|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2015 16:32:55 GMT -5
Such a conflation makes for good rhetoric, ironchimp, but despite France's colonial past and all its very real sins it's worth mentioning that Charlie Hebdo was a strong advocate for the rights of minorities (including those of illegal immigrants), for the denouncing of racism and racist policies (just see how they depicted Marine Le Pen's far right party) and for the condemnation of military interventions and colonialism. It was (and will continue to be, one hopes) a very leftist publication. It most definitely did not mock muslims just to get a few laughs. It mocked, viciously (and appropriately so, in my opinion), the hijacking of Islam by fanatics who would impose their medieval and barbarous ways on the rest of the world and most especially on other muslims. This cover, so often seen as a supposed indictment, clearly says (I mean, it's WRITTEN ON THE COVER!) that the barb is against integrists. It shows Muhammad disconsolately calling fanatics "c**ts", because Muhammad and Islam are not about terrorism; only violent extremists try to make it so. By the way, Charlie Hebdo did the same with Catholic symbols when a Christian fanatic bombed an abortion clinic. It was an equal-opportunity skewerer of fanaticism. The people who suffered from France's colonialism adventuring got a very raw deal, I won't dispute that. African regions conquered and exploited by Paris got very few benefits from the mainland; and to add insult to injury they were asked to contribute men to the two world wars. And when the wars were over, these men were most often treated like dirt. Not content with that, France's successive governments did support corrupt administrations like that of Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire. That's nothing to be proud of, but also not particularly typical of France among other colonial nations and it certainly does not justify terrorist acts committed generations after the fact. (All the terrorists were French-born, by the way). It's also pretty odd for people who would want to strike a blow against a state for past colonial grievances to strike not at that country's political or military institutions but to target a journal that routinely defends the oppressed and denounced racism. "They drew the prophet therefore they must die" does not speak to me of redressing historical wrongs but rather of blind fanaticism. Did the cartoonists know they risked death, and risked the life of people near them by maintaining their loud and obnoxious defense of free speech? Of course, they did. They went to court over the issue in 2007 and got plenty of death threats, justifying police protection. It was in fact one of their points that one must not back down in the face of violence when defending fundamental rights. And they're right, too; what manner of compromise could be reached with people who are ready to commit murder over a cartoon That is so far from the acceptable behaviour in our types of democracy that it must be non-negotiable. One simply does not murder people for ideas. There were martyrs in this tragedy all right, but they weren't the religious ones. The point is that the ship has sailed. Islam for many people on the margins of society or in west africa has been the only thing left for them. They have tried democracy - failed, communism - failed, military regimes - failed, planned states - failed, capitalism - failed - literally every idea has failed so for many its the classic inward looking solution to the problem - like a counter reformation of some sort - if you look at say sudan in 60s - they started dancing on stage, beauty pagents etc. by 90s and 2000s music was banned women covered up etc. For a certain set of people who have been let down by every ideology this hardline attitude is seen as a salvation to kick start things - maybe akin to black power. This new fantacism or renaissance in hardline islam is relatively new. It didnt spring out of nowhere - it has its causes - and usually those causes are poverty, undervelopment, oppression, and no avenue for escape. Lets be honest Mali, Tchad, Burkina FAso, Niger, the Toureg - there is no way out for them - the optomism of 60s and 70s has long gone into crushing debt, mindbending poverty, and dreams of escaping to france. Where more likely than not for many 10,000s they find an equally hostile regime waiting them there. And i dont think Iraq 2 helped things at all - and then we are shocked when they become militant. And then satirise their salvation philosophy. So no i dont think Hebdo had its finger on the pulse at all there - just seemed to be some uncle tom cartoon to be honest - be meek and mild and get raped for next 100 years too. Oh and by the way here is a drawing of the prophet (which even very moderate stoned out their head sufis would probably blanch at) - so to me its pointlessly confrontational and uncle tomming it - if thats french arab and african muslims friend i wouldnt like to see their enemy All the guy did was draw a picture. He had nothing to do with French Colonialism, no more than I have to do with Manifest Destiny. If these Muslim militants are becoming militant because of constant abuse and oppression, you'd think they'd have time to do more than kill a guy who drew a cartoon. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Jan 12, 2015 16:42:41 GMT -5
For the sake of simplicity, I think acts of terror can be divided into two groups:
1. Extreme actions taken when all other attempts to fight for your cause have failed. Terrorism was invented to aid the cause of groups who felt oppressed and that they had neither the voice nor the military might to argue their point within the system, so they stepped outside of the system and decided to fight dirty instead. As terrorism is a widespread practice that has been implemented to varying degrees, by countless groups of peoples, I will not attempt to judge or condone it as a whole, only to lend perspective as to why some feel it is an appropriate means of furthering a cause.
2. Extreme action taken to maintain control over a people. When a dictator lines up politcal dissenters and shoots them, and when a terrorist group executes cartoonists for publishing something they find offensive, we are looking at a very different scenario in which these are no longer desperate people looking for a way to have a voice and instead a person or people looking to terrify others into doing what they want. It's bullying to the worst degree and, in my mind, is not defensible in any context. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs provided they do not intersect with the beliefs of others, but people of this mindset could have 99.9% of the world bowing and catering to their every wish and still feel the need to strike terror if one person in the world doesn't fall in line with their expectations. There will always be someone out there who does not respect their prophet; that is the way of the world. No amount of preaching, fear, or violence can ever make everyone fall in line. And so this kind of attitude towards the world is disastrous if left unchecked; the violence will never end; there is no way to appease it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2015 17:43:17 GMT -5
I agree with that. And even though sometimes I can understand why an oppressed group without the means to stand up to a well funded army would resort to using improvised explosives, chemicals, biological weapons, and targeting civilians, I could never condone it. If militants actually targeted occupying forces instead of their unarmed neighbors maybe I'd feel different.
|
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Jan 12, 2015 18:22:35 GMT -5
<abbr data-timestamp="1421090110000" class="time" title="Jan 12, 2015 14:15:10 GMT -5">Jan 12, 2015 14:15:10 GMT -5</abbr> ironchimp said: The point is that the ship has sailed. Islam for many people on the margins of society or in west africa has been the only thing left for them. They have tried democracy - failed, communism - failed, military regimes - failed, planned states - failed, capitalism - failed - literally every idea has failed so for many its the classic inward looking solution to the problem - like a counter reformation of some sort - if you look at say sudan in 60s - they started dancing on stage, beauty pagents etc. by 90s and 2000s music was banned women covered up etc. For a certain set of people who have been let down by every ideology this hardline attitude is seen as a salvation to kick start things - maybe akin to black power. This new fantacism or renaissance in hardline islam is relatively new. It didnt spring out of nowhere - it has its causes - and usually those causes are poverty, undervelopment, oppression, and no avenue for escape. Lets be honest Mali, Tchad, Burkina FAso, Niger, the Toureg - there is no way out for them - the optomism of 60s and 70s has long gone into crushing debt, mindbending poverty, and dreams of escaping to france. Where more likely than not for many 10,000s they find an equally hostile regime waiting them there. I cut the quote short, but I don't want to get too much into a large chain that may not be relevant to my point. I think there's a lot wrong about blaming France collectively for the evil of the terrorists who attacked them. While historical grievances can be useful - as one part - in understanding the make-up or a wrongdoer, it doesn't justify or excuse it. First, these attacks didn't target colonizers. They killed a bunch of people. Some were the descendants of colonizers (which still doesn't justify the killing). Some weren't even that - a number of victims were of North African descent. Second, West Africans don't seem to be perpetrators in many of the terrorist attacks in the West. Amedy Coulibaly stands out so much because an ethnic Senegalese Islamic fundamentalist terrorist seems like such an outlier. So the applicability of West African history seems a bit of a stretch. Third, histories of discrimination and violence hold people back, but at a certain point you can't pin your present brutality on someone's past brutality. For instance, I think the U.S. ought to make a serious effort to re-engage with Iran, in part because of the role we played in screwing that country up. But it's a two-way street. And on a related point, you can turn the historical justification on its head in any of number of ways. West Africa has been victimized by enormous historical atrocities perpetrated by North African Muslims - principally the trans-Saharan slave trade. A number of countries that provide large numbers of recruits to groups like Al-Qaeda comes from places with a history of oppressing West African people. It's estimated that Barbary pirates kidnapped over a million European sailors over the years. Barbary Coast piracy was one of the first foreign challenges the U.S. faced. Spain and the Balkans were conquered by invasions of Islamic empires. You get a pointless death spiral of historical grievance. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jan 12, 2015 22:23:32 GMT -5
Let's not forget that this isn't Islam as a whole. This is a radicalized strain of Islam that has largely been spread by use of Saudi money. Y'know...Saudi Arabia...that despotic hole that is one of the U.S.'s closest allies because they happen to sit on a shit-ton of petroleum. We are reaping the harvest of Wahhabism having almost immeasurable wealth.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 1:18:06 GMT -5
Horrible tragedy. I fear this may be another violent year in terrorism, as sleeper cells around the world have been activated. As much as I abhor hacking groups such as Anonymous, I do like how they have declared to wipe out terrorist websites and social media accounts. Using their "talents" to help rid the world of this kind of evil is something I can get behind. Trouble is, those jihadist's websites are kinda useful for the authorities. If they are known, they're an excellent way for the security services to keep tabs on what these people are up to or what they're plotting. They are also helpful in enabling prosecution of these extremists. If "Anonymous" go around closing them down, ultimately it will make the security service's job a lot more difficult and could easily result in greater loss of life to terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, this is the downside of a bunch of amateurs like Anonymous not playing by the rule book. No sooner did I post this and what happens? The exact opposite. ISIS hacked US Central Command social media sites, just as Obama was giving a speech on cybersecurity in light of the Sony pictures hack. They posted a bunch of US intelligence information that the Washington Post claims is already available online, but this is still pretty embarrassing.  |
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456 
|
Post by ironchimp on Jan 13, 2015 11:58:32 GMT -5
(…) Of course we should be allowed to satirise mohammed and draw him too - and legally we can (ironically we could be tried for blasphemy if we did it with christianity but so very rarely are) - but its got to be subtle and make a point deeper than "radicals bad" with mohammed (at this juncture in time here in europe). Doing that you are guaranteed death threats and very likely action - and respect to anyone who stands up and says fine i will take the risk - but it's not just them taking the risk - it's some guys 20 year old daughter on the reception desk, its the guy in the kiosk outside, its passers by in the street, the janitor. The magazine doesnt have the right to drag those people into their private war. If i found out "oh yeah des was blown up in a bomb attack on that magazine" - i'd be less than amused at everyone involved - the bomber and the magazine. Everyone play nice and if you need to poke fun at society (and god bless if you do) then do it with more panache than that crappy cover otherwise you are just picking at open wounds on some often times poor, oppressed, frustrated, angry, traumatised people. Other people will see what is tantamount to f'them - i'll do what i want - thats fine - but then they will do what they want too and soon the city is inflame again and people have lost their shops, their liveloods, their houses, warehouse stock, jobs and its chaos (which is what happened to friends in london during a bigg riot). All because one person wanted to make what i personally think is a weak cartoon. But, ironchimp, where do we draw the line for defining what "playing nice" is? Salman Rushdie got a fatwa for writing a novel that was a Booker prize finalist, Theo van Gogh was murdered in the street for a ten minute documentary on religion-based violence toward women, and most of the cartoons published in the Jyllands-Posten were innocuous enough that it took a conservative imam touring the Middle east (months after the publication) to push people into bombing embassies. None of these "offenses" strike me as especially offensive. When we're dealing with fanatics (and I don't think I'm being too harsh here, since we're talking about people who would commit murder over an idea), there is no "playing nice" unless we agree to do absolutely whatever they ask of us. A few of my friends have suffered the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in their home countries. The way they tell of it, most of the population isn't particularly religious and would certainly prefer to be free not to wear a headscarf or to go to the beach in a normal swimsuit. But because there were enough fundamentalist thugs to scare everyone into compliance, what was at first seen as an odd obsession with religion became the rule, to most everyone's chagrin. Slippery slope and all that. Charlie hebdo's staff painted a bullseye on their chest with their defiant attitude, that's true; but at the same time, they weren't cavalier about it. Their offices were unmarked and protected by a secured door, and they had constant police protection (their previous offices were destroyed by arson years before). People working there probably didn't expect seriously to be murdered over cartoons, but they were aware that there was some risk involved. And defending our right to denounce anything, be it political corruption, religious fanaticism or racism? That's worth risking one's life, I would think. Invading oil-rich countries to protect business interests, that's not worth dying. Getting involved in the politics of a foreign country to promote our political agenda, that's not worth dying. But defending Free Speech in our own country, yes, that I would die for. would you die defending the rights of the people in other countries who your own country is robbing? probably not. and there's the rub. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jan 13, 2015 15:46:58 GMT -5
But, ironchimp, where do we draw the line for defining what "playing nice" is? Salman Rushdie got a fatwa for writing a novel that was a Booker prize finalist, Theo van Gogh was murdered in the street for a ten minute documentary on religion-based violence toward women, and most of the cartoons published in the Jyllands-Posten were innocuous enough that it took a conservative imam touring the Middle east (months after the publication) to push people into bombing embassies. None of these "offenses" strike me as especially offensive. When we're dealing with fanatics (and I don't think I'm being too harsh here, since we're talking about people who would commit murder over an idea), there is no "playing nice" unless we agree to do absolutely whatever they ask of us. A few of my friends have suffered the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in their home countries. The way they tell of it, most of the population isn't particularly religious and would certainly prefer to be free not to wear a headscarf or to go to the beach in a normal swimsuit. But because there were enough fundamentalist thugs to scare everyone into compliance, what was at first seen as an odd obsession with religion became the rule, to most everyone's chagrin. Slippery slope and all that. Charlie hebdo's staff painted a bullseye on their chest with their defiant attitude, that's true; but at the same time, they weren't cavalier about it. Their offices were unmarked and protected by a secured door, and they had constant police protection (their previous offices were destroyed by arson years before). People working there probably didn't expect seriously to be murdered over cartoons, but they were aware that there was some risk involved. And defending our right to denounce anything, be it political corruption, religious fanaticism or racism? That's worth risking one's life, I would think. Invading oil-rich countries to protect business interests, that's not worth dying. Getting involved in the politics of a foreign country to promote our political agenda, that's not worth dying. But defending Free Speech in our own country, yes, that I would die for. would you die defending the rights of the people in other countries who your own country is robbing? probably not. and there's the rub. France as a political entity hasn't robbed another country in a good long while, now, but even if it was as predatory as during its colonial years that would hardly be the fault of cartoonists who spend most of their time decrying their government's behaviour. I would find it odd in the extreme for second generation Vietnamese-Americans to blow up the offices of The Nation, for example. What's more, (to add pathos to the argument), since the Charlie cartoonists were very vocal about freedom of speech and freedom from religious fanaticism, they did, in a sense, die for people in other countries… people like Raif Badawi, and countless others who do not have the right to express their opinion and who have someone else's religious views imposed on them. Free speech isn't good only for westerners, after all. |
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456
|
Post by ironchimp on Jan 13, 2015 21:20:20 GMT -5
would you die defending the rights of the people in other countries who your own country is robbing? probably not. and there's the rub. now, but even if it was as predatory as during its colonial years that would hardly be the fault of cartoonists who spend most of their time decrying their government's behaviour. I would find it odd in the extreme for second generation Vietnamese-Americans to blow up the offices of The Nation, for example. What's more, (to add pathos to the argument), since the Charlie cartoonists were very vocal about freedom of speech and freedom from religious fanaticism, they did, in a sense, die for people in other countries… people like Raif Badawi, and countless others who do not have the right to express their opinion and who have someone else's religious views imposed on them. Free speech isn't good only for westerners, after all. if it hasnt then it hasnt been doing business like the rest of the world then. Let's be honest france bankrolled and still bankrolls (egg Blaise Compaore until the Burkinabe army finally turned on him) loads of west african dictators and mad men - trained their "secret police", armed them, gave their leaders nice "aid" cheques - in return these delightful men were to acquiese in French foreign policy, nice little UN voting blocks, mining concessions, a nice little trade agreement or any myriad of reasons. CIA, the French, (the soviets at one time) and chinese are all over west africa - each battling for supremacy. Meanwhile these leaders were/are allowed to murder their opponents, democracy campaigners, trade union leaders, student leaders. Britain seems to go along the neo-colonialist system in the region - still ends in brutal consequences - eg Shell in the Delta, glencore, etc. That statement was not in reference to the cartoonists - but you personally. You are a topline cartoonist in my opinion who says he would die for freedom of speech - please draw and disseminate a cartoon of mohammed in your country - exert your right. see a lot of family men on here who want to say what they want - comes with a price tho - which might mean dad not coming home or dad coming home to an empty house. Or worse an innocent bystander. anyway enough. This is just a lil message to say i love you guys and i'm sorry if des was offended- but damn - lot of people want to provoke a lot of bombings and violence in my region. Peace |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 22:18:50 GMT -5
The cartoonists aren't making decisions on how the government spends their money or who their allies are.
If a terrorist kills me because of something my government does, then they're in the wrong, no matter how you spin it, and no matter what kind of cartoon I drew. You know, there have been people subjected to discrimination and abuse who wouldn't behead someone over a cartoon drawing. Also, not all Islamic radicals are the subject of abuse and discrimination. They could very well be the black sheep nephew of royalty, obscenely wealthy, or not too far removed from obscene wealth, but just come from a nation where women aren't allowed to drive and kids aren't allowed to build snowmen, and think it's awesome just like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jan 14, 2015 9:53:08 GMT -5
France as a political entity hasn't robbed another country in a good long while, now, but even if it was as predatory as during its colonial years that would hardly be the fault of cartoonists who spend most of their time decrying their government's behaviour. I would find it odd in the extreme for second generation Vietnamese-Americans to blow up the offices of The Nation, for example. What's more, (to add pathos to the argument), since the Charlie cartoonists were very vocal about freedom of speech and freedom from religious fanaticism, they did, in a sense, die for people in other countries… people like Raif Badawi, and countless others who do not have the right to express their opinion and who have someone else's religious views imposed on them. Free speech isn't good only for westerners, after all. if it hasnt then it hasnt been doing business like the rest of the world then. Let's be honest france bankrolled and still bankrolls (egg Blaise Compaore until the Burkinabe army finally turned on him) loads of west african dictators and mad men - trained their "secret police", armed them, gave their leaders nice "aid" cheques - in return these delightful men were to acquiese in French foreign policy, nice little UN voting blocks, mining concessions, a nice little trade agreement or any myriad of reasons. CIA, the French, (the soviets at one time) and chinese are all over west africa - each battling for supremacy. Meanwhile these leaders were/are allowed to murder their opponents, democracy campaigners, trade union leaders, student leaders. Britain seems to go along the neo-colonialist system in the region - still ends in brutal consequences - eg Shell in the Delta, glencore, etc. That statement was not in reference to the cartoonists - but you personally. You are a topline cartoonist in my opinion who says he would die for freedom of speech - please draw and disseminate a cartoon of mohammed in your country - exert your right. see a lot of family men on here who want to say what they want - comes with a price tho - which might mean dad not coming home or dad coming home to an empty house. Or worse an innocent bystander. anyway enough. This is just a lil message to say i love you guys and i'm sorry if des was offended- but damn - lot of people want to provoke a lot of bombings and violence in my region. Peace Not to worry, I wasn't offended. I have a pretty thick skin. I look forward to discussions with you in the future. |
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456
|
Post by ironchimp on Jan 14, 2015 11:18:21 GMT -5
The cartoonists aren't making decisions on how the government spends their money or who their allies are. If a terrorist kills me because of something my government does, then they're in the wrong, no matter how you spin it, and no matter what kind of cartoon I drew. You know, there have been people subjected to discrimination and abuse who wouldn't behead someone over a cartoon drawing. Also, not all Islamic radicals are the subject of abuse and discrimination. They could very well be the black sheep nephew of royalty, obscenely wealthy, or not too far removed from obscene wealth, but just come from a nation where women aren't allowed to drive and kids aren't allowed to build snowmen, and think it's awesome just like that. the point i was making was extremely unhappy section of immigrants caused by all sorts of factors + cartoonists blasphemy = kicking hornets nest and it is not just "a drawing" - to you and me it may be - but to upwards of 1 billion people it isnt. It's blasphemy. Also, not all Islamic radicals are the subject of abuse and discrimination - maybe have a look at srebrenica and genocide in the Balkans? maybe have a look at the Mcphersan Report in my country. I am sure Roquefort can tell you about issues in France. It's nothing to do with radicals - its the very fact that ALL muslims are potentially open to discrimination at an institutional level and violence from neo nazi / extremist groups. That's the daily reality 100,000s have to live in within Europe. As one example - i think most people in UK were very supportive of US intervention in Balkans to stop what we saw was genocide. Many people in balkans and beyond tho actually see it as atrocity commited by USA - i had classrooms full of kids in Greece who told me exactly that. I have seen Italian football stadium showing their support for Mladic while he was on trial in the Hague - there are large swathes of people in certain regions who support him. and just to add to irony of it all while UK was putting people like Mladic and Charles Taylor in the Hague, a lot of people across Europe (including UK itself) were saying "erm shouldnt you be in there too for what you are doing". complicated times, many factors, many problems. Bad time not to be subtle. and thank you Desanyway i know i've already said it but i'll leave it. From point of view tho looks like a lot of you could like my family in the eye and say "yeah sorry about Craig getting caught in that bomb blast but i HAVE to say what i went when i want regardless of the consequences." - I couldnt do it your families tho - who's right? only one's conscience can decide that. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2015 17:47:25 GMT -5
The cartoonists aren't making decisions on how the government spends their money or who their allies are. If a terrorist kills me because of something my government does, then they're in the wrong, no matter how you spin it, and no matter what kind of cartoon I drew. You know, there have been people subjected to discrimination and abuse who wouldn't behead someone over a cartoon drawing. Also, not all Islamic radicals are the subject of abuse and discrimination. They could very well be the black sheep nephew of royalty, obscenely wealthy, or not too far removed from obscene wealth, but just come from a nation where women aren't allowed to drive and kids aren't allowed to build snowmen, and think it's awesome just like that. and it is not just "a drawing" - to you and me it may be - but to upwards of 1 billion people it isnt. It's blasphemy. Well then, those billion people need to grow up. And I'm only speaking of radicals because only radicals commit murder over cartoons. Those other billion Muslims who may or may not have had a shitty life (or more likely, descended from someone who did a hundred years ago, or even more likely, had a shitty life thanks to radical Islam) are pretty much not concerned with the cartoons. The cartoons didn't send a billion people into a rage. It sent a couple thousand into a rage. A couple thousand radicals that the world would be better off without. Native Americans are not beheading Redskins fans over here. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2015 19:50:20 GMT -5
and it is not just "a drawing" - to you and me it may be - but to upwards of 1 billion people it isnt. It's blasphemy. Well then, those billion people need to grow up. And I'm only speaking of radicals because only radicals commit murder over cartoons. Those other billion Muslims who may or may not have had a shitty life (or more likely, descended from someone who did a hundred years ago, or even more likely, had a shitty life thanks to radical Islam) are pretty much not concerned with the cartoons. The cartoons didn't send a billion people into a rage. It sent a couple thousand into a rage. A couple thousand radicals that the world would be better off without. N ative Americans are not beheading Redskins fans over here. Though if they want to behead the team's owner ... |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 14, 2015 20:51:20 GMT -5
The cartoonists aren't making decisions on how the government spends their money or who their allies are. If a terrorist kills me because of something my government does, then they're in the wrong, no matter how you spin it, and no matter what kind of cartoon I drew. You know, there have been people subjected to discrimination and abuse who wouldn't behead someone over a cartoon drawing. Also, not all Islamic radicals are the subject of abuse and discrimination. They could very well be the black sheep nephew of royalty, obscenely wealthy, or not too far removed from obscene wealth, but just come from a nation where women aren't allowed to drive and kids aren't allowed to build snowmen, and think it's awesome just like that. the point i was making was extremely unhappy section of immigrants caused by all sorts of factors + cartoonists blasphemy = kicking hornets nest and it is not just "a drawing" - to you and me it may be - but to upwards of 1 billion people it isnt. It's blasphemy. Also, not all Islamic radicals are the subject of abuse and discrimination - maybe have a look at srebrenica and genocide in the Balkans? maybe have a look at the Mcphersan Report in my country. I am sure Roquefort can tell you about issues in France. It's nothing to do with radicals - its the very fact that ALL muslims are potentially open to discrimination at an institutional level and violence from neo nazi / extremist groups. That's the daily reality 100,000s have to live in within Europe. As one example - i think most people in UK were very supportive of US intervention in Balkans to stop what we saw was genocide. Many people in balkans and beyond tho actually see it as atrocity commited by USA - i had classrooms full of kids in Greece who told me exactly that. I have seen Italian football stadium showing their support for Mladic while he was on trial in the Hague - there are large swathes of people in certain regions who support him. and just to add to irony of it all while UK was putting people like Mladic and Charles Taylor in the Hague, a lot of people across Europe (including UK itself) were saying "erm shouldnt you be in there too for what you are doing". complicated times, many factors, many problems. Bad time not to be subtle. and thank you Desanyway i know i've already said it but i'll leave it. From point of view tho looks like a lot of you could like my family in the eye and say "yeah sorry about Craig getting caught in that bomb blast but i HAVE to say what i went when i want regardless of the consequences." - I couldnt do it your families tho - who's right? only one's conscience can decide that. To ridicule someone who has the sh!#t end of the stick is certainly in poor taste...but to turn around and kill someone for that poor taste is just plain inexcusable and there is a huge gulf of difference between those two actions. Further to try and paint the entire Muslim culture with the same broad brush, as if they all see this act of terrorism committed in France as just is wrong as there are plenty of Muslims who are just as upset by these senseless killings as those of us here. |
|
That is so far from the acceptable behaviour in our types of democracy that it must be non-negotiable. One simply does not murder people for ideas.
