homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Paris attacks (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Paris attacks
Wesley J

Silly Shipmate
# 6075

 - Posted      Profile for Wesley J   Email Wesley J   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is this what is meant? And what sense would this make, please?

--------------------
Be it as it may: Wesley J will stay. --- Euthanasia, that sounds good. An alpine neutral neighbourhood. Then back to Britain, all dressed in wood. Things were gonna get worse. (John Cooper Clarke)

Posts: 7354 | From: The Isles of Silly | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
an excess of Pu239 might help...

An excess of Pu239. Either that's to build more nuclear power stations using MOX fuel, or development of breeder reactors that use 239Pu and natural uranium. Or, it's a suggestion that a nuclear bomb is used.

I fail to see any relevant benefit for either approach in the circumstances facing us in the face of terrorist acts.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks, peeps (I think).

Latest news is that France has flown off to Jolly Well Bash IS Up. No surprise there (and I can't honestly say I blame 'em).

Do we now refer to 9/11, 7/7, and 13/11? [Votive] [Votive] [Votive]

I.

--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)

Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
deano! Where ya bin baby? You were on my mind last week. Think of the Devil and he appears!

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
RuthW

In June 2015 the US Air Force claimed it destroyed ISIS headquarters.

In October 2015 the Russian Air Force claimed it destroyed ISIS headquarters

Trying to destroy the headquarters of ISIS is like playing Wack O Mole. It keeps popping up.

Moreover according to the New York TimesThe Islamic State’s reclusive leader has empowered his inner circle of deputies as well as regional commanders in Syria and Iraq with wide-ranging authority, a plan to ensure that if he or other top figures are killed, the organization will quickly adapt and continue fighting, American and Iraqi intelligence officials say.

Yes, we have to go after the recognized leadership. However, it will take a long time to identify the various levels of leadership; but just killing Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi will not make the threat go away overnight.

I stand by what I have said.

I take your point. And I should have paused to remember that "headquarters" doesn't mean "capitol." I still think ISIS seems to be more centralized than al-Qaeda, and that declaring al-Baghdadi the caliph, with all that the title carries with it, is part of that. Also, when France decided to bomb the crap out of ISIS, Raqqa is where they went. But of course you are right about how difficult it would be to come up with a military solution to the problem ISIS presents.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Uncle Pete

Loyaute me lie
# 10422

 - Posted      Profile for Uncle Pete     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Thanks, peeps (I think).

Latest news is that France has flown off to Jolly Well Bash IS Up. No surprise there (and I can't honestly say I blame 'em).

Do we now refer to 9/11, 7/7, and 13/11? [Votive] [Votive] [Votive]

I.

Don't forget 26/11. Mumbai thanks you.

--------------------
Even more so than I was before

Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hosting/

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
deano! Where ya bin baby? You were on my mind last week. Think of the Devil and he appears!

Martin60, please apply your "love your enemies" stance to yourself, at least in terms of what you post here - or avail yourself of Hell.

/hosting

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The reports of British jihadis taking copies of Islam for Dummies to Syria would tend to confirm that among the foot soldiers religion is not the primary motivation. Article.

That's an account of two who did. How widespread that is, is anybody's guess, but I'm guessing that it isn't that widespread given that many attended mosques regularly or became devout before they arrived.

Well, the article was suggesting the intelligence services thought their level of knowledge was fairly typical at least of the foot soldiers. I admit that RuthW's article gives an entirely different picture of the leadership.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I fail to see how jihadis carrying tutorials on Islam and the Koran is somehow an indication that "the 1,400-year-old Islamic faith has little to do with the modern jihadist movement" (as the article puts it) - if anything, it seems evidence of exactly the opposite.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Terror funding to be cut off, says Cameron.

This does read rather like there is such a thing as "Terror funding" and implies that we in the West do it. Still, we have a track record of it in the Middle East having supplied the Taliban plus various groups in Libya, Iraq and Syria, many of whom have turned out to be les friendly than was hoped.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My thought was, if it's easy to cut off funding for terrorists why hasn't it already been done? Basically, it's a restatement of an aspiration made by world leaders since at least 2001.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
They appear to be getting funds by selling oil. Who are they selling it to? They seem to have little trouble getting weapons. Who are they buying them from?

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It depends of course on which particular group of terrorists we're talking about. At present, for example, Daesh do not control any areas in Iraq or Syria that have significant mineral resources. The oil is located further south. They've probably looted quite a bit of wealth, but if they fail to enlarge their territory that's a very finite resource. It doesn't appear that they are attracting the wealthy to join their self-proclaimed caliphate, though plenty of other people.

Criminals have found plenty of ways to move money around and keep it from the hands of the authorities. If drug dealers can do it, so can terrorists. Stopping money moving is an almost impossible task - especially if you also want to maintain a modern economy that requires easy movement of capital.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29

 - Posted      Profile for Siegfried   Author's homepage   Email Siegfried   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
RIP....

As helped along by the religion of "P"

an excess of Pu239 might help...

Against who and where?

--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!

Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
RIP....

As helped along by the religion of "P"

an excess of Pu239 might help...

Against who and where?
Them and there.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343

 - Posted      Profile for Eirenist         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So in future, is the price of liberty (and perhaps life) for the many to be eternal surveillance for the few (and perhaps for all)?

--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'

Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
molopata

The Ship's jack
# 9933

 - Posted      Profile for molopata     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What worries me is the narrative of victimhood amongst Muslims. The Muslim husband of a friend of my wife was this morning expressing more concerned about this all being a setup and excuse to persecute Muslims than showing any empathy for those killed in France and their families.

In many ways mosques and Muslim organisations are simply ducking all responsibility by repeating the Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace-and-therefore-these-attacks-are-nothing-to-do-with-Islam fallacy.

Even the MCB's condolence release stated

"This attack is being claimed by the group calling themselves ‘Islamic State’. There is nothing Islamic about such people and their actions are evil, and outside the boundaries set by our faith."

Our media (yes, BBC, I am looking at you) is happy to lap these kind of statements up and transmit them as an uncontestable fact. The problem is, there is a lot of things Islamic about "such people". Daesh works closely with Islamic texts (in however a misguided way) and is led by some very accomplished Muslim academics. Apart from a few of the Islam-for-dummies types most terrorists have been radicalised through mosques and Islamic communities and take their study of the Quran very seriously. While they certainly also follow political goals, their actions are also infused by a world-view which lends profusely from Islamic thinking on Jihad and afterlife. In this, it is also inherently religious.

Many of these terrorists are being created in the midst of normal, law-abiding Muslims, and as such, the very people who are better placed than anyone else in society to work against radicalisation. Admitting to and then addressing such problems in one's midst is of course a painful and arduous process. However, I deem that the denial which appears so often in Muslim statements is just a means of passing the buck entirely and placing the onus of responsibility on the rest of society.

--------------------
... The Respectable

Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Of course said friend was more worried about that, considering there are fewer than 200 dead in Paris and thousands of Muslim refugees, that is an incredibly logical concern. Hell, there are enough people worried about the wounded, injured, and scared in Paris that I'm not wasting much worry on them either. They have richer and more useful people than I supporting them. The refugees on the other hand will be more attacked because of this and might actually be helped by the little tangible piece I can put my worry to.

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
molopata wrote:

Many of these terrorists are being created in the midst of normal, law-abiding Muslims, and as such, the very people who are better placed than anyone else in society to work against radicalisation. Admitting to and then addressing such problems in one's midst is of course a painful and arduous process. However, I deem that the denial which appears so often in Muslim statements is just a means of passing the buck entirely and placing the onus of responsibility on the rest of society.

This is getting close to guilt by association. I don't see that ordinary Muslims are responsible for Islamist violence. For many Muslims, presumably Islam is a religion of peace - the fact that others turn it into something violent is not their fault. I'm not responsible for your interpretation of something.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah the perennial "why don't Muslims do something/apologise/disown militants" point. It is made so often that it becomes a point barely worth responding to.

Muslims are moaned about when they say noting. They're moaned about when they say something. They're moaned about when the make strong statements disowning militants (can there be a stronger statement than saying these militants are not really Muslims?).

The fact is that for some there is nothing that Muslims ever say or ever do which could be good enough. It is easy to skirt over the differences between religions and assume that it is easy for some figure to make a statement on behalf of all Muslims - when in reality that is utterly impossible. The structure of that religion is totally different to the one that most Christians recognise.

And more to the point, how often is the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, the Coptic Pope, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the pastor of the small Evangelical church down the street, the charismatic minister of that independent chapel or the average pew-dweller in any British church asked to apologise for

  • drones which accidentally kill people
  • militants who pervert the name of Christianity - including the KKK
  • nationalists who use the symbols of religion to promote hatred
  • the IRA, ETA and other quote unquote "Christian" terrorists
  • Christian militas in places like oh, South Sudan, who have been committing barbaric acts

Let's say it is almost never. And why the fuck should they? Why should some white guy with a keyboard get to decide when other predominantly brown-skinned (with a history of social deprivation and antagonism by the majority community) have apologised and acting enough to stop murdering idiots that had nothing to do with them.

No.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

This is getting close to guilt by association. I don't see that ordinary Muslims are responsible for Islamist violence. For many Muslims, presumably Islam is a religion of peace - the fact that others turn it into something violent is not their fault. I'm not responsible for your interpretation of something.

More to the point, they are the primary victims in this. Even this weekend whilst the work of these barbaric murdering fools in Paris was plastered all over the TV, hundreds were killed in attacks in Lebanon. I don't doubt that tens or hundreds were killed in various other incidents throughout the Middle East, and it is fair to assume that the vast majority of victims were Muslims.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

This is getting close to guilt by association. I don't see that ordinary Muslims are responsible for Islamist violence. For many Muslims, presumably Islam is a religion of peace - the fact that others turn it into something violent is not their fault. I'm not responsible for your interpretation of something.

More to the point, they are the primary victims in this. Even this weekend whilst the work of these barbaric murdering fools in Paris was plastered all over the TV, hundreds were killed in attacks in Lebanon. I don't doubt that tens or hundreds were killed in various other incidents throughout the Middle East, and it is fair to assume that the vast majority of victims were Muslims.
Yes, I know. But I think it's important to state that Islam is not intrinsically anything, either peaceful or warlike. It depends on subjective interpretation, so you can't blame someone for somebody's else's view or actions.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
molopata

The Ship's jack
# 9933

 - Posted      Profile for molopata     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
molopata wrote:

Many of these terrorists are being created in the midst of normal, law-abiding Muslims, and as such, the very people who are better placed than anyone else in society to work against radicalisation. Admitting to and then addressing such problems in one's midst is of course a painful and arduous process. However, I deem that the denial which appears so often in Muslim statements is just a means of passing the buck entirely and placing the onus of responsibility on the rest of society.

This is getting close to guilt by association. I don't see that ordinary Muslims are responsible for Islamist violence. For many Muslims, presumably Islam is a religion of peace - the fact that others turn it into something violent is not their fault. I'm not responsible for your interpretation of something.

I didn't say that ordinary Muslims are responsible for Islamist violence, however, radicalisation is occurring in their midst. They are therefore best placed, and as such responsible in a coherent society to fight it. Many Muslim communities are very closed to the outside, and it is difficult for authorities to reach in to prevent Islamists appearing if they are not being supported by the communities themselves.

To say that Daesh has nothing to do with Islam is akin to saying that the Crusades - or our dear Mr Phelps for that matter - had/have nothing to do with Christianity. They unfortunately do, and as Christians we have a historic responsibility to ensure that the Crusades are never repeated, and we have a contemporary responsibility to work against the teachings of Phelps and many others like him in our midst.

To state whether Phelps is a Christian or not is a moot point, but to say he has nothing to do with Christianity is simply untrue. At least some of his thinking resides in many Christian churches, and it is such ideology we must fight against tooth and nail. That is not done by simply saying he is un-Christian and therefore not our responsibility.

--------------------
... The Respectable

Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
molopata

The Ship's jack
# 9933

 - Posted      Profile for molopata     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Of course said friend was more worried about that, considering there are fewer than 200 dead in Paris and thousands of Muslim refugees, that is an incredibly logical concern. Hell, there are enough people worried about the wounded, injured, and scared in Paris that I'm not wasting much worry on them either. They have richer and more useful people than I supporting them. The refugees on the other hand will be more attacked because of this and might actually be helped by the little tangible piece I can put my worry to.

Sorry Gwai, that was not his concern. He was concerned about Muslims in a general, abstract way - nothing to do with refugees.

And for the record, a sizeable proportion of the refugees are Christians anyhow.

--------------------
... The Respectable

Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Saying "Phelps is unchristian" doesn't necessarily mean "he is not our responsibility".

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sure, I can see what you're getting at but what are the imans supposed to say?

If the Andres Breivik thing were to happen on a wider scale then you can be assured that Christian leaders of whatever stripe would be saying, 'It's got nothing to do with us, these actions are un-Christian ...'

I don't think that anyone who is saying that the vast, vast, vast majority of Muslims want nothing to do with ISIS are also saying that there is nothing Islamic about ISIS at all ... what they are saying is that the jihadists have got hold of a twisted interpretation/application of Islam ...

The difficulty is that those who have gone down the route of saying that Islam shouldn't really be like that and that ISIS aren't representative have - inadvertently - played into the hands of the Islamophobes. I've seen lots of right-wing Americans (and others) having a go at Obama for apparently refusing to acknowledge a link between ISIS and Islam - as though Islam itself is really to blame and all Muslims are guilty - potentially or in actuality.

It's hard to think of a neat, soundbite-y way for politicians and religious leaders to say, 'We recognise that there are extremist elements within Islam just as there are in other religions - but this doesn't represent the mainstream or the majority view among Muslims as a whole.'

That's part of the difficulty.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Molopata,

You seem remarkably expert in these matters. Would it be worth volunteering your expertise to the security services instead of posting to a website read by a few hundred on a good day? [Biased]

FWIW if we are going to eradicate radicalisation it will have to be a "hearts and minds" operation, and a vast community of second-class citizens such as the six million Muslims in Frances, mostly in crowded cities, is going to take some turning round. They certainly can't do it themselves.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
molopata wrote:

I didn't say that ordinary Muslims are responsible for Islamist violence, however, radicalisation is occurring in their midst. They are therefore best placed, and as such responsible in a coherent society to fight it.

I'm curious how you know these things. Do you have evidence that radicalization is occurring 'in their midst'? I know that in London there were certain radical preachers, for example, at Finsbury Park mosque, who were later arrested.

But you seem to be suggesting that mosques in general have a radicalization strand going on. Any citations on this?

I think a lot of radicalization goes on via the internet, not in mosques.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quetzalcoatl, any reason why you've lost the ability to properly code the quotes of other posters? Any chance you can return to using the correct code, please?

[ 16. November 2015, 16:22: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
radicalisation

I've decided this word is the latest to fall victim to what I call the curse of "sustainable development".

It's an amorphous term that means whatever it's expedient to mean at the time.

I can't think of a better working definition right now than "willing to actually start killing people more or less at random for reasons beyond my immediate ability to explain". Can anyone else?

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
molopata

The Ship's jack
# 9933

 - Posted      Profile for molopata     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And more to the point, how often is the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, the Coptic Pope, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the pastor of the small Evangelical church down the street, the charismatic minister of that independent chapel or the average pew-dweller in any British church asked to apologise for

  • drones which accidentally kill people
  • militants who pervert the name of Christianity - including the KKK
  • nationalists who use the symbols of religion to promote hatred
  • the IRA, ETA and other quote unquote "Christian" terrorists
  • Christian militas in places like oh, South Sudan, who have been committing barbaric acts

Let's say it is almost never. And why the fuck should they? Why should some white guy with a keyboard get to decide when other predominantly brown-skinned (with a history of social deprivation and antagonism by the majority community) have apologised and acting enough to stop murdering idiots that had nothing to do with them.

No.

Sorry to triple-post.

First of all the problems of the examples you name do not purport to have Christian goals (e.g. it is not the Church which is launching drones but a nation state, ETA is inherently a political organisation, IRA probably also, the Protestants in Ulster, yes, they purport to be speaking for my branch of Christianity against another and they are as such my responsibility as far as I can to work against, certainly as far as they appear in my vicinity).

Then secondly, as for your last paragraph, you unnecessarily turn a religious question into a racial one. I am also not sure whether you are equating me to the white guy with the keyboard. If so, that would be a serious allegation as you would be calling me a racist.

--------------------
... The Respectable

Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

I can't think of a better working definition right now than "willing to actually start killing people more or less at random for reasons beyond my immediate ability to explain". Can anyone else?

Sad to say it, but I really think it is official code for the apparently common-but-unspoken view that Islam is actually violent and dangerous and out to overthrow Western society. It is couched like this because then one can take pot-shots at a section of society whilst at the same time say "oh no, it isn't about you, it is about all those who hold similar beliefs as you but resort to violence.."

Which in a lot of ways is pretty ridiculous when you are talking about a religion which holds a position that Truth resides within them and not within the society of which they are a part. As with Christianity, of course.

We rarely seem to use this language about other religions - even when their members have been known to go down the road of violence. Whoever heard of de-radicalising Sikhs?

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:


First of all the problems of the examples you name do not purport to have Christian goals (e.g. it is not the Church which is launching drones but a nation state, ETA is inherently a political organisation, IRA probably also, the Protestants in Ulster, yes, they purport to be speaking for my branch of Christianity against another and they are as such my responsibility as far as I can to work against, certainly as far as they appear in my vicinity).

Funny how you can list reasons why these people are nothing to do with you and yet Muslims are not allowed, according to you, to have similar reasons for thinking that the radicals have nothing to do with them. Goose and gander.

quote:
Then secondly, as for your last paragraph, you unnecessarily turn a religious question into a racial one. I am also not sure whether you are equating me to the white guy with the keyboard. If so, that would be a serious allegation as you would be calling me a racist.
I guess this is only a problem if you are white and have a keyboard. As it happens, I was thinking in general of the many white keyboard warriors who seem to enjoy using casual racism about Muslims.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Also, the right wing parties which will no doubt be saying that it's all the fault of Islam and refugees, and migrants. Le Pen is going to be producing a lot of this stuff now.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
She has already tweeted that France should close its borders to migrants forthwith.

I know this isn't All Saints, but I go into an interfaith meeting with other religious leaders in my city in an hour or so to discuss an appropriate response. Pray we find an appropriate one.

[ 16. November 2015, 16:46: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Molopata,

You seem remarkably expert in these matters. Would it be worth volunteering your expertise to the security services instead of posting to a website read by a few hundred on a good day? [Biased]

FWIW if we are going to eradicate radicalisation it will have to be a "hearts and minds" operation, and a vast community of second-class citizens such as the six million Muslims in Frances, mostly in crowded cities, is going to take some turning round. They certainly can't do it themselves.

I thought that large numbers of French people of N. African origin, are pretty secular, and quite a lot don't attend mosque. The interesting question is whether they will be allowed to be secular, or will lumped into the category of 'French Muslims', who of course, must be asked to repudiate Islamist violence.

What's that damn word, ah, reification!

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
molopata

The Ship's jack
# 9933

 - Posted      Profile for molopata     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
FWIW if we are going to eradicate radicalisation it will have to be a "hearts and minds" operation, and a vast community of second-class citizens such as the six million Muslims in Frances, mostly in crowded cities, is going to take some turning round. They certainly can't do it themselves.

To this I can fully subscribe.
And I do not purport to be any better informed than anyone else on this thread.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But you seem to be suggesting that mosques in general have a radicalization strand going on. Any citations on this?

I think a lot of radicalization goes on via the internet, not in mosques.

No, I do not have a citation on this, because it is not what I am claiming. There are certainly plenty of media citations (and not just from the Torygraph) that it does occur quite frequently, but I cannot say what the balance between internet radicalisation is versus mosque radicalistion is, and I couldn't say in what percentage of mosques, but I don't think that is central to the argument. Certainly in Switzerland there have been a string of reports of radicalisation taking place in mosques (which don't have minarets, of course [Biased] ).

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
radicalisation

I've decided this word is the latest to fall victim to what I call the curse of "sustainable development".

It's an amorphous term that means whatever it's expedient to mean at the time.

I can't think of a better working definition right now than "willing to actually start killing people more or less at random for reasons beyond my immediate ability to explain". Can anyone else?

Yes, agreed. I wondered about the term, but it seems to be what is used even if rather inaccurate in meaning, so what the hell. Unfortunately, your working definition is just as contentious since - as far as they survive - they are quite able to explain why, even though probably not quite to the satisfaction of your academic thoroughness.

--------------------
... The Respectable

Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
molopata wrote:

quote:
No, I do not have a citation on this, because it is not what I am claiming. There are certainly plenty of media citations (and not just from the Torygraph) that it does occur quite frequently, but I cannot say what the balance between internet radicalisation is versus mosque radicalistion is, and I couldn't say in what percentage of mosques, but I don't think that is central to the argument. Certainly in Switzerland there have been a string of reports of radicalisation taking place in mosques (which don't have minarets, of course [Biased] ).
Well, you were saying that radicalization goes on 'in their midst', and I am still curious as to what you mean by this, and what evidence you have.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
molopata

The Ship's jack
# 9933

 - Posted      Profile for molopata     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:


First of all the problems of the examples you name do not purport to have Christian goals (e.g. it is not the Church which is launching drones but a nation state, ETA is inherently a political organisation, IRA probably also, the Protestants in Ulster, yes, they purport to be speaking for my branch of Christianity against another and they are as such my responsibility as far as I can to work against, certainly as far as they appear in my vicinity).

Funny how you can list reasons why these people are nothing to do with you and yet Muslims are not allowed, according to you, to have similar reasons for thinking that the radicals have nothing to do with them. Goose and gander.


No my dear Cheesy, that is not the case. In one example I clearly took responsibility for action, even though I do not live in Northern Ireland. But take the ETA. If I were a Basque, then I would have to step up to the plate of obligation to work against them, because they purport to represent my as a Basque, regardless of whether I'm a Christian, Muslim or Atheist Basque, because the radicalization (again for want of a better word) is taking place within my community. To simply say, "they're not Basques" does simply not cut it, because they are, and they purport to represent me. I'd feel obliged to stop them.
quote:

quote:
Then secondly, as for your last paragraph, you unnecessarily turn a religious question into a racial one. I am also not sure whether you are equating me to the white guy with the keyboard. If so, that would be a serious allegation as you would be calling me a racist.
I guess this is only a problem if you are white and have a keyboard. As it happens, I was thinking in general of the many white keyboard warriors who seem to enjoy using casual racism about Muslims.

Then you're off the hook, although I'm still appalled that (a) you think Islamophobia is the same as racism and (b) by association you place me in the category of either.

--------------------
... The Respectable

Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
molopata

The Ship's jack
# 9933

 - Posted      Profile for molopata     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
[QUOTE]I thought that large numbers of French people of N. African origin, are pretty secular, and quite a lot don't attend mosque. The interesting question is whether they will be allowed to be secular, or will lumped into the category of 'French Muslims', who of course, must be asked to repudiate Islamist violence.

Opinionated as I obviously am, I think you may be right (although you should of course provide academic evidence for everything you write!)

Here we have a brilliant display of identity politics at work in our media, which is also reflected in society at large (or vice versa): If you bear a Muslim-sounding name, you can't possibly be secular and much less Atheist or Christian. Certainly, people won't stop asking questions. Coming back to my Muslim friend quoted several posts above who hails from Northern Africa, I think he is (or was?) fairly secular, but the identity politics in Western society categorise him as Muslim whether he like it or not, and he could only escape such a categorisation by taking a very conscious and ... radical? decision to be something else.

Increasingly, we have to be more subtle in the way we classify people with Muslim names if we want to prevent just more polarisation.

[ 16. November 2015, 17:13: Message edited by: molopata ]

--------------------
... The Respectable

Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Of course said friend was more worried about that, considering there are fewer than 200 dead in Paris and thousands of Muslim refugees, that is an incredibly logical concern. Hell, there are enough people worried about the wounded, injured, and scared in Paris that I'm not wasting much worry on them either. They have richer and more useful people than I supporting them. The refugees on the other hand will be more attacked because of this and might actually be helped by the little tangible piece I can put my worry to.

Sorry Gwai, that was not his concern. He was concerned about Muslims in a general, abstract way - nothing to do with refugees.
So am I though, and I am Christian. I think it is extremely to have grave concerns about how Islamophobia will harm Muslims. I'd hate to have to wonder whether my daughter will be asked at school to explain why Muslims killed people. I'd hate to imagine my son getting cornered and attacked or beat up because other people elsewhere are violent. I'd hate to wonder whether I'd get an apartment next time I needed one or got turned away as possibly a terrorist. And I'd wonder what I could do about some one else's extremist mosque exactly as I wonder what I can do about creepy extremist Christians. (Almost nothing I usually conclude)

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The category error is when you say "Muslims ought to ..." It would be good if Muslims did something about radicalisation in their midst, and they are already doing that. This is great, and it is very good to keep the dialogue about this with them, as is already happening.

But you have no fucking right at all to say that Muslims ought to do anything.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
molopata

The Ship's jack
# 9933

 - Posted      Profile for molopata     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To that I agree, Gwai. Taking on Islamophobia, and especially the creepy extremist Christians is our responsibility, even if we are neither.

[Sorry, cross-posted]

[ 16. November 2015, 17:19: Message edited by: molopata ]

--------------------
... The Respectable

Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The category error is when you say "Muslims ought to ..." It would be good if Muslims did something about radicalisation in their midst, and they are already doing that. This is great, and it is very good to keep the dialogue about this with them, as is already happening.

But you have no fucking right at all to say that Muslims ought to do anything.

Yes, that's when it starts to overlap with guilt by association, as it suggests that because X is a Muslim that he has a moral responsibility to do do something about jihadism.

Just repeating you really, but you don't get to determine someone else's responsibility - just your own. Finger pointing only makes things worse.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
molopata

The Ship's jack
# 9933

 - Posted      Profile for molopata     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No. Here I fundamentally disagree. Society (be it by law or convention) bestows all sorts of responsibilities upon us.
And it happens all the time in public and private discourse. In fact, you have just attempted to lay the obligation upon me and anyone else to not oblige anyone to do anything.

--------------------
... The Respectable

Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
No. Here I fundamentally disagree. Society (be it by law or convention) bestows all sorts of responsibilities upon us.
And it happens all the time in public and private discourse. In fact, you have just attempted to lay the obligation upon me and anyone else to not oblige anyone to do anything.

Yes, society does do that, but you don't.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
molopata: No. Here I fundamentally disagree. Society (be it by law or convention) bestows all sorts of responsibilities upon us.
Just because society places some responsibilities upon us in general doesn't give you the right to bestow responsibilities on anyone you want.

quote:
molopata: In fact, you have just attempted to lay the obligation upon me and anyone else to not oblige anyone to do anything.
Stupid wordplay. "You don't have the right to do this" doesn't mean "I oblige you not to do this."

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
In many ways mosques and Muslim organisations are simply ducking all responsibility by repeating the Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace-and-therefore-these-attacks-are-nothing-to-do-with-Islam fallacy.

<snip>

However, I deem that the denial which appears so often in Muslim statements is just a means of passing the buck entirely and placing the onus of responsibility on the rest of society.

quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
I didn't say that ordinary Muslims are responsible for Islamist violence, however, radicalisation is occurring in their midst.

Can you make up your mind about this? Are ordinary Muslims trying to "pass the buck" and evade the consequences of things they're responsible for, or are are they actually not responsible for the things for which you claim they're "ducking all responsibility"?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
molopata

The Ship's jack
# 9933

 - Posted      Profile for molopata     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
molopata: No. Here I fundamentally disagree. Society (be it by law or convention) bestows all sorts of responsibilities upon us.
Just because society places some responsibilities upon us in general doesn't give you the right to bestow responsibilities on anyone you want.

quote:
molopata: In fact, you have just attempted to lay the obligation upon me and anyone else to not oblige anyone to do anything.
Stupid wordplay. "You don't have the right to do this" doesn't mean "I oblige you not to do this."

We are both part of society and are as such constituent to the discourse of maintaining or developing societal norms and customs.

It is surely my right to postulate that he, she or they have a responsibility to do something, in the very way you have just postulated that I do not have the right to do something (i.e. postulate that he, she or they have a responsibility to do something).

Having the right to impose it is an entirely different matter (onto which I have not even ventured).

--------------------
... The Respectable

Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There are limits to that responsibility. As a member of this society I have a duty to try uphold positive norms, yes.

But no-one has a right to look at something that goes wrong in society that I personally have no part in, point at me, demand an answer, say what I ought to do about it, and hold me accountable if my response is not to their liking.

You have the right to postulate anything you want. But that's all it is. No-one is accountable to you just because you postulated something.

And in fact, as other people have said already, your postulation is actually counter-productive.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools