faetal on 28/1/2015 at 12:43
Important to who though? I'm only speculating as to what makes a tiny minority of people commit acts of wanton murder in the name of a religion whose followers are largely not doing such things. The vast majority of people in the world find the US support of Israel objectionable, but that stance doesn't lead to attacks against civilians directly or by default, it's just there as a totem for polarity between Occidental and Oriental forces. I wasn't saying that it's representative or even the worst overall problem (it's up there though), but as a poster child for fomenting antipathy between Muslims* and the US & chums, it has huge impact.
* - Israel's historical notion that displaced Palestinians be absorbed by neighbouring Muslim countries and the repetition that Israel is a Jewish state can't help in terms of driving polarity.
Le MAlin 76 on 28/1/2015 at 13:31
Quote Posted by Sphinx
Wait, is scientology officially considered as a religion ?
No it's a sect. In France they are forbiden. In USA it depends of States if i remember well.
Le MAlin 76 on 28/1/2015 at 13:51
Quote Posted by faetal
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.
Less the Space of Schengen, the weapons didn't enter, or with more difficulty in France. The kalachnikov are from the ex-Yougoslavia, and the border of Slovenia and Italia (sea borders with Bosnia or Albania, and Monetenegro) are no well-kept... And when weapons are in Slovenia or Italia they are free because the flying customs are not efficient... How u can cover all borders with just one or two patrols here and there ?
So the attack of Charlie Hebdo is just not a simple story of fanatics but a global problem of security. And then, the fanatics are just the tools of intelligents men, like Putin, who can manipulate all men, and the situation to their favor, so in fact if we want destroy fanatism, kill only fanatic is not enought: we must cut the heads of organizations. So we must divided daesh and Al-Quaida and divid the chiefs between themself. It's a easy point who Machiavel teach us: if you divided the ennemy who i have not to be worry. So what is the problem ? The arabians kingdom: they gave money to terrorist organizations... but Western couldn't broke the Relationship with their because they have our oil. And same with Russians: if we are not really aggresive against Putin it's because of the gaz in Europe (East Europe depend many from Russians). The geopolitic is very complex, but instead of play the phoney (faux-cul i want to say in French ^^ ) we must have a choice:
If we are really against islamist extremist, so we must stop to spend our money in countries who funding the terrorist organizations
If we are really against Putin, the economic sanction is not enough, and we must to have a strong Poland with powerfull army, and give nuclear weapon to Poland in order to balance the region with 2 great powers (when Poland and Russia was great countries in XVIIth centurie the régions was more stable than today). One great power eat other. Two or more great powers forces the protagonist to the compromise and the speech, because two great powers want to keep their power not to lose with immediatly a war.
The people was indeeed predisposed to violence... so why they are free ? We are not in security if all potentials thief, murderers, terrorist or brigands are in our Streets. The prison is not all time an answer, but in failing to change these people the jails protect the people against this men and women... It's very sad, but we cannot do abstraction about the reality.
faetal on 28/1/2015 at 13:53
It's kind of funny how we're fine with religion being valid alternative explanations on the universe so long as their inception predates reliable record-keeping.
Nothing is Scientology is objectively more nuts than most other major religions. They just have on their side the mystery of their exact origins, so we can continue to speculate about the possibility that they weren't blatantly invented by someone (though I suspect the formulation of most deities was probably a lot more gradual than Scientology, which for all intents and purposes, seems to be a complete and de novo thing).
(this all getting a bit ReligionThread again)
Le MAlin 76 on 28/1/2015 at 13:57
Quote Posted by faetal
Important to who though? I'm only speculating as to what makes a tiny minority of people commit acts of wanton murder in the name of a religion whose followers are largely not doing such things. The vast majority of people in the world find the US support of Israel objectionable, but that stance doesn't lead to attacks against civilians directly or by default, it's just there as a totem for polarity between Occidental and Oriental forces. I wasn't saying that it's representative or even the worst overall problem (it's up there though), but as a poster child for fomenting antipathy between Muslims* and the US & chums, it has huge impact.
* - Israel's historical notion that displaced Palestinians be absorbed by neighbouring Muslim countries and the repetition that Israel is a Jewish state can't help in terms of driving polarity.
I think that the red line has been exceeded, that the reconciliation between Israel and Palestine is not probable. I don't think that is impossible, and i hope to happy end, but honestly i see hardly this perspective. There is too ideologic angers. Ariel Sharon broke all the hope for a peace, and now all both parts made horrible things... What we can to do with that ? Speechs don't work with them, so i don't think a peace for a long time in this region.
Le MAlin 76 on 28/1/2015 at 14:01
Quote Posted by faetal
It's kind of funny how we're fine with religion being valid alternative explanations on the universe so long as their inception predates reliable record-keeping.
Nothing is Scientology is objectively more nuts than most other major religions. They just have on their side the mystery of their exact origins, so we can continue to speculate about the possibility that they weren't blatantly invented by someone (though I suspect the formulation of most deities was probably a lot more gradual than Scientology, which for all intents and purposes, seems to be a complete and
de novo thing).
(this all getting a bit ReligionThread again)
In fact there are many definitions of "religion" (the word come from latin to "relation" but in other languages there are highly different etymology), so same for human scientist there is no a consensus for the meaning that we must give to this word.
faetal on 28/1/2015 at 14:22
Quote Posted by Le MAlin 76
I think that the red line has been exceeded, that the reconciliation between Israel and Palestine is not probable. I don't think that is impossible, and i hope to happy end, but honestly i see hardly this perspective. There is too ideologic angers. Ariel Sharon broke all the hope for a peace, and now all both parts made horrible things... What we can to do with that ? Speechs don't work with them, so i don't think a peace for a long time in this region.
The biggest problem I can see is that the various UN resolutions mandating Israel to stop occupying foreign territory have been vetoed by the US. There has also been zero pressure against their becoming a nuclear power, again, courtesy US. They are in direct breach of the 4th Geneva convention by raising permanent settlements in occupied territory (if Hamas are using civilians as shields [though it's arguable Palestine is so densely populated, there's little option], Israel are using civilians as a weapon). WHile ideologically, I agree with you, if the US stopped using its veto and international law were applied in the region, Israelis would still have their Jewish state with internationally mandated borders, as would Palestinians, rather than an ever shrinking
de facto refugee ghetto inside which the life expectancy is ridiculous. At the moment, Palestine is so far on the back foot that their feeble rocket attacks look to most of the world like the irrational defensive swipes of a desperate nation on the brink of being wiped out. Enforce the Geneva convention and UN resolutions and then any aggressive action towards Israel will garner a
lot less sympathy. I don't understand how anyone can expect the nation of Palestine to behave in a sane and collected fashion.
I'm tired of the usual (often under-informed) "who started it" arguments - the real issue should be one of international law, not a shouting match between people who sympathise with Israel versus those who don't. While Israel are in flagrant breach like they are, by the simple will of the US and a few others, Palestine are viewed globally as the underdog and the victim - a great recruiting tool, particularly for guerilla or terrorist agents which are underdogs by default.
faetal on 28/1/2015 at 14:23
Quote Posted by Le MAlin 76
In fact there are many definitions of "religion" (the word come from latin to "relation" but in other languages there are highly different etymology), so same for human scientist there is no a consensus for the meaning that we must give to this word.
With a word so old and established, semantic arguments don't come across particularly well: (
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion)
Le MAlin 76 on 28/1/2015 at 15:05
Quote Posted by faetal
The biggest problem I can see is that the various UN resolutions mandating Israel to stop occupying foreign territory have been vetoed by the US. There has also been zero pressure against their becoming a nuclear power, again, courtesy US. They are in direct breach of the 4th Geneva convention by raising permanent settlements in occupied territory (if Hamas are using civilians as shields [though it's arguable Palestine is so densely populated, there's little option], Israel are using civilians as a weapon). WHile ideologically, I agree with you, if the US stopped using its veto and international law were applied in the region, Israelis would still have their Jewish state with internationally mandated borders, as would Palestinians, rather than an ever shrinking
de facto refugee ghetto inside which the life expectancy is ridiculous. At the moment, Palestine is so far on the back foot that their feeble rocket attacks look to most of the world like the irrational defensive swipes of a desperate nation on the brink of being wiped out. Enforce the Geneva convention and UN resolutions and then any aggressive action towards Israel will garner a
lot less sympathy. I don't understand how anyone can expect the nation of Palestine to behave in a sane and collected fashion.
I'm tired of the usual (often under-informed) "who started it" arguments - the real issue should be one of international law, not a shouting match between people who sympathise with Israel versus those who don't. While Israel are in flagrant breach like they are, by the simple will of the US and a few others, Palestine are viewed globally as the underdog and the victim - a great recruiting tool, particularly for guerilla or terrorist agents which are underdogs by default.
The UN have not power and it was easy to all parts to violate the conventions: because of veto which you you talk and too because the the UN forces are in fact weak, it's just symbolism. The forces of the UN have not a great juridiction, because their mission is just the policing... In time of war, the policing is not an answer bcause the resolving of a war is in the territory, with the real control of terittories, and political. But political mean that the UN or other countries act Inside a sovereign political system... It's very hard, and many time it's complicate the situation, but the political peace is an obligate step to the stop of the war.
In Israel, this country is protected by USA and make all things, good and bad... If we let them doing bad things... I think that a 3rd country we have no interest with Israel or Palestine must arbitrate the conflict... Si it's exclude all allied of Israel and all allied of Palestine, but it will be interesting to found a neutral judge... But not UN because you have reaon to say that blocking (of USA, but other contries do that in other subjects, like Russia) bogged down the situation.
Le MAlin 76 on 28/1/2015 at 15:09
We can contiune the discussion in the other post, but i just want add that this definition is infact really influenced by the romans and monotheist religions. For asians for example there is another point of view... for example in Japan many people have two religions practices. But these definitions are well and for the forum it's good, because it's not a forum of historians and epistemology the of History of Religions ^^
