AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Who are more responsible for the actions of their leaders? Those who do not choose their leaders or those who elect them? Be careful what you wish for...
Terror Attack in Paris, January 7, 2014
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Mr T
Senior Member
Harassment and discrimination based on someone's religion, race or beliefs should end everywhere.
It's fair to say that in France, Muslims are more likely to be discriminated against due to factors like living in poor areas and/or having a poor education. It's not like this is Nazi Germany where Muslims are forced to wear little badges to denote their faith. Many Muslims build successful careers in France and their religion is not a problem. Discrimination that really is based on religion is likely to come from extremist thugs who will go after anyone they see as being "different", and include Jews, Sikhs, liberal political activists and gays on their target list.
Ironically in the UK it's arguable Muslims have had some preferential treatment on religious issues, as no newspapers would dare print cartoons showing Muhammad but have no such restrictions for other faiths. Also it's widely accepted that Muslim women can cover their heads at school or work for "religious" reasons, but there has been a huge fight for Christians to do things like wear crucifixes because it's "jewellery" and is sometimes banned. Many Christians here feel discriminated against because it's "ok" to mock them but not people from other faiths.
That pre-supposes that the Israel-Palestine issue is the key motivation behind Islamic terrorism. It isn't really, it's just an excuse. The terrorists want the whole world to adopt Sharia law. Whilst they may use certain incidents as PR to "justify" their attacks, they'll always find a reason until they've got what they want. If it's not Israel-Palestine, it's dropping bombs on Muslim countries (regardless of the reasons/who is being bombed). If it's not dropping bombs, it's because countries aren't taking military action against people like Assad. Or it's because cartoons are being published. Or because newspapers and magazines publish revealing pictures of women. Or because girls go to school.
There's always a reason behind terrorist attacks, because terrorists will always try to justify what they do. They're never going to say "we've murdered people because we're nasty SOBs and want to make you change your way of life to suit us". They're going to to try to portray themselves as the victims to gain sympathy, whether it's from outsiders to advocate for new policies or their own communities to increase recruitment.
It's high time people stopped linking Israel-Palestine with terrorism. It's a problem that needs to be resolved, but because people die every year whilst the issue remains unresolved. The terrorists would still be murdering people tomorrow if the matter was suddenly dealt with - not least because they'd probably say it was a "betrayal" because the Jews hadn't been driven into the sea or all beheaded.
Last edited:
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Free speech is not as clear cut a thing as some would like to insist.
It is purhaps an act of cosmic irony that a day after the Paris attacks, Abu Hamza was sentenced to two life sentences in New York not for anything he did, but for what he said.
Before anyone launches into a rant, let me make it clear that I think the Abu Hamza decision was the right one. He was, is and always will be an evil and dangerous man who's power stems not from what he himself can do, but what his words can inspire others to do in his stead.
Edward Lytton first coined the phrase, "the pen is mightier than the sword" nearly two hundred years ago, yet the fact that it is still such a widely used term even today is testament to its enduring truth. If anything, in today's digital age, that sentiment is more true than ever.
The undeniable truth is that words matter, and what we say and write can carry great consequence for ourselves and others. Anyone who thinks otherwise only need to look into the anguish eyes of parents of children driven to suicide by 'mere words' to see how wrong they are.
Quite clearly, there are limits to free speech even in the most liberal western country, for good reason. As such, the question of 'free speech', like pretty much everything else, isn't one of binary absolutes, but rather a matter of degrees.
I have my own, very strong opinions on where the line should be drawn wrt the extent speech should be free, but to get into that would undoubtably make this thread spiral off topic.
As such, I will only say that the issue of free speech is an incredibly complicated one, that sadly isn't being studied in anywhere like the level of detail it should be because of the strong ideological zealotry of some, and not all of those zealots shout 'Allahu Akbar'.
It is purhaps an act of cosmic irony that a day after the Paris attacks, Abu Hamza was sentenced to two life sentences in New York not for anything he did, but for what he said.
Before anyone launches into a rant, let me make it clear that I think the Abu Hamza decision was the right one. He was, is and always will be an evil and dangerous man who's power stems not from what he himself can do, but what his words can inspire others to do in his stead.
Edward Lytton first coined the phrase, "the pen is mightier than the sword" nearly two hundred years ago, yet the fact that it is still such a widely used term even today is testament to its enduring truth. If anything, in today's digital age, that sentiment is more true than ever.
The undeniable truth is that words matter, and what we say and write can carry great consequence for ourselves and others. Anyone who thinks otherwise only need to look into the anguish eyes of parents of children driven to suicide by 'mere words' to see how wrong they are.
Quite clearly, there are limits to free speech even in the most liberal western country, for good reason. As such, the question of 'free speech', like pretty much everything else, isn't one of binary absolutes, but rather a matter of degrees.
I have my own, very strong opinions on where the line should be drawn wrt the extent speech should be free, but to get into that would undoubtably make this thread spiral off topic.
As such, I will only say that the issue of free speech is an incredibly complicated one, that sadly isn't being studied in anywhere like the level of detail it should be because of the strong ideological zealotry of some, and not all of those zealots shout 'Allahu Akbar'.
well they are still a lot better than the Filipino SWAT team that handled the hostage crisis in manila with those poor HongKong tourists being held hostage.
Mr T
Senior Member
I think that most people are aware that you cannot say whatever you like. The famous example being in a crowded room and shouting "fire!"
However, it is also generally agreed that satire is a permissible form of free speech. Whilst you can argue whether some forms of satire go too far, I don't think anyone can say that publishing any cartoon involving Muhammad in any shape or form is going "too far". That's the point. If we are to permit satire, it has to follow that there are no groups that can have immunity from it. Otherwise, the logical argument would be that satire would have to be banned, because it's always going to offend someone. Is that really what we want?
There has been very little terrorism in The Netherlands. It is still worthwhile to look at the position of Muslim youths here.
Turkish and Moroccan "guest workers" arrived here from the early sixties, after we had an influx of Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Yugoslav ditto's. They came all for just five years or so and many "unexpectedly" stayed. That was similar to the transportation of Javanese, Hindu and Chinese workers to Suriname, then a Dutch colony, after the end of Slavery in the nineteenth century.
I think a considerable part of the Turks came from cities. Friends of my father came from Konya. The Moroccans are mostly Berbers from the country side. Morocco insists that children born from Moroccans anywhere in the world are still Moroccans ( I don't think they can make that stick in US but the Dutch bureaucracy cooperates with this nonsense ). The Dutch government still import imams selected by Turkey and Morocco to work for periods of four years here. I well remember the Dutch government deciding in the late seventies, when it was quite clear that many of the "guest workers" would only return to their old country for family visits and holidays, to not develop an imam training in this country only to change its mind a quarter of a century later.
What has been the result? So people who came as children have been successful. Most notably one who came as a six year old boy with his parents from Morocco and is now mayor of Rotterdam. But may "Moroccan" boys don't see their elders be successful, are therefore discouraged at school and are failing in society. Their sisters are generally successful at school and later. Many people of Turkish descent have shops of many kinds and are otherwise an inconspicuous part of society.
I think that with their lowly position in their old country the Moroccan immigrants were handicapped by the idiotic policies of the Dutch government in a way the immigrants from Turkey were not.
The position of many people of Algerian descent in France is a lot worse than those of the Moroccans in The Netherlands and that is the main source of the current misery. It is the price France pays for years of misrule.
Turkish and Moroccan "guest workers" arrived here from the early sixties, after we had an influx of Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Yugoslav ditto's. They came all for just five years or so and many "unexpectedly" stayed. That was similar to the transportation of Javanese, Hindu and Chinese workers to Suriname, then a Dutch colony, after the end of Slavery in the nineteenth century.
I think a considerable part of the Turks came from cities. Friends of my father came from Konya. The Moroccans are mostly Berbers from the country side. Morocco insists that children born from Moroccans anywhere in the world are still Moroccans ( I don't think they can make that stick in US but the Dutch bureaucracy cooperates with this nonsense ). The Dutch government still import imams selected by Turkey and Morocco to work for periods of four years here. I well remember the Dutch government deciding in the late seventies, when it was quite clear that many of the "guest workers" would only return to their old country for family visits and holidays, to not develop an imam training in this country only to change its mind a quarter of a century later.
What has been the result? So people who came as children have been successful. Most notably one who came as a six year old boy with his parents from Morocco and is now mayor of Rotterdam. But may "Moroccan" boys don't see their elders be successful, are therefore discouraged at school and are failing in society. Their sisters are generally successful at school and later. Many people of Turkish descent have shops of many kinds and are otherwise an inconspicuous part of society.
I think that with their lowly position in their old country the Moroccan immigrants were handicapped by the idiotic policies of the Dutch government in a way the immigrants from Turkey were not.
The position of many people of Algerian descent in France is a lot worse than those of the Moroccans in The Netherlands and that is the main source of the current misery. It is the price France pays for years of misrule.
Last edited by a moderator:
Guys, this thread is about the terror attacks, what happened, who was injured, killed, how the attackers went about their attacks, their weaponry, training, etc.
It is also about the French response to those attacks in seeking out and apprehending those responsible...or the confrontations that occurred when that happened and the strategies, occurrences, etc. associated with all of that.
It can also be about the results of the attacks and how France or other nations may seek to prevent similar in the future.
It is not about how France somehow is "misruling," about other nations handling things "better," it is not about the vagaries and variances in "free speech." Most all of those topics are subjective and will vary depending on the poster and their background and personal feelings. Such posts invariably lead to a lot of differences and take the thread off topic...which in turn will lead to more moderation, suspensions, and the thread itself being suspended or closed.
Let's avoid that.
Thank you.
DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATION
It is also about the French response to those attacks in seeking out and apprehending those responsible...or the confrontations that occurred when that happened and the strategies, occurrences, etc. associated with all of that.
It can also be about the results of the attacks and how France or other nations may seek to prevent similar in the future.
It is not about how France somehow is "misruling," about other nations handling things "better," it is not about the vagaries and variances in "free speech." Most all of those topics are subjective and will vary depending on the poster and their background and personal feelings. Such posts invariably lead to a lot of differences and take the thread off topic...which in turn will lead to more moderation, suspensions, and the thread itself being suspended or closed.
Let's avoid that.
Thank you.
DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATION
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I think there are about 1.4 billion Sunni Muslims who would strongly disagree with that.
In Sunni Islamic faith, visual diplictions of the Prophets and Islam, and especially Muhammad are prohibited. That is their faith, which happens to pre-date any Western nations of free speed by a millennium or two.
Had people only used written satire to mock Muhammad, a great many Muslims would be offended just as a great many Christians would be offended if one were to openly mock Jesus, but the Muslim reaction would not be as fierce as it was against the cartoons.
The cynical part of me suspects that is precisely why a very small number of people decided to use cartoons as the medium, maybe not expressly to offend, but certainly to goad a strong reaction to raise their publications' profile and their own fame as well. It is a tactic used often enough.
As I said, its an incredibly complext issue.
-------
Edit, was writing this before Jeff posted.
Delete it if you feel its too off topic.
Irrelevant. They can have their laws in their lands...but cannot impose them on another people in a separate land who have their own laws.plawolf said:
plawolf said:
Of course people get offended when their cherished faith and holy beliefs are made fun of.
The difference is how people respond to the satire and words that are used. Attacking and murdering people who use their free speech, within the laws of their own nation is something that cannot be tolerated and MUST be responded to forcefully no matter who is killing people in that way. I think we can all agree with that.
Now...let's let the religious. ideological analysis end with that.
Last edited:
