CharlieHebdo

1232426282945

Comments

  • Posts: 4,603
    I think its useful to have debate but Youtube is a very powerful tool in both getting a message across and letting other people have their say. See below a video from a Saudi Muslim cleric, you can all make up your own minds: it speaks volumes IMHO
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2015 Posts: 23,883
    After laughing hard, I thought about it. This could just be the crime of stupidity.

    At least he is postulating, in a calm but childlike fashion. Someone now needs to demonstrate to him why he is wrong.

    I'm more interested in what questions, if any, he got from his audience after his pronouncements, and how he responded. This will determine whether it is a failure to think it through or a firmly held delusion.
  • Well, Chelsea fans just proved what a video of racist behavior really looks like. You don(t need to lie and manipulate 10 hours of video when it happens...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2015 Posts: 23,883
    The links below are to comments on a National Security speech made by Obama, which covers much of our debate here on how to address this threat. We have touched on a lot of these issues. I encourage those interested to read the information in both links.

    I am more in agreement with Obama's approach, but I realize others have a different view.

    The debate is a good one to have.

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/19/obama-tells-moderate-muslims-dont-let-isis-hijack-islam

    http://www.worldreportnow.com/obama-asks-international-community-to-address-grievances-that-terrorists-exploit/302/
  • edited February 2015 Posts: 4,603
    Thanks for the link, unfortunate metaphor for the Guardian to use. IMHO to portray any large group of people (including a religion) as 99% good, peaceful , well meaning etc and 1% evil is just far too simplistic. Groups just dont organise themselves like that and its not human nature to move from the one group to another. Its a far more believable scenario to have a sliding scale and, within this, some young guys are being drawn to the extreme. This image of Islam is too complex for politicians to deal with as it means that, in additional to the terrorists, there are those who, whilst not murderers, may feel support or sympathy for them. I just cant see how ornanised terrorists could survive within an organisation where 99.9 percent of the group were against them.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism#Polls
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2015 Posts: 23,883
    There are some interesting observations to be made in those links. Particularly Obama's comments.

    I agree with you that some who are themselves not murderers sympathize with the extremists. That is 100% for sure. The question is why and how can one appeal to them to stop that? Is it even possible or is their sense of religious identity so strong that they are more likely to agree with the killers no matter what (the victimization syndrome).

    Politically it is a very difficult thing to address as a leader representing the West. You want to stop the ones who are killers without further antagonizing or creating new ones who may not be killers but who may be sympathizers. The aiders and abetters if you will. How can you win hearts and minds within the community? For example, if we asked the muslim people who were agitated in that video you posted a few days back what they thought about Denmark, I wonder what they would say. Would they say, "served you right?" I wonder. Or would they say that it was unacceptable for that person to have been killed at a free speech meeting even though they were offended that Lars Vilks was there. What would they say about ISIL/ISIS (I'm referring to those people in the video in particular)? Would they identify it as a religious war against their religion, or first and foremost as a war against terrorists?

    I personally think you have to frame the argument against the terrorists/killers carefully, without further antagonizing the broader community, which is what Obama is trying to do.

    As we've seen in some videos on this thread, some people take visceral offense if they feel that their religion is being specifically targeted or threatened. Conversely, some people seem to go out of their way to show that they are being targeted for their religious beliefs in other videos. In both cases, their religious identity is very strong.

    There was a very interesting discussion on this matter on CNN yesterday on AC360 with Maajid Nawaz & Farid Zacharia. However, I can't find the video online.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2015 Posts: 23,883
    patb wrote: »

    Quite frankly, this guy really should have known better. They have a history of doing this over there and he should have realized that. When in Rome, as they say.

    Having said that, they are 'our' friends, as I've said before, because they help to power our homes, our cars, our SUV's and our way of life. :)

    Until 'we' take a less hypocritical view of the world there really isn't going to be much change, sadly.

    I guess we selectively care who does the beheading over in that part of the world.

  • Posts: 15,106
    Sorry, but doing something stupid or careless is no excuse for murdering him.
  • Posts: 4,603
    Off topic slightly but a very good article from National Geographic concerning why some reasonable people doubt science. Its easy to translate how religion gets a foot hold under these circumstances. Homeopathy, Astrology, Religion etc etc
    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Sorry, but doing something stupid or careless is no excuse for murdering him.

    I agree. Quite frankly, is it not the murderers who should have known better?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Their country. Their laws. When they bring that sort of thing elsewhere, then they should be forcibly stopped. Irrespective, we should not be kissing their leaders hands, bowing before them or doing anything else with them for that matter. Hypocrisy at its best.
  • Posts: 15,106
    Still blaming the victims. If a woman is stoned to death in some backward nation because she is accused of adultery, I don't care whether she is truly an adulteress or not. I don't care if it is their law or not. It is evil to stone her, period.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    But she should have known better. You know, she had it coming.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Good heavens, stop blaming victims no matter the culture.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    They are a sovereign country and they have laws that one must follow when living there. That much I strongly believe. In any country one should follow the law. If one wants to expedite a change in their restrictive laws then it's advisable not to encourage it by buying their oil or bowing before them. Anything else is sanctimonious hypocrisy.
  • Posts: 15,106
    But she should have known better. You know, she had it coming.

    Yeah, I mean, you know, you don't want the punishment, you don't do the crime. Or act as if you did do it. Or something...
    Good heavens, stop blaming victims no matter the culture.

    I hope you know Thunderfinger was sarcastic.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Oh, my comment was not to him, it was in general - he was definitely sarcastic, in a way I rather appreciate most of the time. :)
  • Posts: 15,106
    And I am all for do like the Romans when in Rome... But that should go both ways: no tolerated sharia law in the UK, no fasting during Ramadam for children in school and overall the respect for the separation of Church and State. Oh and if someone laughs at your god or prophet... Toughen up mate.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And I am all for do like the Romans when in Rome... But that should go both ways: no tolerated sharia law in the UK, no fasting during Ramadam for children in school and overall the respect for the separation of Church and State. Oh and if someone laughs at your god or prophet... Toughen up mate.

    I agree. If you bring that stuff outside the homelands, you should be deported, no ifs, ands or buts.

    I wouldn't exactly say toughen up though, because arguably that's what a few people chose to do in their own crazy way recently. I would say, accept it, or leave.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    In any country one should follow the law.
    And what you write from the UK can be seen in any country where you can connect to the Internet. Should you obey to all laws then ?
    All the caricatures we talk about were created in countries where it was not illegal, and yet some people claim they should have respected other countries' laws, and that they somehow deserved what followed. Well IMO, it means you should censor yourself now that the Internet can mean your message can be seen everywhere... Power to those with the most intolerant laws then.


  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    In any country one should follow the law.
    And what you write from the UK can be seen in any country where you can connect to the Internet. Should you obey to all laws then ?
    All the caricatures we talk about were created in countries where it was not illegal, and yet some people claim they should have respected other countries' laws, and that they somehow deserved what followed. Well IMO, it means you should censor yourself now that the Internet can mean your message can be seen everywhere... Power to those with the most intolerant laws then.

    Some countries don't respect freedom of speech. Some countries behead people for breaking their law. Some countries ban the internet. I don't agree with any of that. All of those rules are offensive to me personally.

    Regarding this incident, if one makes statements about Mohammed in Saudi Arabia, where it is against the law (a nation that is by far the most restrictive in terms of any and all rights), then the severe consequences should be expected. It's just common sense. They are a country that does this to people, including foreigners, who break their laws. That's why I'll never work in that particular country.

    He was naive and stupid. Period.

    Regarding your point about self-censoring in an open society - that's an interesting view. In the west, I think we have 4 options:

    1. try to find all radicals and expel them (I don't see how this is practical since they are unlikely to freely identify themselves, so there is the risk of unfairly targeting moderates, thereby potentially encouraging racism, bigotry and prejudice)

    2. clamp down via a police-state (facism) which will result in less freedoms and privacy for all

    3. try not to antagonize the deeply religious among us who are likely to be irrationally sensitive to religious slights. I am not saying that their behaviour is condonable (and we know it's not rational) - I just realize that it's not stoppable either (to what they see as a religious offense).
    They are likely to violently react to perceived offenses due to the strength of their religious convictions (I am personally not a religious person because I don't see it as logical, but I have read enough about human behaviour to know that we are not as logical as we may think).
    Look at the way those people reacted in the theatre to the video by Vilks for instance
    This is the self-censoring option

    4. ban religion (difficult to enforce - and then the argument will be that people's right to free worship of religion was being curtailed)

    I leave it to everyone to find their own way with any of the above 4 options. To each their own.

    However, I agree with your premise that in order to keep society open, we may have to self-censor (or at least try not to antagonize), and so the most intolerant may actually gain power. It may just be a matter of moderating the tone of the criticism, but then again, that may not work either.

    The 5th option is of course to fund the scientists, get them to work harder and finally determine and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt how the universe was created, thereby finally delegitimizing religion once and for all :)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    I say let's take over Saudi Arabia, force less tribalistic, humanitarian & female-friendly laws upon them (while appropriating their oil, of course ;) ).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2015 Posts: 23,883
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I say let's take over Saudi Arabia, force less tribalistic, humanitarian & female-friendly laws upon them (while appropriating their oil, of course ;) ).

    I knew I missed one. That might in fact be the 6th and actually most practical option. :)

    In all seriousness, I think G. Bush and co. actually thought of this one a while back when they were going to spread democracy in the middle east.
  • With your state of mind, progress can't happen : Progressists are naive and stupid if they die by daring to oppose the law...

    Well, I'm not surprised...

    And I noticed that when terrorists die, on the other hand, you explain that they nevertheless made a point, that they were not so stupid as most say.

    Funny how relativists always end defending the worst, and blaming the good people.


  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2015 Posts: 23,883
    With your state of mind, progress can't happen : Progressists are naive and stupid if they die by daring to oppose the law...

    Well, I'm not surprised...

    And I noticed that when terrorists die, on the other hand, you explain that they nevertheless made a point, that they were not so stupid as most say.

    Funny how relativists always end defending the worst, and blaming the good people.


    Let me be clear.

    The gentleman who is going to be killed in Saudi Arabia broke the law. He will pay the price under the law of the country he is living in. He should have known the law of the country he was operating in. Either he wanted to die, wasn't too bright, or was not aware of the laws of the country he lived in. Those are the only 3 possible conclusions. The kingdom who's restrictive (even for Islam it is the most restrictive country) laws he broke are supported by Western powers who need its oil. That is unacceptable too because if it were not supported (including provision of police equipment and military equipment to suppress the population), the kingdom might have fallen by now.

    The muslim terrorists and murderers who commit crimes in Western countries should pay the price for their contravention of the laws in the countries they live in. The full price, whatever that may be, based on the respective laws. So should those who aid and abet them. Not those who just happen to share the religion as these terrorists though.....that would be completely illogical.

    Although I'm not religious, I personally don't support any policies that might lead to innocent people being discriminated against based on their religion. I believe that everyone in a free society should have the freedom to practice their religion in private and only in private as long as they don't infringe on the country's laws or on others. I also don't believe that religions are inherently bad or evil. Just illogical. In any religion there are some with very extreme beliefs however....these are the ones to look out for.

    Of the 4 response options I outlined in my previous comments, you're welcome to choose one that you subscribe to, or provide another alternative option. As far as I can see, those are the only options available as a response in western countries - like it or not. You are the one who proposed the self-censoring option. For me, it is one of 4.

    I don't mind which option any country takes, but each option has consequences. A free society is necessarily at a disadvantage when fighting radicals, if it wants to retain its freedoms while doing it, because radicals don't care about freedoms. A free society, by definition, has to.
  • Posts: 15,106
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And I am all for do like the Romans when in Rome... But that should go both ways: no tolerated sharia law in the UK, no fasting during Ramadam for children in school and overall the respect for the separation of Church and State. Oh and if someone laughs at your god or prophet... Toughen up mate.

    I agree. If you bring that stuff outside the homelands, you should be deported, no ifs, ands or buts.

    I wouldn't exactly say toughen up though, because arguably that's what a few people chose to do in their own crazy way recently. I would say, accept it, or leave.

    They are not really toughing up, in fact one using violence against someone mocking his beliefs is nothing but a spineless coward.
  • Posts: 4,603
    Well said, how shallow, feeble and weak is your own God that he has to be defended from harsh words/cartoons by the use of violence/murder.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And I am all for do like the Romans when in Rome... But that should go both ways: no tolerated sharia law in the UK, no fasting during Ramadam for children in school and overall the respect for the separation of Church and State. Oh and if someone laughs at your god or prophet... Toughen up mate.

    I agree. If you bring that stuff outside the homelands, you should be deported, no ifs, ands or buts.

    I wouldn't exactly say toughen up though, because arguably that's what a few people chose to do in their own crazy way recently. I would say, accept it, or leave.

    They are not really toughing up, in fact one using violence against someone mocking his beliefs is nothing but a spineless coward.

    That's all well and good. People are dead in Europe who had nothing to do with it, regardless, and that is what I'm against.

    The chap in Saudi Arabia on the other hand broke the law of his land and now he must face his punishment. Until the laws are changed, that's the way it is. Saying otherwise is being hypocritical.

    We can preach and judge all we want, but we need to find solutions to the problem without losing the freedoms that we spent centuries (and countless lives of our own ancestors) trying to build up.

    I am looking for practical solutions for Western countries concerned with violence on their shores. I laid out 4 in a prior post. I'm looking for additional ones to debate or am willing to debate the 4 proposed.
  • edited February 2015 Posts: 4,603
    Bondjames - I think your line of thought is OK if applied to some form of democracy/pluralism where there are legitimate ways of demonstrating and society progresses and changes. But you cant apply that logic in certain countries, Sometimes people have little choice but to break the law in an attempt to change things. IMHO they deserve our respect and admiration rather than "serves them right". We should not give these governments the same respect as our own regarding their ability to punish those he are so desperate to have the basic freedoms that we perhaps take for granted (like driving a car)
    http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/43850/saudis-could-still-flog-woman-who-dared-drive-car
    PS remember the demonstrator in Tiananman Square who stood up against a tank? Would it have been his fault if he had been killed as he knew demonstrating was against the law? Or the same logic for those demonstrating for their rights in 1960/70s South Africa?
Sign In or Register to comment.