Of course freedom of speech and expression should be protected and encouraged, I wasn't linking that in any way to the atrocity. Rather I was making a separate point about how that right isn't being implemented fairly in that society, which is fair because I'm only holding that society to its' own standards.
Hopefully an agreed upon common sense will ultimately prevail. Hopefully the path there won’t contain any more horrors like this.Of course freedom of speech and expression should be protected and encouraged, I wasn't linking that in any way to the atrocity. Rather I was making a separate point about how that right isn't being implemented fairly in that society, which is fair because I'm only holding that society to its' own standards.
Right back at cha mate.
While I agree that the Burqa ban is hypocritical( I am against the ban) I just see this as an extention of what started with an fatwa against Salman Rushdie. Ayan Al Hirsi Ali and what got Theo Van Gogh killed. There has also been attempted terror attacks against Jyllandposten and attempted terror attacks against the Danish cartoon drawers far before there was a danish Burqa ban in 2018. Frankly there is nothing to suggest it makes any difference. We had a terrorattack in 2015 also where the targets were related to the muhammedcartoons and again this was before any Burqa ban.
I agree my problem with burkas is mainly if women who dont wear them are punished or harressed by their family and community however if they want to wear them out of their own free will i think they should be allowed too. I find the whole thing incredibly medieval though.
Agree. Medieval is the correct word. Can't belive this is controversial in 2020
Well yeah, extremists will be extremists; they're usually not inclined to rationality.
a) people were more afraid of commiting such crimes AND/OR
Absolutely agree with this. Everyone associated with this crime as a (moral) supporter or instigator should be punished with the severest penalty the law can offer (I am glad that the assailant himself is dead so he won't be able to bath in the glory of perceiving himself as a martyr.)
Yes, it isn't - and will never be. That's life. You can approach many crimes on a theoretical level and discuss hidden causes and structural defencies. But, they never explain everything. At the end of the day, there was one guy who commited this crime voluntarily. No amount of structural inequalities forced his hand.
then don’t expect harmony in society. That’s life.
I suppose an analogy might be holding all Manchester United fans responsible for the actions of a small hooligan element amongst it
I think we should work towards a zero tolerance policy towards islamism(Islamic fundamentalism) in our western democracies. They are clearly not compatible. 251 people have now been killed and many more injured over some cartoons of Muhammed. It's ridiculous beyond belief. If people want to live by Sharia I think they should kindly migrate to Saudi Arabia or Iran and if someone want them enforced in Europe they should kindly stay out.
Somehow the psychosis of fundamentalism needs to be removed from civil society.
That's simply not true. The demographics have drastically changed since 60 or 70 years ago. Have a look at the population of muslims in Europe now compared to 60 or 70 years ago(starts on page 4 on the link). Apart from the increase of demographics its of course interesting what has caused an escalation of Islamism(muslims who want Sharia). Clearly the post 9/11 events ramped up everything as well.
Incidentally why don't we ever in the same token see an emphasis on the demographics that perpetuate racism, white supremacy, conspiracy theorism and far right terrorism which the Center for Strategic and International Studies in the US says majority of domestic terrorism stems from. And it has implications for politics/culture as well.
Though I agree fundamentalism has no place in any society, I do find the 'compatibility' part a little ironic. Considering that the modern strand of it was born out of Arab nationalism which European powers weaponised to destroy the Ottoman empire, after which they then continued to support the fundamentalism logistically by importing scholars, books and Imams from a particular region - while cutting all the alternatives off - because of the 'special relationship' with particular peoples. Then you look at the Middle East through post-colonial lenses; the wars, the bombs, the destabilisation and humanitarian crisis'.
White guests are never forced to say that they condemn the latest far right terrorist atrocity either before they can comment further. It's seen as a given.
I think it’s important to note that Muslims have been/are targets of these vigilantes as well. Some cases from the 90s in the Middle East spring to mind. There was a professor in Egypt, Farag Foda, who was assassinated in 1992 after being condemned by al-Azhar for blasphemy. A couple years later the Nobel-prize winning writer Naguib Mahfouz was stabbed in the neck in Cairo due to Islamist objections to one of his books. Also, although he was Druze not Muslim, there was the case of Suliman Bashear,* a professor from Nablus whose students threw him out a window for his views on early Islamic history. There are doubtless many other such cases reaching much further back.
Well yes I agree to some significant extent the west has helped create this problem beyond the colonial period that you mentioned fx, the US armed the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden to help them fight the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and the US and most countries in the world(that are not shia) have had a cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia(one of the greatest funders of Islamic fundamentalism) because we are reliant on their oil. The 2nd Iraq war also destabilzed the region and despite Saddam being one of the most brutal dictators of his time, it was a massive own goal to go into Iraq.
Well yes I agree, that's why I try to make an distinction between muslims(by which I mean muslim moderates and reformers) and islamists.
Fundamentalism is fundamentalism, no matter where it is or what religion it is. White supremacy in the states has a strong under current of radical christianity; hell, it is a christian entity in the states. Religious fundamentalism is abhorrent on all sides. As a white person, it’s embarrassing to be associated with that. But you can’t divorce the fact that this is virtually all religious based. It’s difficult as a white person who is not encumbered by religion to begin to make that any progress on reeling in the christian fundies & their knock effects of racism, supremacy, etc. We just don’t have the numbers, especially in the states.
OK but I’m not sure the way you’ve framed this - basically “good vs bad” Muslims - or some of the language you employ, is particularly helpful in producing the desired outcome. For example:
Because you're trying to equate a religious ideology with a skin colour. Obviously that doesn't work.
Just the comparison between the stabbings and the Paty incident is laughable. You may think about that again?White supremacy is an ideology.
Most white people aren't white race supremists though, not in any meaningfull sense of the word.
explain to me why
Oh I agree
Yes. That is fundamental to the point he was making.
That's what he meant. You may want to read his original post again.
I agree, I don't go down the all muslims are terrorists path or that all muslims need to denounce islamic terrorism every single time it happens.
Hmm, you can think about it yourself.
The stabbings of the arabic women was very wrong but ultimately a result of the Muslim people killing a man due to their drawings, wasnt it?
You just replicated the most popular excuse apologists of Islamist terrorism use to give, only from the "other side".
I mean it’s a free forum but next time instead of emojis maybe we’d get somewhere if you explained your viewpoint.
