And there are situations that you can blame the victim. Not in the sense that (s)he is guilty, but that (s)he was very unwise. A tourist with his purse visible, walking through a South-African township, a sexy clothed woman visiting the Hell's Angels, and editors publishing tasteless provocative cartoons about Islam are, well, stupid.
That’s the equivalent of the following:
"Sure, they shouldn’t have raped her, but . . ."
"You shouldn’t murder someone over cartoons. Having said that . . ."
Your addition of "buts" and asterisks is, frankly, sickening. When it comes to defending Charlie Hebdo's free speech rights, it is IRRELEVANT what the content of the cartoons was. They have the right to publish them. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts.
I am of course also for free speech.
Doubtful. No one who supports free speech would blame, even partially, those who exercise it. No one who supports free speech would pat mass-murdering terrorists on the back and say, "Well, you're not TOTALLY to blame. They kinda asked for it."
So in one sentence: freedom of speech, yes, but let’s all make a responsible use of it.
Since one person's responsible is another person’s irresponsible, "responsible use" is meaningless. Who decides what "responsible use" is? You? Muslims? The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which has been trying to ban blasphemy at the UN for years?
Is it "irresponsible" and "stupid" for bookstores to sell Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses? Should they instead stop "provoking" anger and riots and sell only what Muslims approve of?
When it comes to radical Muslims, the only thing "responsible" could possibly mean is never doing anything that offends them.
Hitchens said it well:
"Rage Boy keenly looks forward to anger, while we worriedly anticipate trouble, and fret about etiquette, and prepare the next retreat. If taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean living at the pleasure of Rage Boy, and that I am not prepared to do."
http://www.slate.com/id/2169020/
While I understand there are many causes for becoming a terrorist, I fail to understand how the death of other humans can be considered heroic, by any but the most primitive societies.
where I do agree that killing humans is not heroic, I can perfectly imagine how people might consider it so. You were never been in a (civil) war, I assume. Of course, me neither, but I can imagine how such a feeling could rise in me. Just think about Vietnam (both sides) or WWII, and imagine situations in which you perfectly would see a friend of you who killed many enemy soldiers as a hero.
What I have not heard is mention of those who send these misguided "volunteers" to commit these evil acts.
Nobody sends them. Young people with a Muslim migration background, marginalised and chanceless in the countries where they live, with a lot of anger, radicalise each other (brothers, friends, from the same soccer club) and the search for contact with Al Quaida, with which help they might be able to train, or get money for weapons etc.
It is pure evil,
Are you radicalising too? The killing uses to start with seeing the other as evil. You can be sure the terrorists see us as evil. Don't copy them. Stop them, punish them, and also, talk with them. And give them a chance before they get radicalised.
What do you think supplies the ready made narrative and framework for this "thrilling cause". Hmmmm... Could it be......................... Islamic Doctrine?
Yes, of course. But it also could be anger of being discriminated, of feeling that their people are oppressed in their own countries since the time of colonialism, etc etc. Islam is the easiest label. And as said, in other times they might have yelled 'Long live the proletariat!'. So, no, Islam might not be a necessary factor at all, just a factor of the form, not of the doing the deed in itself...
So in a perfect world where no one is oppressed, Islamic doctrine would not be used as a framework for heinous terroristic atrocities? Perhaps that is true. Meanwhile we live in an imperfect world where Islamic doctrine is being regularly used as such a framework. And you suggest that we are being embarrassing unscientific bar-talking atheists, for declaring it.
Of course, you are correct that Islam need not be a necessary factor for doing all of the anti-humanistic deeds that are perpetrated in the world. That is undeniable.
But that is not what I've been saying. I've been saying that Islamic doctrine is unusually amenable to interpretations that provide a framework for not only terroristic acts, but many other acts that abuse humans. And stating that does not make me unscientific, bigoted, or racist, so much as it makes me someone who will speak the truth, regardless of negative reactions by my liberal peers.
And even though Islamic doctrine is not always a necessary factor in the perpetration of anti-humanistic acts, it has been racking up the points in this regard for some time now. I really don't understand what underlies a lot of liberals apparent need to deny this. I think that as Bill Maher says, "I am the real liberal here".
While I understand there are many causes for becoming a terrorist, I fail to understand how the death of other humans can be considered heroic, by any but the most primitive societies.
where I do agree that killing humans is not heroic, I can perfectly imagine how people might consider it so. You were never been in a (civil) war, I assume. Of course, me neither, but I can imagine how such a feeling could rise in me. Just think about Vietnam (both sides) or WWII, and imagine situations in which you perfectly would see a friend of you who killed many enemy soldiers as a hero.
Well, first, a "civil war" is not really our concern is it?
What I have not heard is mention of those who send these misguided "volunteers" to commit these evil acts.
Nobody sends them. Young people with a Muslim migration background, marginalised and chanceless in the countries where they live, with a lot of anger, radicalise each other (brothers, friends, from the same soccer club) and the search for contact with Al Quaida, with which help they might be able to train, or get money for weapons etc.
So, somebody funds (sends) them. 9/11 was planned and synchronized by very sophisticated minds, not an act of a few disgruntled poverty stricken individuals. When there is a plan, there are leaders. They are the evil ones.
It is pure evil,
Are you radicalising too? The killing uses to start with seeing the other as evil. You can be sure the terrorists see us as evil. Don't copy them. Stop them, punish them, and also, talk with them. And give them a chance before they get radicalised.
Am I radicalized against a child rapist, a wife beater, a terrorist who indiscriminately and wantonly kills hundreds of innocent people?
You bet I am. And yes, punish them, then talk to the "leadership" by taking them to an International Court, though I doubt that you will come to any working agreement from any Islamic country. Remember, Bin Laden was sheltered by Pakistan.
And I did spend the first six years of my life under German occupation of Holland, during WWII, where my school was bombed. You bet I am radicalized against killing for any reason, except self-defense. Hitler had his reasons also, eradicate Jews from the earth. Is there any difference between that and trying to eradicate the "infidels" from the earth?
While I understand there are many causes for becoming a terrorist, I fail to understand how the death of other humans can be considered heroic, by any but the most primitive societies.
where I do agree that killing humans is not heroic, I can perfectly imagine how people might consider it so. You were never been in a (civil) war, I assume. Of course, me neither, but I can imagine how such a feeling could rise in me. Just think about Vietnam (both sides) or WWII, and imagine situations in which you perfectly would see a friend of you who killed many enemy soldiers as a hero.
What I have not heard is mention of those who send these misguided "volunteers" to commit these evil acts.
Nobody sends them. Young people with a Muslim migration background, marginalised and chanceless in the countries where they live, with a lot of anger, radicalise each other (brothers, friends, from the same soccer club) and the search for contact with Al Quaida, with which help they might be able to train, or get money for weapons etc.
It is pure evil,
Are you radicalising too? The killing uses to start with seeing the other as evil. You can be sure the terrorists see us as evil. Don't copy them. Stop them, punish them, and also, talk with them. And give them a chance before they get radicalised.
Seems to me we've given them many chances. Those "chances" resulted in 9/11 and Charlie Hebdo and other Islamic violence. Are they not radicalized no matter what we do? Do we continue to give them more and more chances until we are annihilated? That should work.
Lois
Of course, you are correct that Islam need not be a necessary factor for doing all of the anti-humanistic deeds that are perpetrated in the world. That is undeniable.
I have some trouble with 'all of the'. If you would have written 'those', then we would really agree.
I've been saying that Islamic doctrine is unusually amenable to interpretations that provide a framework for not only terroristic acts, but many other acts that abuse humans.
Well, every (old) religion is. Just look at the history of Christianity, and of the view of it on women. There is no reason to attack Islam harder than any other religion. But more often than not, just attacking, provoking and oppressing religions does not lead to a solution, just to more war or terrorism.
And even though Islamic doctrine is not always a necessary factor in the perpetration of anti-humanistic acts, it has been racking up the points in this regard for some time now. I really don't understand what underlies a lot of liberals apparent need to deny this. I think that as Bill Maher says, "I am the real liberal here".
Well, but maybe Bill Maher is not a supporter of a secular state? A secular state treats all people the same, whatever their religion, as long as people live by the rules: no religion shall take over power, no religion is discriminated. This also gives the guideline why we cannot accept those citizens that terrorise others or want to forbid free speech: they do no play by the rules. One may criticise Charlie Hebdo for publishing tasteless cartoons, for being stupid to do just that of which they know will raise anger. But one may not forbid the publications but of course one should forbid to kill the editors. But we should beware that we do not make similar errors by pointing at Islam in general.
Write4U,
Evil rises where evil is identified.
Black sheep are created by black tongues (I will look up the story of Marten Toonder, as you are Dutch).
Dresden was bombed by the allies.
How is it possible that we live in peace with the Germans now? How did we do that?
1. You know all about the societal position of Muslims in France.
o Yes.
o A little
■ Not a bit.
Answered it for you.
2. You know all about the colonial past of Muslim countries, and how this works through into the present.
o Yes.
o A little
■ It doesn't interest me. People are free and fully responsible for their actions, whatever their cultural and personal history and present societal position.
@Matt01
Calm down, and see that what is not white is not necessary black. If you feel sick, take a pill, and if you have quietened, read what I wrote, and not what you read between the lines.
1. You know all about the societal position of Muslims in France.
o Yes.
o A little
■ Not a bit.
Answered it for you.
2. You know all about the colonial past of Muslim countries, and how this works through into the present.
o Yes.
o A little
■ It doesn't interest me. People are free and fully responsible for their actions, whatever their cultural and personal history and present societal position.
Don't presume to answer for me. I follow international news.
1) More than a little. I know this attempt to establish a separate muslim Caliphate inside France.
Some Muslims (the UOIF for example) request the recognition of an Islamic community in France (which remains to be built) with an official status.
It seems Muslims reject any form of government except Sharia.
Sharia, or Islamic law, influences the legal code in most Muslim countries. A movement to allow sharia to govern personal status law, a set of regulations that pertain to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and custody, is even expanding into the West. "There are so many varying interpretations of what sharia actually means that in some places, it can be incorporated into political systems relatively easily," said CFR's Steven A. Cook. Sharia's influence on both personal status law and criminal law is highly controversial. Some interpretations are used to justify cruel punishments such as amputation and stoning, as well as unequal treatment of women in inheritance, dress, and independence. The debate is growing as to whether sharia can coexist with secularism, democracy, or even modernity, an idea that is being tested by several countries in the Middle East in the wake of popular uprisings and civil wars.
http://www.cfr.org/religion/islam-governing-under-sharia/p8034
and
Since publicly funded State schools in France must be secular, owing to the 1905 separation of Church and State, Muslim parents who wish their children to be educated at a religious school often choose private (and therefore fee-paying, though heavily subsidised) Catholic schools, of which there are many. Few specifically Muslim schools have been created. There is a Muslim school in La Réunion (a French island to the east of Madagascar), and the first Muslim collège (a school for students aged eleven to fifteen) opened its doors in 2001 in Aubervilliers (a suburb northeast of Paris), with eleven students. Unlike most private schools in the USA and the UK, these religious schools are affordable for most parents since they may be heavily subsidised by the government (teachers' wages in particular are covered by the State).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_France#Discrimination
2) Yes, I know the history of exploitation of Muslim countries by the British, the French, the US, and the leadership of those countries who enjoyed the trilions of dollars in oil revenues by those countries.
This little tidbit may be of interest. Kuwait was the only country who actually did something with that revenue.
In the 1960s and 1970s, Kuwait was the most developed country in the Middle East.[24] Kuwait was the pioneer in the Middle East in diversifying its earnings away from oil exports.[25] The Kuwait Investment Authority is the world's first sovereign wealth fund. From the 1970s onward, Kuwait scored highest of all Arab countries on the Human Development Index.[24] Kuwait was the capital of higher education, arts and culture in the Gulf region.[24] Kuwait University, established in 1966, attracted students from neighboring countries.[24] Local arts, music and theatre thrived.[23][24][26] Kuwait's local theatre industry was renowned throughout the Arab world.[23]
In the 1960s and 1970s, Kuwait's press was described as one of the freest in the world.[26] Kuwait was the pioneer in the literary renaissance in the Arab region.[27] In 1958, Al Arabi magazine was first published, the magazine went on to become the most popular magazine in the Arab world.[27] Many Arab writers moved to Kuwait for freedom of expression because Kuwait had greater freedom of expression than elsewhere in the Arab world.[28][29] Kuwait was a haven for writers and journalists from all parts of the Middle East. The Iraqi poet Ahmed Matar left Iraq in the 1970s to take refuge in the more liberal environment of Kuwait.[30]
Kuwaiti society embraced liberal and Western attitudes throughout the 1960s and 1970s.[31] Most Kuwaiti women did not wear the hijab in the 1960s and 1970s.[32][33] At Kuwait University, mini-skirts were more common than the hijab.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait_City#Golden_Era_.281946.E2.80.931982.29
and then the Islamist regimes came to power again.
Just a short reaction, Write. I reacted on Lois, with my ‘answered questions’, not on you.
PS
Ik heb het verhaal gevonden: Het boze oog - Wikipedia. Het beste lees je het natuurlijk zelf…
PPS:
Maybe you can translate the sentence for us that starts with ‘De rechtschapene…’ (end first column)? I have no time now. But read the whole story!
2) Yes, I know the history of exploitation of Muslim countries by the British, the French, the US, and the leadership of those countries who enjoyed the trilions of dollars in oil revenues by those countries.
Then you also know that the conditions created by colonial exploitation created this backlash of hatred of the West and what it stands for, which BTW is what the term Boko Haram means. My point is that there is more here than merely cherry picking Koranic verses to justify wanton slaughter, and BTW these groups have killed more Muslims than Xtians or any other group. One of the reasons the "West" is so ignorant of the root causes of these internecine conflicts is our belief, either self imposed or from the news media's lack of interest (especially here in the U.S.) in a monolithic Islam when the reality is that it is fragmented into various sects and sub sects and used as a cause célèbre for any number of reasons, e.g. mythical: a political caliphate to rid the Middle East of Western exploitation by expunging "Western thought". It reminds me of the various religious movements here by Native American groups to destroy European influence, even as to clothing styles. Hundreds were slaughtered for over a Century BTW until the Native territory was fully exploited, the Natives marginalized and politically controlled. Sound familiar? This is more than just the sweeping argument that "Islam is the cause". As GdB stated, and I fully agree with him, do the science. Frankly, I'm also astounded that posters here have given the term "liberal" a negative connotation. Here's an article from the Muslim point of view concerning Charlie Hebdo but it also speaks to the argument in general:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-islam-cartoon-terr-20151106726681265.html
Cap't Jack
Just a short reaction, Write. I reacted on Lois, with my 'answered questions', not on you.
PS
Ik heb het verhaal gevonden: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Het_boze_oog. Het beste lees je het natuurlijk zelf...
PPS:
Maybe you can translate the sentence for us that starts with 'De rechtschapene...' (end first column)? I have no time now. But read the whole story!
Sorry, I overlooked your quote from Lois. My mistake.
Thanks for showing the page. I miss the Dutch cartoon serials.
As to translating, it will take some time. I haven't heard or spoken Dutch in 50 years. When I tried to read it I must admit I had trouble with the paragraphs you mentioned and therefore did not get the profound message in its entirety. But I sensed a certain irony in context of this OP
As to translating, it will take some time. I haven't heard or spoken Dutch in 50 years. When I tried to read it I must admit I had trouble with the paragraphs you mentioned and therefore did not get the profound message in its entirety. But I sensed a certain irony in context of this OP
2) Yes, I know the history of exploitation of Muslim countries by the British, the French, the US, and the leadership of those countries who enjoyed the trilions of dollars in oil revenues by those countries.
Then you also know that the conditions created by colonial exploitation created this backlash of hatred of the West and what it stands for, which BTW is what the term Boko Haram means. My point is that there is more here than merely cherry picking Koranic verses to justify wanton slaughter, and BTW these groups have killed more Muslims than Xtians or any other group. One of the reasons the "West" is so ignorant of the root causes of these internecine conflicts is our belief, either self imposed or from the news media's lack of interest (especially here in the U.S.) in a monolithic Islam when the reality is that it is fragmented into various sects and sub sects and used as a cause célèbre for any number of reasons, e.g. mythical: a political caliphate to rid the Middle East of Western exploitation by expunging "Western thought". It reminds me of the various religious movements here by Native American groups to destroy European influence, even as to clothing styles. Hundreds were slaughtered for over a Century BTW until the Native territory was fully exploited, the Natives marginalized and politically controlled. Sound familiar? This is more than just the sweeping argument that "Islam is the cause". As GdB stated, and I fully agree with him, do the science. Frankly, I'm also astounded that posters here have given the term "liberal" a negative connotation. Here's an article from the Muslim point of view concerning Charlie Hebdo but it also speaks to the argument in general:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-islam-cartoon-terr-20151106726681265.html
Cap't Jack
I am not singling out Islam as THE cause for strife, but by your own admission, more muslims have been killed by muslims than by any other foe. That alone proves the violence this religion fosters. I have given due blame to the early Christian practices according to the OT as well.
This is why, finally, some solidarity is displayed by world leaders, including Muslims, against this barbaric practice of forcing people to accept an unjust system, or die. It gives me hope that Islamic governments (and especially the clergy) will see the injustice of this type of behavior against other human beings, regardless of history.
Write4U,
Evil rises where evil is identified.
Black sheep are created by black tongues (I will look up the story of Marten Toonder, as you are Dutch).
Dresden was bombed by the allies.
How is it possible that we live in peace with the Germans now? How did we do that?
A better question is, why are the Islamic fanatics still at war with themselves?
As Bill Maher observed, "when there are this many bad apples, it is due to a bad orchard"
Listen to Salman Rushdie's take. He defines Boko Haram.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfUd1Cqtytk
I am not singling out Islam as THE cause for strife, but by your own admission, more muslims have been killed by muslims than by any other foe. That alone proves the violence this religion fosters. I have given due blame to the early Christian practices according to the OT as well.
This is why, finally, some solidarity is displayed by world leaders, including Muslims, against this barbaric practice of forcing people to accept an unjust system, or die. It gives me hope that Islamic governments (and especially the clergy) will see the injustice of this type of behavior against other human beings, regardless of history.
I used the mention of Muslim violence against other Muslims as irony in reference to terrorism against Westerners. I should have been more concise. What this proves is that the conditions for civil strife in these war torn countries has no single cause, i.e. Islam. And yes I agree that the Muslims themselves must solve this crises by reigning in the extremists and vocally condemning those who hide behind their belief system while committing condemned and heinous crimes. When more of the clerics and political leaders take a humanitarian stance it will help, but without a real "Arab Spring" it will likely continue. Bombs, drones and "boots on the ground" will just make matters worse.
Cap't Jack
I pointed out that GdB was figuratively patting mass-murdering terrorists on the back and saying, “Well, you’re not TOTALLY to blame. They kinda asked for it."
I also asked GdB the following questions, after GdB said we should make “responsible use” of free speech:
Since one person's responsible is another person’s irresponsible, "responsible use" is meaningless. Who decides what "responsible use" is? You? Muslims? The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which has been trying to ban blasphemy at the UN for years?
Is it "irresponsible" and "stupid" for bookstores to sell Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses? Should they instead stop "provoking" anger and riots and sell only what Muslims approve of?
GdB’s response:
@Matt01
Calm down, and see that what is not white is not necessary black. If you feel sick, take a pill, and if you have quietened, read what I wrote, and not what you read between the lines.
Impressive lack of substance!
I did read what you wrote. You blamed the cartoonists: "there are situations that you can blame the victim," where one of your examples was "editors publishing tasteless provocative cartoons about Islam." I didn't need to "read between any lines," GdB. You explicitly blamed them. If the victim gets some of the blame, then the perpetrators don't get all the blame. Which is why I was accurate in describing you as someone who pats mass-murdering terrorists on the back and says, "Well, you're not TOTALLY to blame. They kinda asked for it."
If you're now afraid to defend your own words or answer a few questions, that's fine. Given your deplorable stance, I’m not surprised at your volume-speaking silence.
There are 2 problems here.
Firstly the publishing in the Charles Hebdo magazine of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed is offensive to Muslims; and seems to me not to be about any form of free speech but an insult to the followers of that faith. Whether any offence is meant by the magazine is not clear but offence has been taken and the publishers of the magazine must be aware that what they are doing is offensive so they would be well advised to desist from what the are doing. That is perhaps even more important now that the threat level against certain parts of French and European communities are higher than at any level since the second world war.
Secondly the reaction of the armed gunmen is wholly wrong and the majority of Muslims are aghast at what happened last week. Rightly so, but the fact is that the majority of Muslims did not act in the way these lone gunmen have behaved. They have silently stood by and allowed the offensive magazine to be published.
So in the greater interests of the wider community, being all faiths and non believers, should the publishers of the magazine stop what they are doing in the hope that we can bring to an end this violence and lead peaceful lives; or do they want to carry on with what they are doing and insulting people in the name of so called free speech?
I would also be interested to hear why the publishers consider that free speech is more important than causing offence to large parts of their society; and also how they are expressing their right to free speech by drawing caricatures of Mohammed in their magazine. Its not clear to me.