sky, its getting dangerous.
  • Posts: 725
    bondjames wrote: »
    What worries me is once the strong man is taken out (as was the case with Hussein) and the vacuum is created (since democracy was not allowed to take root organically, but rather was forced from the top down) then you have an opening for the likes of ISIL to come in and spread its poisonous and extreme brand of Islam.

    That's why the US and the west have not choice now. They created this mess by toppling Saddam Hussein in Iraq without a proper backup plan and a naive hope of democrary flourishing. Now they have to stop ISIL taking a stronghold, because they are trying to create a theocracy for the whole of the middle east and not just Iraq/Syria. It's easy for them because Sunni Islam is the one thing holding the place together (as you said, the boundaries were always artificial). The other demarcation of course is Shia/Sunni

    Yes, good point about the concept of the "strong man." It is almost the only hope in these countries. It seems the best they can do is have a benevolent strong man like Sadat, early Moubourak or Jordon's king. Not sure, but I think Hussein early on was quite moderate, secular, and opposed to the radical Islamist faction. It's tragic that he became more corrupt, invaded Kuwait etc. I always remember Colin Powell's famous warning to Bush about Iraq, "You break it, you own it." How right he was. Its tragic he didn't run for President, as its always been my .02 that he was vastly more qualified than any US President in decades.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    smitty wrote: »
    I always remember Colin Powell's famous warning to Bush about Iraq, "You break it, you own it." How right he was. Its tragic he didn't run for President, as its always been my .02 that he was vastly more qualified than any US President in decades.

    Very true. He also unfortunately completely discredited himself when he went to the UN and talked about the smoking gun etc. I know he really regrets that moment and wishes he could take it back. He was a loyal soldier to the end.

    If only more governments would consider the Powell Doctrine (itself a variant and refinement of Sun Tzu's seminal "The Art of War") before getting entangled in overseas messes, things would be much better for all of us.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited January 2015 Posts: 9,117
    patb wrote: »
    Religion can be dangerous in different ways. Lighting a candle and praying to cure a dodgy hip is a dangerous thing in that it undermines centuries of medical work. There are cases where parents have with held back medical treatment from their kids as they were secure in the knowledge that prayer and a few candles would save their child. Of course it did not and the kids die. IMHO anytime you pass responsibility of your own well being and that of others to an invisible guy in the sky, its getting dangerous.

    Quite. Lets not forget the insane Jehovahs who prefer to let their kids die than give them life saving medical treatment.

    Non religious parents would be had up for child abuse if they did this:
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/08/judge-rules-jehovahs-witness-boy-blood-transfusion

    How is a judge allowed to ride roughshod over their beliefs by the way? I thought it was one of your inviolable human rights that your religion has to be respected however mental (or unless its Jedi because thats just taking the piss apparently) so the child should have been left to die. These parents have had their religious rights impinged. Disgraceful.

  • Posts: 4,603

    Correct me if Im wrong but I cant remember any "fuss" over this. Times have really changed, used to love NTNON,
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 2,015
    Getafix wrote: »
    Economic analysis might not solve much on its own, but jobs for young people (as you know France has some of the highest youth unemployment in Europe) helps drain the swamp of directionless youth on whom criminals and jihadi nutjobs prey.

    Well, do you think Romany camps in France are the place where terrorists are the most easily found ? They are the people who are really at the lowest level of consideration here, far, far below other categories. They're at such a low level here that recently the mayor of a town refused to allow a Romany family to bury their baby in his town.

    Guess what, if a Romany camp arrive somewhere, some people will fear burglaries will happen.. but will anyone fear for their life ? Not at all.

    I think that such economic analysis is really dated from the beginning of mass unemployment in the 1970s. It was new at the time, so many people thought it would explain every change...

    BTW, FYI, youth unemployment in France (22.5%) is in the average of Europe Union (22.2%). But facts come second to theory I guess :)
    Getafix wrote: »
    I just wonder what you're proposing we should do? Do we back ourselves into corners and start shouting ever more loudly at each other or (...)

    Not blaming the victims is a good start IMO. And I didn't hear much shouts in the Parisian crowd on Sunday. But I'm sure you can find in the next days for example some red paint thrown on a Muslim woman by dozens of narrow-minded people somewhere, that will allow the relativists to claim French society is to blame for everything that happened.

    "Funnily" enough, I found that often, the same person that explains that "being poor" "explains" why you can become a terrorist, doesn't want to allow other to explain that "being poor" can explain why you can become racist. IMO the relativism is so strong amongst some intellectuals, that they prefer to blame racists who just shout with no sign of intelligence, and to excuse racist who kills in the name of some intellectual concepts. "At least they have a reason to do it"...
    Getafix wrote: »
    We shouldn't let the nutters win by allowing ourselves to become ever more divided - that would be a victory for the jihadis and precisely what they are trying to achieve. They don't want people to integrate and understand each other, they want blame, retribution , hate.

    Well, should we continue to publish caricatures of Mahomet or not, then ? Some use these caricatures to explain it carries "hate", and that the attack was then a "retribution" of which the victims are to "blame" partially because they published caricatures.

    Charlie-Hebdo's next issue will feature Mahomet on the front page...

    o-CHARLIE-HEBDO-COUVERTURE-570.jpg

    "All is forgiven" - Mahomet crying with a sign "I am Charlie". It doesn't depict him in a bad light, does it ? But a cartoonist drew him, and some think you can kill him for that. I don't know the solution, but IMO the problem is in the last sentence, not in some macro-analysis that fail to explain anything, that exists just because it is coherent and fuzzy enough in order to avoid to be debunked neatly, just like Freudian psychoanalysis.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I don't buy the economic argument to explain Islamic terrorism.

    I think some people are addicted to simplistic explanations to avoid to say "We don't know". IMO, the economic argument is as simplistic as the argument according to which Muslims are evil. Note that both explanations allow people to blame others...

    Anyway, I see that no one here dared to explain the antisemitic murders the next days in Paris by the same "economic" explanation.. and yet "I killed Charlie because they drew caricatures" is IMO exactly like "I killed Jews because they killed Jesus" and other stuff like that that are the basis of the antisemitic subculture : some intellectualisation of hate, that prevent some other intellectuals to see it's just irrational hate.

    Since a lot here have talked about Charlie Hebdo without knowing them, I tried to found a subtitled documentary about them while they were making an issue with Mahomet on the cover a few years ago. Guess what I found it on some UK or US site, an excerpt from "It's hard being loved by jerks", by Daniel Leconte, but I just can't find it again in my bookmarks or history.. Too bad. I think anyone describing them as Muslim haters should really try to watch that.

    Finally, here's IMO one the best cartoons that was made during the crisis. IMO, it reminds every relativist of the difference between a cartoon and a murder.

    020-charlie.gif

    "If you don't surrender, our elite cartoonist will draw a caricature of the prophet !". Yes it was made during the hostage crisis...
  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    Posts: 2,629
    Oh BTW, 2,000 people were killed in Nigeria over the weekend at the responsibility of another Islamic Extremist group.

    Not sure about this part, but reports include sending 10 year old girls in a marketplace strapped with bombs and detonated remotely. If that is the case, that is one the most disgusting acts seen in our lifetimes.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 2,015
    It was the same group, Boko Haram, responsible for the acts that caused the #Bring Back Our Girls campaign. So one can say at the same time it was not ignored worldwide, and yet that we still don't know what to do. The girls are still probably sex slaves for the cult.
  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    Posts: 2,629
    15%2B-%2B1
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 109
    A must see, for those of you who can get it, about the state of Islam in the UK -

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b050nj0z/panorama-the-battle-for-british-islam

    This is an uncomfortable, but truthful look at the fight for hearts and minds between moderate British Mulims and a growing strain of puritanical Islam.

    It was reassuring to hear moderate Muslims speak out against this form of Islam, and particularly gratifying to hear them reject the Muslim grievance narrative. None raised events from many years ago in an attempt to find false moral equivalence. Neither did any point the finger at other religions or religion generally. Western democracy and values were supported. No one blamed Western economics, and foreign policy was regarded as a red herring. I get the impression that the Left on this thread are trotting out their own bugbears and are avoiding looking closely at what lies at the centre of extreme Islam - a totalitarian and supremist ideology.

    More worryingly, the programme highlighted extreme views from bodies who claim to represent Muslims such as The Muslim Association Of Britain. These bodies were shown to dismiss any criticism as Islamaphobic. The moderates complained that this rhetoric was fuelling violent Islam.

    I live in Luton, a town with a large Muslim community, and a town which has found itself in the middle of various controversies. It was here that the EDL was formed! I see the contrast between moderate and extreme Islam regularly - from the polite and hard working moderates who are a credit to the town, to those expressing views at odds with a liberal democracy, to those dealing out extemist literature in the streets. The moderates give me hope for the future and it's a battle they must win if we are ever going to coexist peacefully with Islam.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 7,507
    @TheWizardOflce

    You call that "censor"? ;)) When you write a far too long post repeating yourself several times, I am in mye full right to choose what part of it to higlight, and what part of it to ansver. Making these ridiculously long quotes, and not least reading them, is pretty tiring.

    Ludovico wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    He also built a strawman saying Sam Harris was for genocide. Aslan is smart, but sometimes full of himself and often gives islam a free pass.

    When did he say that?

    http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-mechanics-of-defamation

    Saw your reply first now. So it was all down to a retweet twitter. Thought so... The most shocking about this link is Harris' statement. Its absolutely no wonder why it caused some reactions.

    The quote on the meme is a complete fabrication.

    But the meaning was essentially the same. Wether it is "believing in a proposition" or just "believing".

    No it was not. Read his post. The meme was slander, plain and simple. And Aslan's accusation as stupid as it was vile.

    I don't really buy that argument. I read the entire post, and I frankly don't see how it was "taken out of context". He wrote simply "The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." There it is, fair and square. How is it "taken out of context"? He is basically saying the same thing as the Islamist fundamentalists say, or the very texts in the koran he feels so strongly about. It might be only a bad choice of words (which makes sense as the rest of the text is actually quite badly written for someone with English as his first language...), but that's how modern media works. Bad statements get publicity, and will cause reactions. Harris goes about in the same way in his "lectures" about religion. Simply highlighting every sentence or statement thats innapropriate in the context of the 21st century, and highlighting it as the very essence of the religious text... consisting of thousands of sentences in total...

    And Sam Harris has none of my sympathy. Although his reasearch on religion and its practices is fairly non existant, he still feels he is in a position to lecture religious people about their own beliefs. During his debates he is constantly revealed to state false facts. His message is in essence that Islam is pure evil, and that all the billions of peaceful, moderate muslims out there are so because they don't follow the text properly. Which is not only provocative, but also plain stupid. But I guess everything is just "bad choice of words", "taken out of context"?
  • Posts: 725
    A must see, for those of you who can get it, about the state of Islam in the UK -

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b050nj0z/panorama-the-battle-for-british-islam

    This is an uncomfortable, but truthful look at the fight for hearts and minds between moderate British Mulims and a growing strain of puritanical Islam.
    It was reassuring to hear moderate Muslims speak out against this form of Islam, and particularly gratifying to hear them reject the Muslim grievance narrative. None raised events from many years ago in an attempt to find false moral equivalence. Neither did any point the finger at other religions or religion generally. Western democracy and values were supported. No one blamed Western economics, and foreign policy was regarded as a red herring. I get the impression that the Left on this thread are trotting out their own bugbears and are avoiding looking closely at what lies at the centre of extreme Islam - a totalitarian and supremist ideology.

    More worryingly, the programme highlighted extreme views from bodies who claim to represent Muslims such as The Muslim Association Of Britain. These bodies were shown to dismiss any criticism as Islamaphobic. The moderates complained that this rhetoric was fuelling violent Islam.

    I live in Luton, a town with a large Muslim community, and a town which has found itself in the middle of various controversies. It was here that the EDL was formed! I see the contrast between moderate and extreme Islam regularly - from the polite and hard working moderates who are a credit to the town, to those expressing views at odds with a liberal democracy, to those dealing out extemist literature in the streets. The moderates give me hope for the future and it's a battle they must win if we are ever going to coexist peacefully with Islam.

    A very insightful post as you capture the key to this horrible conflict. The moderate forces within the Muslim communities must find the strenth and courage to defeat the forces of radical Islam. They are in the majority but they are seriously threatened and understandibly intimidated. The moderates must win this battle within or we are all doomed. There are too many countries all too willing to aid the extremists with weapons and money for their own ends in this battle. If the moderates lose, Europe will have committed cultural suicide, and the US will be next.
  • Campbell2Campbell2 Epsilon Rho Rho house, Bending State University
    Posts: 299
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I don't buy the economic argument to explain Islamic terrorism.

    I think some people are addicted to simplistic explanations to avoid to say "We don't know". IMO, the economic argument is as simplistic as the argument according to which Muslims are evil. Note that both explanations allow people to blame others...

    It's rarely the really poor people who get angry and susceptible to extremism, it's much more often those who merely look to a drab but still liveable life. Much like many of those flocking to Le Pen and tho rallying in Germany now are not really poor or threatened, but they fear for the things they do have, are concerned for their future and have vague visions of how they might turn to losers.
    Religious extremism aims for the young and easily impressionable, the guys who dream of being somebody instead of nobody. Religion alone is already an illogical system that claims to have answers but demands unquestioning obedience. When such a system calls its followers to action everything can happen.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Liberals tend to looker further than just blame somebody or something, they tend to look further than a populist view.

    I have lived most of my life near Muslims and they work as hard as anybody I know. And yes some of them are not so pleasurable to have around. The same applies however to the people of my ethnic/cultural background. I refuse to blame a large group for their believes based on the actions of a few nutters.

    That said most religions share a very bloody & not very open minded history and are full of ridiculous statements by their religious leaders.

    Christianity, Islam and Judaism all have that holier than thou approach. There is nothing divine about any of those, they are strictly diabolic.
Sign In or Register to comment.