|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Terrorist attack on french satirical magazine. Why
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
You're missing my point.
That's because you keep moving your point's goalposts.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Seriously. I honestly think that, because it's based on FACTS, not on memes thrown about on social media. The FACTS are that suicide bombers are usually middle class, better educated than their peers, and don't have a history of intense religiosity. The FACTS are that they're consistently angered by the presence of occupying forces.
These are the FACTS gathered from extensive research of hundreds upon hundreds cases. At the time that I first heard Professor Pape in a lecture quite some years ago, and he presented the FACTS, he and his team had researched every case of suicide bombing in the entire world up until the point where the incidence skyrocketed to unprecedented proportions in Iraq (almost entirely Muslims killing other Muslims). I haven't kept up to find out whether he's caught up since then.
But in every case, they had found out identities, backgrounds, religious history, economic status, social status.
It is simply not true that suicide bombers are a bunch of religious fanatics eager for paradise. No matter how fervently you believe that it's true, the FACTS don't agree with you.
You're in danger of giving Pape a quasi-papal authority in his infallible pronouncements about suicide bombings. But even he does not make such claims. In fact, he says that fundamentalism is not the primary motivation but he does not rule it out entirely. He'd be a fool to do so because he's gone through thousands of documents and records in which suicide bombers have made religious claims and references.
I think he's guilty of jumping to conclusions based on the fact that suicide bombings began as non-religious. Therefore he concludes religious motivation could be seen as relatively unimportant. He makes the mistake of secularising Islam amid claims that territoriality has nothing to do with Islamic theology or in making judgements about personal religious devotion, entirely ignoring the role of collective religious ritual in the formation of a terrorist.
A quick google search will tell you that there are different views in academia.
But I'm not claiming that religious fundamentalism is the sole determining factor, but it remains an important one. By contrast, you are entirely ruling it out. That's a mistake because you don't deal with terror by ignoring it. Pape makes the mistake of thinking that Islamist terrorism would go away with the removal of US troops from the Arabian Peninsula but it was never as simple as that. And events have superseded his claims.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by DaveW:
Oh really?
. If we want to stamp out FGM in the UK, we will be dealing exclusively with the Islamic community.
No you will not, it happens in Christian and shamanistic tribes.
On Honour killings- I believe they happen in Hindu cultures too. The charity that I am a trustee for is aware of shame based domestic violence in Nepal for example, even among church members. These behaviours could happen here as well. Not all Asians are Muslims.
[code]
[ 09. January 2015, 08:27: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
As that what Jesus says Matt?
Firstly, as I said earlier, part of me is too angry to care right now and I probably should have posted on the Hell thread rather than here for that reason. Secondly, whilst OLAS would I suspect not have used my exact words, He would I believe have had short shrift for those espousing the idea that killing because someone has a pop at your religion is a Good Thing; IIRC, He didn't mince words when referring to the religious fanatics of His time...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Spawn, basically you're telling me that the only person (as far as I'm aware) who's done a comprehensive study on that very specific question can be dismissed if he doesn't fit a previous set of assumptions.
A set of assumptions I pretty much shared once, because it's basically what we're constantly told we ought to believe.
Quasi-papal authority? Hardly. It's called respect for analytical skills. I sat through a long discussion of his methods and his findings. I didn't just have some kind of oh wow religious conversion, I had an academic carefully explain the patterns he identified in his research. I repeat his findings because they were so convincing - to me. Do you understand that I'm one of the most rigorously analytical and sceptical people around? How much emphasis I put on logical connections?
And you think a bit of googling is supposed to make me go "oh gee, all that careful explanation meant nothing, the knee-jerk popular view was right after all"?.
If you're going to label Islam as a major cause of terrorism, you're going to have to explain why terrorists don't come from Iran and don't come from Sudan. You're going to have to explain why some of the most fanatically religious regimes in the world don't create terrorists.
[ 09. January 2015, 09:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Look. It doesn't matter whether these two men did this because they are Muslims, Algerian patriots, or for that matter (though unlikely) agents of the Third Reich, the former Argentinian Junta or the Front National. What they did is appalling and indefensible. There are many human acts that motive does not excuse. Tout comprendre is not tout pardonner. Any reason they might claim or others might attribute, is irrelevant and doesn't change that.
Nor does any argument that only Moslems, or not only Moslems have done horrible things, that it is or is not in some way specifically Moslem.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Look. It doesn't matter whether these two men did this because they are Muslims, Algerian patriots, or for that matter (though unlikely) agents of the Third Reich, the former Argentinian Junta or the Front National. What they did is appalling and indefensible. There are many human acts that motive does not excuse. Tout comprendre is not tout pardonner. Any reason they might claim or others might attribute, is irrelevant and doesn't change that.
Nor does any argument that only Moslems, or not only Moslems have done horrible things, that it is or is not in some way specifically Moslem.
Enoch, I agree. However, we are on a thread with 'why' in the title.
I did in fact create a thread in Hell purely for the expression of the fact that this attack IS completely indefensible. However it became badly derailed by a side issue that I never saw coming, combined with a clear desire of various Shipmate to turn it into a Muslim-blaming exercise.
The value I see in trying to understand why is in trying to understand how to prevent or reduce the frequency of similar acts. But I am increasingly of the view, not just on this issue but on many others affecting modern society, that we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over.
Because the reaction is always the same.
At the large scale level we have basically been engaging in the same strategies for engaging with the relevant parts of the world for my entire lifetime, and probably considerably longer, and we're still constantly surprised at how it comes back to bite us.
More than anything it frustrates me how little awareness or interest in the rest of the world most of our society has. People constantly talk about 'Africa' as if it was a single country, like talking about 'Spain' (and heck, even a single country like Spain has some complex regional interactions). I don't actually study other parts of the world THAT much, but it scares the living daylights out of me that 'Islam' is treated as such a monolith (and a big bad one at that) that people could ever believe such nonsense as Saddam Hussein cooperating with Al-Qaeda.
Most people never had a clue about the complex shifting alliances in Afghanistan, many of them based on a carpet of ethnicities (most people would have no clue about Pashtuns, Tajiks and Hazaras, apart from maybe being aware that refugees are called Hazaras a lot). Nor do they understand the many factions in Syria and Iraq. No-one even heard about ISIS in the media until they became too big a problem to ignore. I would still expect the vast majority of people to have no conception of Sunnis, Shi'ites, Kurds, Yazidis, Baathists and the like. In our own countries, we can distinguish regions and towns and different social groupings until the cows come home, but "over there" is just a great big mass of browner people who cause us trouble.
And it seems we latch onto the most incredibly obvious common feature - which is little more than a different word for 'God' - and just don't engage in questions about why it is that vast numbers of people of the Islam faith don't support terrorism, why entire regions of the Muslim world don't create problems for us. We have no interest in separating out one group of brown people from another. We only have interest in separating them from us, and identifying something foreign to us that we can use to explain why they behave differently from us (except of course for those of 'us' that commit acts of terrorism or murder journalists).
It'd be breathtakingly novel if someone said something like "what is it about French citizens that makes them commit acts of terrorism", but no-one is ever going to say that, because (1) it's inaccurate and stupid to imply that millions of French citizens have a lurking propensity to terrorism and (2) being a French citizen is not a sufficient marker of otherness. But it seems we are perfectly happy to say "what is it about Muslims that makes them commit acts of terrorism", despite the fact that it is just as inaccurate and stupid to imply that over a billion Muslims have a lurking propensity to terrorism.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Spawn, basically you're telling me that the only person (as far as I'm aware) who's done a comprehensive study on that very specific question can be dismissed if he doesn't fit a previous set of assumptions.
I'm not dismissing all of his conclusions, I'm just disagree with some of what he says. He doesn't claim that there is no religious factor he says that it is not primary. On that point I'll just say that in some cases it might be primary in others not.
quote:
Quasi-papal authority? Hardly. It's called respect for analytical skills. I sat through a long discussion of his methods and his findings. I didn't just have some kind of oh wow religious conversion, I had an academic carefully explain the patterns he identified in his research. I repeat his findings because they were so convincing - to me. Do you understand that I'm one of the most rigorously analytical and sceptical people around? How much emphasis I put on logical connections?
I'm now getting the impression that it's the quasi-Papal authority of Orfeo rather than Pape, I'm dealing with. You're 'one of the most rigorously analytical and sceptical people around'. How about letting others be the judge of that. Your thinking is just a little binary for me on this point.
quote:
If you're going to label Islam as a major cause of terrorism, you're going to have to explain why terrorists don't come from Iran and don't come from Sudan. You're going to have to explain why some of the most fanatically religious regimes in the world don't create terrorists.
What is this nonsense that Iran and Sudan don't produce terrorists? In the case of Iran you wouldn't expect a 90-95 per cent Shia population to be contributing terrorists to Sunni organisations. Yet there have been terrorist incidents in Iran for decades. Iran has sponsored Hezbollah for a long time. Sudan hosted Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist camps and still hides camps to this day. The Sudanese regime is one of the major state sponsors of terorism. The SPLA springs to mind as a terrorist group. The words Sudan and terror are synonymous. (I notice that Pape also uses the example of Pakistan but perhaps you noticed that thousands of people have been killed by Pakistani terrorists).
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Sudan hosted Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist camps and still hides camps to this day.
I know. That's precisely the point. The people training as terrorists aren't Sudanese.
Did you actually read the Pape summary I linked to?
[ 09. January 2015, 10:20: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
And the SPLA was the army of the predominantly Christian South of Sudan. It is now the actual army of the country of South Sudan. These were the people fighting against the Islamic government of the country.
If you want to say that Sudan is synonymous with terrorism, you could at least check a basic fact like whether the terrorists you're nominating are Muslim!
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And the SPLA was the army of the predominantly Christian South of Sudan. It is now the actual army of the country of South Sudan. These were the people fighting against the Islamic government of the country.
If you want to say that Sudan is synonymous with terrorism, you could at least check a basic fact like whether the terrorists you're nominating are Muslim!
Yes, my apologies. I've followed the conflict closely for years so pretty inexcusable mix up. SPLA did use terrorist tactics at times. But it was the Sudanese Armed Forces and Janjaweed who I had in mind for Islamist terrorism. Janjaweed operate at times under the auspices of the armed forces. Sudan has been a terrorist state for long periods.
I'll excuse your forgetfulness about Iran being Shia and therefore unlikely to be fertile recruiting for Sunni-dominated terror.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I'm well aware that Iran is Shi'ite (as is south-eastern Iraq). It's precisely why it's worth pointing out to people the general lack of Iranian terrorists (as opposed to Iranian sponsorship of terrorists elsewhere).
I missed the part, though, where this discussion actually involved a declaration that Sunni Islam is the problem. I think you managed to mention them briefly, but look through the conversation. Do you see a lot of people declaring that this terrorism grows out of Sunni Islam? Nope. People just say it's because Islam is bad.
You know, if people turned up in these conversations and said things like "this terrorism grows out of/is driven by Wahhabism" I would do giddy somersaults of joy, just because it would mean that people made the same kind of basic effort with the Muslim world that people usually make with Christianity.
Sure, I'm fairly sure that some of my atheist friends would just lump Fred Phelps, the Ku Klux Klan and the Archbishop of Canterbury into a box labelled "Christian", but I wouldn't give their opinions any respect. And yet I'm supposed to take seriously commentary on "Islam" that rarely reaches the level of understanding that Iran is Shi'ite.
[ 09. January 2015, 11:21: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
In fact, French intelligence seem alarmed by the rise in non-Muslims being recruited into jihadi groups. The jihadists are able to appeal to kids' sense of injustice and their idealism - don't you want a better world, come and join us, and so on.
Of course, they are expected to convert, when they get to Syria, but it is quite an alarming symptom, I suppose, of the alienation of youth from the French state and French values.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
I was assuming in this thread there was some understanding of the distinctions. Islamist (not Islamic) terrorism of the Al-Qaeda and ISIL variety is a creature of Sunni Islam. Muslims are the primary victims of this kind of terrorism. Shia Muslims are also amongst the most common victims of this kind of terror. Shia Muslims are increasingly likely to be found in militias defending Shia shrines and communities against ISIL. This is why Pape's point about Iran is odd. It is certainly not the strongest point he makes in the essay you linked to.
[ 09. January 2015, 12:00: Message edited by: Spawn ]
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by DaveW:
Oh really?
You're missing my point.
You said these things were "purely Islamic," and they're not. They may be most prevalent in the UK among Muslim communities, but that's a distinctly different claim, and it's important that the two not be conflated.
Being opposed to FGM, honor killings, or blasphemy declarations does not necessarily require you to have a problem with Islam.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I was assuming in this thread there was some understanding of the distinctions.
It's not a safe assumption. To a sizable part of the population of Western democracies, 23% of the world's population are all alike.
Besides, Shi'ites engage in terrorism too, in the right circumstances. Hezbollah is Shi'ite, which is why they're sponsored by Iran. This is perfectly explicable by Pape because his analysis relies on geopolitical circumstances not on religion.
Someone relying on a religious explanation, on the other hand, has to explain why it's mostly Sunnis, except it's not most Sunnis, except it's also Shi'ites. So long as the claim is that the major driver is a religious viewpoint, and in the case of suicide bombing a desire for a whole lot of virgins in paradise, the failure of terrorist activity to actually correlate with devout religion or a particular form of devout religion is a conundrum.
[ 09. January 2015, 12:13: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you're going to label Islam as a major cause of terrorism, you're going to have to explain why terrorists don't come from Iran and don't come from Sudan.
Um, then what about Hezbollah (based in Lebanon, but funded/supported by Iran)? To say nothing of the 1979-80 hostage-taking at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
And what about folks like Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, a Sudanese national linked to the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa?
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
One more from Iran - a suicide bomber "recruitment fair" held on the grounds of the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran...
BTW - none of this should be taken as my supporting the idea that "all Muslims are terrorists", or any such nonsense. I do think, however, that the proposition that terrorism/suicide bombing has nothing at all to do with certain interpretations of Islam misses the mark.
[ 09. January 2015, 13:31: Message edited by: jbohn ]
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you're going to label Islam as a major cause of terrorism, you're going to have to explain why terrorists don't come from Iran and don't come from Sudan.
Um, then what about Hezbollah (based in Lebanon, but funded/supported by Iran)? To say nothing of the 1979-80 hostage-taking at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
And what about folks like Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, a Sudanese national linked to the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa?
Horseshit.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Horseshit.
I'm afraid I don't follow. Come again?
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
One more from Iran - a suicide bomber "recruitment fair" held on the grounds of the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran...
BTW - none of this should be taken as my supporting the idea that "all Muslims are terrorists", or any such nonsense. I do think, however, that the proposition that terrorism/suicide bombing has nothing at all to do with certain interpretations of Islam misses the mark.
Just to clarify, this post is broadly my view. Radical Islamist belief is part of the mix. To take it out of the picture altogether, as Orfeo wants to do, makes no sense at all.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
One more from Iran - a suicide bomber "recruitment fair" held on the grounds of the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran...
BTW - none of this should be taken as my supporting the idea that "all Muslims are terrorists", or any such nonsense. I do think, however, that the proposition that terrorism/suicide bombing has nothing at all to do with certain interpretations of Islam misses the mark.
Horseshit, doubled.
Nice use of the term 'certain interpretations' to denigrate without justification. I must remember that trick.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
One more from Iran - a suicide bomber "recruitment fair" held on the grounds of the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran...
BTW - none of this should be taken as my supporting the idea that "all Muslims are terrorists", or any such nonsense. I do think, however, that the proposition that terrorism/suicide bombing has nothing at all to do with certain interpretations of Islam misses the mark.
Just to clarify, this post is broadly my view. Radical Islamist belief is part of the mix. To take it out of the picture altogether, as Orfeo wants to do, makes no sense at all.
If by 'Radical Islamist belief' you mean a mindset that supports terrorism then can you accept that'Radical Christian belief' drove the Ku Klux Klan and South African apartheid?
[ 09. January 2015, 13:47: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Horseshit, doubled.
Nice use of the term 'certain interpretations' to denigrate without justification. I must remember that trick.
Again, not following the "horseshit". Care to explain?
As far as the term "certain interpretations" - simple truth. Some Muslims interpret their faith to allow and/or require armed struggle against Israel/the West/etc. Others don't. Christians have differing interpretations of faith as well. No denigration meant, simply acknowledgement that all members of <insert religion here> don't necessarily agree.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
One more from Iran - a suicide bomber "recruitment fair" held on the grounds of the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran...
BTW - none of this should be taken as my supporting the idea that "all Muslims are terrorists", or any such nonsense. I do think, however, that the proposition that terrorism/suicide bombing has nothing at all to do with certain interpretations of Islam misses the mark.
Just to clarify, this post is broadly my view. Radical Islamist belief is part of the mix. To take it out of the picture altogether, as Orfeo wants to do, makes no sense at all.
If by 'Radical Islamist belief' you mean a mindset that supports terrorism then can you accept that'Radical Christian belief' drove the Ku Klux Klan and South African apartheid?
Yes, of course Christian beliefs can support violence and terror. I've given another example on this thread of Christian anti-semitism. Please read the thread before you call horseshit,out of the blue, on perfectly reasonable posts.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Please read the thread before you call horseshit,out of the blue, on perfectly reasonable posts.
Don't tell me what to do. Ever again.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
a clear desire of various Shipmate to turn it into a Muslim-blaming exercise.
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Radical Islamist belief is part of the mix. To take it out of the picture altogether, as Orfeo wants to do, makes no sense at all.
As two more people are killed and a hostage situation arises in a kosher supermarket in Paris, I have to agree with Spawn. Orfeo is trying to completely take out any Muslim element to these atrocities, and it can't be done. Citing French colonialism in North Africa, Israeli action in Gaza, and US and its allies (including the UK) actions in Afghanistan and Iraq may put a historical perspective on why these Muslims are so angry, but it doesn't de-Islamise the atrocities.
I believe that we are all individually responsible for our sins. The responsibility for these incidents, still ongoing, rests entirely on the shoulders of the men who are carrying them out, and on the rotten element within Islam, not Islam as a whole, which encourages and glorifies such acts.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Hi All,
especially Spawn and jbohn
It has dawned on me that my recent posts have both in tone and content been more suitable for Hell. My only excuse is that there's been similar stuff going on in RL.
I'm sorry, I haven't helped the debate and I'll stick to That Place for this topic in future.
Please accept my apologies and forgive me.
Sioni
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Please accept my apologies and forgive me.
No apology needed, as far as I'm concerned - I honestly wasn't (and still aren't) sure exactly what you were objecting to.
Hope your RL issues get better soon, friend. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Hi All,
especially Spawn and jbohn
It has dawned on me that my recent posts have both in tone and content been more suitable for Hell. My only excuse is that there's been similar stuff going on in RL.
I'm sorry, I haven't helped the debate and I'll stick to That Place for this topic in future.
Please accept my apologies and forgive me.
Sioni
No apology needed. You know that I enjoy a certain edge to debate. But hope that things get better in real life.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Please accept my apologies and forgive me.
No apology needed, as far as I'm concerned - I honestly wasn't (and still aren't) sure exactly what you were objecting to.
Hope your RL issues get better soon, friend.
Thanks jbohn & Spawn, The RL issues aren't particularly mine but those of a Muslim couple I know.
[ 09. January 2015, 14:39: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Citing French colonialism in North Africa, Israeli action in Gaza, and US and its allies (including the UK) actions in Afghanistan and Iraq may put a historical perspective on why these Muslims are so angry, but it doesn't de-Islamise the atrocities.
You may not have emerged from your hardened bunker recently, but all of those things are still going on.
If I wrote a post about 9/11, and how it puts a historical perspective on why Americans are so angry, but it doesn't de-Americanise the warmongering, drone strikes, bombings and military occupation, I imagine you'd probably want to tear me a new one.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
One more from Iran - a suicide bomber "recruitment fair" held on the grounds of the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran...
BTW - none of this should be taken as my supporting the idea that "all Muslims are terrorists", or any such nonsense. I do think, however, that the proposition that terrorism/suicide bombing has nothing at all to do with certain interpretations of Islam misses the mark.
Just to clarify, this post is broadly my view. Radical Islamist belief is part of the mix. To take it out of the picture altogether, as Orfeo wants to do, makes no sense at all.
But this is different from blaming Islam, as some people here are doing. I don't think that Islam automatically leads to Islamism - I live in London, surrounded by many Muslims, e.g. shop-keepers, and I don't see signs of Kalashnikovs appearing in their shops.
In fact, to say that Islam is evil, sounds to me like Al Quaeda-speak - a whole category of people are dismissed.
[ 09. January 2015, 14:58: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607
|
Posted
Trying to pretend that violence has nothing to do with Islam seems a hard sell given that Mohammad was involved in many violent wars to spread its belief system.
There is big difference between Jesus' life and Mohammad's.
Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I feel ashamed to be taking part in a forum where something so vile could be written; and a weird kind of shame that I had to read it. However, I guess that God may forgive such inhuman and inhumane sentiments.
OK so tell me what affinity you feel for people who react to press freedom with mass murder, just because the message offends them. Tell me who else behaves that way when subjected to the same treatment. The answer to the second question is no-one. What these people did is certainly alien to how I believe we should live.
'These people' = the actual murderers, not Muslims in general (or even Muslim fundamentalists. The perpetrators should be hunted down and punished. But what they did is a crime, not an act of war: 'the West' is not the offended party, the unfortunate Charlie Hebdo journalists, and the police officers, are. The moment 'Western civilisation' takes sides against 'the Muslims' is the moment that a crime becomes war, and it should never happen. (In any case, are not Muslims who are French nationals as much a part of 'Western civilisation' as we are?)
However, I am genuinely puzzled why 'free speech' should be guaranteed for an offensive portrayal of another's religion, while statements or cartoons expressing racism, anti-semitism, homophobia etc should be taboo. I believe in free speech, but there are ways of expressing ones views in ways that are less inflammatory, and maybe some expressions should be banned. If there is a clear and obvious distinction between the Charlie Hebdo cartoons and other forms of 'free speech' that I have missed, can someone point it out please?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Suspects of the Charlie attack have apparently just been killed in an assault by the French security forces. Some hostages have been freed in Paris.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
Trying to pretend that violence has nothing to do with Islam seems a hard sell given that Mohammad was involved in many violent wars to spread its belief system.
There is big difference between Jesus' life and Mohammad's.
Well, good point. Next time I meet a Muslim neighbour or friend, I shall certainly be on the look-out for that hidden revolver or grenade. The ones with beards merit particular scrutiny - perhaps a full body search?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Suspects of the Charlie attack have apparently just been killed in an assault by the French security forces. Some hostages have been freed in Paris.
So, and this is a serious point and not just a distasteful one, they've fulfilled exactly half of their aspiration to die as martyrs.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Suspects of the Charlie attack have apparently just been killed in an assault by the French security forces. Some hostages have been freed in Paris.
So, and this is a serious point and not just a distasteful one, they've fulfilled exactly half of their aspiration to die as martyrs.
Indeed. This amused me.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
No. They didn't die as martyrs. That is offensive to the memory of those innocent martyrs who have been killed for holding on to their faith.
These are murderers who preferred to be killed rather than to be taken alive, like the baddies in the old Westerns. Ironic.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Angloid wrote:
quote:
However, I am genuinely puzzled why 'free speech' should be guaranteed for an offensive portrayal of another's religion, while statements or cartoons expressing racism, anti-semitism, homophobia etc should be taboo.
Well, I am not an advocate of ANY hate-speech restrictions, so am not open to the accusation of double-standards.
However, if I had to construct an argument in favour of denying religion the same protections that are given to race, sexual orientation, etc...
It seems to me that, the vast majority of times when a religion gets spoofed, it's because the religion itself "entered the arena", so to speak, in the first place by trying to exert influence over the rest of society.
If the Pope says that abortion should be illegal, I don't see that he or his followers have much cause to complain if he gets portrayed in a political cartoon as a back-alley coat-hnager quck, inflicting unspeakable tortures on impoverished female patients. If the Pope doesn't like being subject to nasty caricatures, he shoulda thought twice about getting involved in an ongoing(and often quite nasty) debate about a controversial social issue.
You could probably re-formulate my position as being that, once they enter into the political sphere, religious leaders and organizations should expect about as much reverence as is generally forwarded to political leaders and organizations. "Hey hey LBJ..."
[ 09. January 2015, 16:17: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Well, there's punching up, and there's just punching.
Depicting the pregnant rape-slaves taken by Boko Haram as welfare queens isn't satirical. It's just foul.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Well, there's punching up, and there's just punching.
Depicting the pregnant rape-slaves taken by Boko Haram as welfare queens isn't satirical. It's just foul.
If this is addressed at me, the Pope-as-quack example would be an example of punching up, I would think.
I'm not sure what the context is for your example of hostages-as-welfare queens. Was that something in the Hebdo that was already mentioned on the thread?
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Found it.
I'm not sure that the problem with that cartoon is anti-religion. More like racism or maybe misogyny.
And that's assuming I can understand what it's trying to say. If the welfare recipients are being compared in an anti-religious magazine to the VICTIMS of religious extremism, does that mean the magazine sympathizes with the recipients?
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
No. They didn't die as martyrs. That is offensive to the memory of those innocent martyrs who have been killed for holding on to their faith.
These are murderers who preferred to be killed rather than to be taken alive, like the baddies in the old Westerns. Ironic.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) If they were willing to die for their religious beliefs, they are martyrs. That they did despicable things is a different issue.
The failure to understand and address the mechanisms which factor into the recruitment of such people is one part of the failure to stem these incidents.
To fail to recognise what they believe to be valid to them also contributes to our failure and their sense of victory.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If they were willing to die for their religious beliefs, they are martyrs.
That is not sufficient within the Christian understanding of the word 'martyr'. Those crusaders who refused to surrender to Saladin are not I believe recognised as martyrs.
Since 'martyr' is derived from the Christian theological term, one can argue that its use to describe people who die in combat is a mistranslation.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If they were willing to die for their religious beliefs, they are martyrs.
That is not sufficient within the Christian understanding of the word 'martyr'. Those crusaders who refused to surrender to Saladin are not I believe recognised as martyrs.
Since 'martyr' is derived from the Christian theological term, one can argue that its use to describe people who die in combat is a mistranslation.
Quite. To be a martyr, first one is required to have tried to avoid martyrdom, not to have sought it. Also, one has to be killed specifically because of one's faith, not for some other reason. These two young men were not killed for being Moslems. Therefore they are not martyrs.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If they were willing to die for their religious beliefs, they are martyrs.
That is not sufficient within the Christian understanding of the word 'martyr'.
You perhaps missed that they were not Christian?
Also, Christians did not invent the word and are not sole owners of it.
All that matters, in regards to motivation, is that they fit their own definition.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
To be a martyr, first one is required to have tried to avoid martyrdom, not to have sought it. Also, one has to be killed specifically because of one's faith, not for some other reason.
Again, the Christian definition. Or probably a Christian definition.
I am not saying they are correct even for any definition within Islam. I am saying that it is likely whaat they believe. And if we do not understand this and why, we have no hope of addressing the root causes.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Presumably you know that this publication's originated after a previous publication was banned. For making comments about Charles De Gaulle.
Interesting point in one sense, but in another, So What?
On its own it's meaningless - especially if we are still rightly condemning murderous acts. If however we are having a wider discussion and positing Islam as uniquely against our values of absolute free speech, then it's worth reminding ourselves how recent the commitment to that principle really is on the part of the society in which those acts were committed.
quote:
Even if the French government had suppressed or even imprisoned the editors of either Charlie Hebdo or its predecessor, even if the French government were to limit freedom of speech or allow it, that is of a minimal order in comparison with randomly killing a collection of people some working there and some not.
Well, you'd have to go back a few years more for that. I presume that some of those involved are still around:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_massacre_of_1961
and no - to compare is not to excuse.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
I listened to a programme on R4 a while back about the quality of teaching and spiritual guidance in British mosques. The point made by the programme (backed up by various Muslims who contributed to it) was that mosques were often run by staff brought in from south Asia. These people have no experience of life in a Western country and in consequence are unable to provide decent, relevant teaching or spiritual guidance, or even exert proper control over the mosque. They tend also to be fundamentalist. Oversight of the mosques themselves by umbrella organisations is also pretty weak. The situation described sounds like one where extremists could get embedded, and the sensible majority (I won't say "moderate" as it suggests the majority are not as Muslim) are unable to flush them out. I can't remember if the programme mentioned funding of extremist forms of Islam with petrodollars but if it is true, it would be a consistent part of the mix.
It may be true that Islam does allow a more direct route to violence in its teachings than other religions (including Christianity). However, Muslims can justifiably point to their own history to demonstrate that violence is not an inevitability. Muslims lived in European countries in increasing numbers for decades without there being any problems at all, leastways until the Satanic Verses affair. The difficulty is that the sensible majority of Muslims are clearly having difficulty in countering extremism in their own mosques.
Obviously this is not directly relevant to France, but it does make me wonder if the same issue exists there.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
