icemann on 18/9/2012 at 07:10
None of us are saying to deport an entire ethnic group. Only the extremists inciting violence, rioting etc.
demagogue on 18/9/2012 at 07:52
Yeah I realize that. But I have to deal with them saying that about Muslims all the time here, and very casually as if it's common opinion.* It gets to me. :(
*Edit: It is common opinion here.
Muzman on 18/9/2012 at 09:18
It would have only applied to non citizens anyway. It makes for a good sound byte, but it's likely the same problem the poms had would occur: you say you're going to chuck them out and the ones you snare are mostly citizens already.
The Aus situation was scary looking, but pretty mild on the whole it must be said. Not the sort of thing you want to see too much of, of course.
As for setting up a global caliphate; how that would work I don't know. The Islamists have generally been trying to push something like a separation between them and wider society for a while, so that's not new. Just unifying Islam would be quite a thing. They've been fighting each other pretty viciously right up until recently. On closer inspection you can see that national identity trumps religion. Except in the case of "the West". I mean, bin Laden was apparently not very popular in Afghanistan with his supposed allies because he was an annoying rich Arab trying to tell everyone then what to do.
The whole International Muslim Brotherhood thing is pretty tenuous when you get down to it. Still doesn't mean they can't make a nice mess of course.
Tocky on 18/9/2012 at 17:37
Quote Posted by Vasquez
Not sure about this. Nowadays they just have better tools.
Yeah. I remember when "The Last Temptation of Christ" came out christians called in laser strikes and then raped anyone from the same country as the producers to death with light sabres as they burned thier houses. Good times wtf.
LarryG on 18/9/2012 at 20:00
The thing is, ethnicity does not seem to play a role. A-hole Islamic fundamentalists come in all colors of the human genome. But somehow it seems that they have taken charge of Islam all across the world and are perfectly happy bullying every other Islamite into killing non-believers (& themselves). You never hear of any of the leaders actually leading any of the charges (or carrying any of the charges); they just convince others to lay down their lives. I just wonder who is profiting from such behaviors? There must be money in it somewhere for someone for it to keep on going. Who are the "Propheteers"?
demagogue on 19/9/2012 at 03:23
Well in my part of the world ethnicity does come into it. You know very clearly who are Bengali, Malay, and Indonesian vs. Burmese, Thai, or an indigenous tribe, the religion is seeped into the ethnicity rather deeply. And in certain countries like Iraq it matters, the three-part split between the Shi'ite, Sunni & Kurds. But every country has its own situation so I don't know if you can generalize too much.
I think these protests have shown there is this shared current across the whole Islamic world, though. Maybe they appreciate reinforcing one another & get some sense of shared civic or religious spirit in sharing these protests -- beyond just the movie itself; they feel solidarity with the "Islamic world" or something when they all protest -- since they don't get that shared spirit very often, given the split in politics on so many things. Like it's almost a relief they can "all agree on something", even if it's not very deep and nothing you could build a politics out of really.
I did remember from undergrad -- my minor was Middle East Studies -- studying about middle eastern identity politics. There was a pan-Arab unity movement in the 1960s along with the whole post-colonial zeitgeist, with Nasser as its main figurehead, and even they created a United Arab States that existed for a few years (basically turned into Egypt controlling Syria; Syria got its revenge by spoiling for the 6-Day War that blew it apart). In the end the whole movement collapsed sensationally for a number of reasons, including the later peace agreements between Israel and Egypt & Jordan, the rise of secularized Arab dictators vs. the radical regimes... So by the time you get to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, the idea of one Arab state invading or supporting the invasion (by the US) of another is no issue. And this is even aside from the alienation of the non-Arab or even non-Sunni populations to the Arab Sunni world. There was a kind of historical sympathy among all the Islamic countries over things like the Palestinian rights (although the surrounding Arab countries historically treated the Palestinians in their own lands abysmally, cf Jordan & Lebanon's vicious massacres of Palestinian civilians; even the 1947 war was arguably about Arab countries taking land from Israel, not giving it to Palestinians.)
The Arab Spring one would think would give the region a common vision, "democracy". But that's kind of a contentless cipher in itself, like a mirror to reflect something that isn't fully formed yet. I think practically it means there's a kind of ideological vacuum, or the old order got shaken up, & it's not clear what kind of regional equilibrium it will end up settling into, I mean in the balance between secular and Islam, the relations of the different ethnicities. This plays into that NYTimes article that these protests are also about pent-up frustration & a struggle over holding the lines on "Islamic values", which is something "we all stand for" if nothing else. But even that is something of an empty cipher. You can't really build an ideology out of "We all don't like anti-Islamic movies" and you need more than that. I don't know practically speaking if the regional politics will coalesce into something now or if it stays as splintered as ever into the future.
Vasquez on 19/9/2012 at 03:35
Quote Posted by Tocky
I remember when "The Last Temptation of Christ" came out christians called in laser strikes and then raped anyone from the same country as the producers to death with light sabres as they burned thier houses.
That movie came out in dark ages? I didn't even know they had movie theatres back then :weird:
LarryG on 19/9/2012 at 03:38
No. What I meant was that no Islamic ethnicity are bigger bigots and thugs than any other. I'm not saying that locally they don't pick on each other based on ethnicity. I'm just saying that no ethnicity has a lock on acting out in stupid and evil ways. It seems like all Muslims across the world have a huge number of fundamentalist believers in their midst who want to kill and destroy rather than get along with anybody who does not share their world view. They are the extremists' extremists. And we need to find a way to turn this around. But blaming some ethnicity for this won't get the job done.
SD on 20/9/2012 at 02:32
I can't help feeling that we would get less of this sort of thing if colossal fuckwits in positions of power didn't pander to it. Ban Ki-moon being the (
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/uk-film-protests-un-idUKBRE88I1CZ20120919) latest example:
Quote:
"Freedoms of expression should be and must be guaranteed and protected, when they are used for common justice, common purpose," Ban told a news conference.
"When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others' values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way."
So freedom of expression is worth protecting, except when people use it to, you know,
express themselves. Glad that's cleared up, then.
As Salman Rushdie said, freedom of expression is meaningless if it doesn't include the freedom to cause offence.
Tocky on 20/9/2012 at 03:20
Quote Posted by Vasquez
That movie came out in dark ages? I didn't even know they had movie theatres back then :weird:
Buh? I thought you were saying Christians today were as bad as the dark ages except with better weapons and I was pointing out they weren't and my confusion at the same time.
I'm not in any way saying individuals who call themselves that can't be as bad or that we shouldn't call them on putting stupid creationist crap in textbooks mind you. Generally they don't spontaniously lump up for mayhem is all. The Lybian ambassador is safe here.
Speaking of; according to several sources now, the pictures of ambassador Stevens being raped were actually of him being rescued and sent to the hospital. The one of him with his pants down and bent double with a guy directly behind him was exceptionally difficult to discern from rape but I have yet to see it anywhere beyond a news program over the weekend soooo I hope they are correct. Still, the case of (
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=Lara+raped&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&ved=0CE0QFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.laweekly.com%2Finformer%2F2011%2F02%2Flara_logan_raped_egypt_reporte.php&ei=zYlaUL_0Iujb0QHrzoCQCA&usg=AFQjCNFJe_2nAyOFID5PU5p6xdoBYibJCA) Lara Logan makes one wonder about cover ups. What the hell did happen to that pic of him bent double? I can't find it anywhere on the net. I wish I had made note of what station it was but I was surfing them at the time. I think CNN.
