Sphinx on 27/1/2015 at 20:10
Since there is a thread about it I'm gonna post my personal opinion on the matter:
For me no crime is justifiable. I feel so bad for these people who went to work one morning without knowing they were not going back to their homes at night.
Personally, and this is strictly my opinion as a former muslim (I'm more of an agnostic person nowadays), I have been repeatedly offended by CharlieHebdo's publications, I mean how is raising Islamophobia by taking the beliefs of others as a joke (either Islam or another religion because CH didn't only target Islam) freedom of speech? .. Is it that hard to tolerate and live together as humans before being believers or atheists or anyone? I do not justify any party and certainly NOT psychopaths terrorists who made this carnage. But I find that all of these deaths could have largely been avoided, that extremism is not always Islamist, the term does not have to rhyme with provocation and that hatred will only produce hatred.
I'm sure most people won't agree with me, but I just want to clarify one thing: I do not sympathize with terrorist criminals and I can't justify their despicable acts in ANY way, I spit on them but I find sowing seeds Islamophobia on one side and say that freedom of speech is in itself the noblest aspiration of journalistic corps in the world is somehow contradictory. These seeds tend to thrive in some already corrupt and unhealthy people who can hurt and and make bleed families, society or an entire country with their thorns, as it happened recently.
I could have expressed myself much better in french since english is not my main language, but I'm sure you will get the point. Anyway:
RIP CH
Le MAlin 76 on 27/1/2015 at 21:10
Quote Posted by faetal
A larger point is that this kind of thing isn't restricted to Islam - there are plenty of Christian on Muslim massacres occurring in Africa (also, the Sabra Shatila massacre in Lebanon in the '80s was particularly brutal), but we don't get that in our press because it isn't news until nice white people we can identify with get affected. Likewise, there is plenty of violence from Buddhist extremists in Burma (Dema can probably pad that out if need be), but I don't think many people are worried about the inherent violence of Buddhism. Also not to be forgotten is the Muslim on Mulsim violence between Shi'ites and Sunnis
One parallel which springs to mind is the sectarian violence in Northern Ireland throughout the '70s, '80s and '90s. Many paramilitaries were unemployed, disenfranchised men from poor areas who felt their constitutive anger towards other people legitimised when given a cause to throw it at. Suddenly, all of that ghetto anger had some kind of higher purpose and allowed for the focus of all of that frustration to be externalised. Fast forward to now, where the troubles have all but ceased (barring a smouldering background of (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_holdout) Japanese island fighters) and most of those who were previously respected/feared paramilitaries have now either moved on and got lives or have reverted to the stereotype wannabe gangsters, still chasing that precious status which came with having a cause.
You only have to look to the US / UK / France / etc involvement in the Middle East, with the ongoing support of Israel as the ideological epicentre, to see what higher purpose these disaffected violent imbeciles are latching on to as their cause. I don't think we're going to solve it with drone strikes and collateral damage. For every supposed militant killed, usually at the expense of a bunch of civilians who got in the way, a few more are inspired to replace them, probably a bit fed up by seeing their friends and relatives killed for nothing more than being in the way of whatever the US / UK / France / etc objective is and maybe not assuaged by the phrase "unfortunate mistake" when it's the hundredth unfortunate mistake that year.
Sure the killing of cartoonists is non-justifiable to the extreme - a boycott (which you'd image would be automatic for anyone following a religion which forbids drawing its prophet) would be enough, but it wasn't the result of some global jihad demanded by Islam, it was the result of 2 impressionable idiots with violent history, influenced by an extremist group, probably because they gravitated to the idea that their stupid personalities were part of some higher purpose rather than just the result of a shitty life in some shitty ghetto with no purpose other than to ruin other people's lives.
Of course moderates in all religions pull the "no true Scotsman" fallacy - that's inherent to any religion which doesn't follow its scripture to the letter. Christianity is riddled with this also - apparently the word of god is infallible, but we can ignore all of the rape, murder, mutilation and slavery in the scripture because "those were different times" or whatever, implying that god itself was somehow ignorant and detestable just like people, until an arbitrary enlightenment which it presumably didn't see coming, despite being omniscient.
Anyway, rant over. I'm sure there there's plenty there which can be dismissed or pulled apart. One thing I would note though - if, during the process of your discussion, someone calls you bigoted - accept that there are two possibilities: 1) a card is being played over-zealously by someone who wants to shut you down without having to form an argument; 2) you are actually being bigoted - bigots don't think they're bigots remember, else we wouldn't have the phrase "I'm not racist but...".
The near Westen canot be summ up by the Palestine/Israel conflict. There is just a unbalance forces: Israel, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Irak and Iran (we can include Egyptia). When Georg Bush junior broke the fragile balance the Irak, the wall against chi'it was broken, so it's caused conflicts between sunnites and chiites (and daesh sunnites are in war against the chi'it governement of Irak). In Syria, the minorities (Alawites) who protected other minorities (like christians or chi it) against sunnites who were minorities. Now the sunnites want to slay all minorities. In Turkey the laity losing against extremist. And Israel and arabians heat up, but less Sadam Hussein or strong Al Assad who were for military but LAYMAN states, the conflict between Israel and muslim will go in the war.
In North Africa the problem is few difference, but similar.
Le MAlin 76 on 27/1/2015 at 21:17
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
Read up more.
They were fully convinced that what they were doing was right and necessary for the preservation of the state.
Please explain how people doing what is right and necessary for the cause of the state is "bad people doing bad things", but people doing what is right and necessary for the cause of their religion is "good people doing bad things".
Religion was always at the forefront of the line being fed to the suckers who were at the front lines of those wars....or in cases where religion was a weak societal influence, worship of "god" was replaced with worship of the state.
worship of the state
It's the spirit of moderne States who are dissociated of religions. See the
The King’s Two Bodies. And the religious war was the context of empowerment of political powers and the Great Monarchy who were totaly indepedant of the finnancial actors and the religious actor (the end of Feodalism): only the King is the Suprem Sovereign with the eddict of Nantes Under Henri IV, but it was began with Henry the IIIrd King of France and of Poland. This king was great because he wanted to made peace between two religions and create the unity of the nation thanks to the King.
faetal on 27/1/2015 at 22:35
Quote Posted by Le MAlin 76
The near Westen canot be summ up by the Palestine/Israel conflict.
No, but it's a heck of a focal point.
Tony_Tarantula on 28/1/2015 at 00:58
Malin, without getting into the territory of the other thread I'm inclined to agree with the Morpheus AI from Deus Ex. People naturally find something to become rabidly devoted to, which can take many forms.
Quote:
Personally, and this is strictly my opinion as a former muslim (I'm more of an agnostic person nowadays), I have been repeatedly offended by CharlieHebdo's publications, I mean how is raising Islamophobia by taking the beliefs of others as a joke (either Islam or another religion because CH didn't only target Islam) freedom of speech? .. Is it that hard to tolerate and live together as humans before being believers or atheists or anyone? I do not justify any party and certainly NOT psychopaths terrorists who made this carnage. But I find that all of these deaths could have largely been avoided, that extremism is not always Islamist, the term does not have to rhyme with provocation and that hatred will only produce hatred
Another good example of that is South Park. There's been a couple of episodes that were absolutely brutal satire of Christianity, Judaism, Scientology, Atheism...hell, name a religion and they've mocked it in the most vile and disgusting ways possible.
Nobody's threatened them yet. Their "backlash" has consisted of some anti South Park diatribes from American conservatives and a few halfhearted boycott attempts.
I also feel that what's going on is as much of a cultural issue as a religious issue (all false flag conspiracy theories aside). A lot of people have absolutely no concept of how big the culture gap actually is. I remember reading the book "princess" written by a former Saudi princess. In the book she described a conversation with an Iraqi man who openly talked about having killed his own father over a monetary dispute. When she expressed horror at the act his response was a nonchalant "what? he took my money!" One of my friends who was in the U.S. military said the same thing happened while he was in Afghanistan. One of the police was arrested because he shot his own father over an insult.
Middle Easter culture, appears at first glance, to be the kind of place where Wild West rules still apply and it's perfectly acceptable to kill someone because they insulted your honor.
Sphinx on 28/1/2015 at 02:45
Wait, is scientology officially considered as a religion ?
Tony_Tarantula on 28/1/2015 at 03:13
depends on who you ask
That jogged my memory a bit though. I seem to recall them going pretty batty over South Park's portrayal of them but it never went anywhere.
I think that the best way to judge a movement is by how well they handle dissent.
faetal on 28/1/2015 at 10:40
Yes Scientology is a religion. It has the same general basis as any other religion (you can't disprove it), just a shorter history.
Regarding the cultural gap in the Middle East, it also depends who you talk to. My wife is Lebanese and I have friends from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan and Iran. There are some lunatic fringes, sure and unrest is pretty bad, particularly in places where IS is involved, but it's facile to think that the whole place is gangs of wild-eyed arabs chanting religious threats at infidels and firing AK-47s off the back of their trucks.
Also, the South Park thing is a red herring. The issue with Charlie Hebdo was depicting the prophet Mohammed, which is prohibited in Islam. Now most Muslims would express disgust, try to ignore it, complain to their friends in much the same way as e.g. US conservatives might whine about gay marriage because it offends their guns or whatever. However, the disaffected, disenfranchised, psychotic, generally violent or culturally fanatical sorts will use perceived insults as a nucleation point to tune their violence in to. The people who committed the Charlie Hebdo murders probably did so because they are predisposed to violence others and a destructive urge towards others. Having the excuse of doing it for a higher purpose must seem like a tempting salve for whatever sparks of conscience or self-loathing they might have towards their own vile nature. I'd even go as far as to suggest that having a perceived higher purpose allows one to entirely bypass any morality checks, as long as you're focussed enough on it. What higher purpose than to please the creator of the universe?
All of this is speculation of course, but I'm not trying to publish a paper on it.
Le MAlin 76 on 28/1/2015 at 11:01
Quote Posted by faetal
No, but it's a heck of a focal point.
I am agree that this conflict is crystallizing. But i think the Russian/"Western" conflict is more important. Wladimir Putin have nuclear power, not Islamist. The weapons of Syria or Iran was sold by the Russians. The Talibans and Ben Laden was the tool of the CIA. The islamist is a peripherical conflict of the world organization. The alliance between Russia, Chian, Iran, and other is fragile, but they have one common idea: they are frightened by the idea to be "eat" by americans, so they are in defense. In fact this defense is doctrinal, but in practice it seems to be aggresif posture. But in Ukraine, the more totalitarist is who ? I don't think Putin is worst than Europeans who said that russians are nazis or fascist, or europeans who want to dictate to russians what they must doing. The Western have forgottent that Ukraine is an artificial country, it was before a Polish and Russian country (Lvev or Lwow was great Polish city / Kiev was first great Russian city).
The Conflict with islamist is artificial, because they used the same weapons than the traditionnal christians and then the Lumière's and french revolutionnairies's universalist wish: the Empire was the achievment of Revolution (many historians think that, other think that Empire was a rutpure with Revolution; i think like the first group of historians, because Napoleon don't rebuild the Monarchy, but he just gave a Crown to the Republic; fundamentaly Napoleon have a great continuity with the jacobins): the Islamist think that they have the True and they want to "free" the men with this truth, like Revolutionnarie who fight against all old monarchies to free the Europeans of the tyrannies. In fact this speech was ideologic, because the majority thought it was not tyrannies, but the new elites (the bourgeois) thought that... and the Revolution is not reealy the changment of the Society or the State, but a changment of Elites (the French Republic in reality continued all royal administrations, and they kept the royal politic of centralization).
With Russia the conflict is similar, but the ideologic weapons are différents, because they haven't the intention to free the men, but they said that they just kepts the old system of sovereign States... It's a double-speech because they didn't respect the sovereignity of Ukraine, but they defends an old-feashioned wolrdwide system, unless the international Right... Same if International Right is not really clear, because they condamn small countries, but USA have the right for all...
