Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Rhiannon on November 13, 2015, 10:57:03 PM
-
Just about to go to bed and saw this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34814203
:'(
-
Watching BBC news right now. This one's going to run solidly throughout the night and into tomorrow :(
-
It's as good as certain that this was a coordinated terrorist massacre on central Paris last night, with the strong likelihood (so far) of at least 140 dead; reserve your bitching and bleating about America's gun mania for another thread. Any other thread.
-
Shocking. And I don't get it... Why France?
-
Shocking. And I don't get it... Why France?
Apparently, it may be the same group who have previously committed terrorist attacks in Paris. And why France? Just because the murderers happen to live there.
I pray for those poor souls, and all who will continue to suffer terribly.
-
Shocking. And I don't get it... Why France?
Could be a residual effect of the Charlie Hebdo affair, factoring in France's strong secularism (they call it laicite) which is seen by some as anti-Islam.
And also simply that it's a secular liberal Western democracy, I guess. Not France, Italy. Not Italy, Sweden. Not Sweden, Spain. Not Spain ... here.
-
This one will continue with more details coming in; at present nothing new of substance is being added to what's already known.
-
Last night's BBC Sports webpages made quite a lot of the events. With the Euro 2016 finals being held in France, could that have been at least part of the target? Sort of as warning/reminder?
-
Just saw the Amazon home page. Impressed.
-
Just saw the Amazon home page. Impressed.
I went to have a look. A very tasteful, understated gesture.
-
I went to have a look. A very tasteful, understated gesture.
Quite agree.
Just been watching the extended coverage on BBC 1, and whilst I don't want to raise fears, I was surprised when one of the commentators being intereviewed seemed to suggest that, whilst the UK are involved in the Midde East, they re 'less involved' because of not being involved in Syria. If this was planned by ISIS, and because they don't seem to recognise the Syrian/Iraqi border, do they even think in the sdamer weay sas tyhi commentator? Surely the 'Caliphate' isd undr attack, in their eyes, regardless of where the bombs are being dropoped?
I am glad that COBRA is meeting later, and I pray that not only do they realise that the UK security status needs to be upped (or is it already as high as it can go), I also pray that the Vienna talks regarding the war in Syria, agin Assad, really come up with a solid proposal.
-
I was shocked when I heard about this terrible atrocity in Paris on the news this morning! :o
-
The Islam down the road from me ( mosque) is pretty much peaceful as are its adherents.
But I am getting less tolerant of it. :o
That might be the underlying aim of the jihadist.
-
As regards the migrants: I have long contended that of all these now hundreds of thousands, who appear to be entering Europe without any noticeable security checks, it would be quite remarkable if there are no terrorists amongst them, using the opportunity to enter Europe; or indeed, any who will be open to radicalisation.
-
I just hope that all Muslims aren't tarred with the same brush as the extremists, many are good people.
-
And no doubt will number among the victims too.
-
And no doubt will number among the victims too.
No doubt, but that won't stop the unintelligent screaming about migrants etc!
-
In contrast to the wars of the last century, Islamic State is profoundly about religion. The clue is in the name.
Let me enlighten you: it is done in the name of a perverted "interpretation" of Islam, as all reasonable Muslims - the massive majority who are - constantly affirm. Yet another cheap attempt to score points, and at a time when all should be extending sympathy to those poor people. Shameful!
If we view all such people as nutjobs and random criminals then we fail to grasp the full import of the situation. This is middle eastern war spilling onto the streets of Europe and the war has political and religious drivers.
-
"Ma chère,
Au milieu de la haine, j'ai trouvé qu'il y avait, en moi, un amour invincible.
Dans le milieu des larmes, j'ai trouvé qu'il y avait, en moi, un sourire invincible.
Au milieu du chaos, j'ai trouvé qu'il y avait, en moi, un calme invincible."
-
Dear Torridon,
A middle Eastern war! Is it?
Dear Rhiannon,
Amazon, very impressed, is this something we should all be doing, how do we all show our solidarity.
Gonnagle.
-
"Ma chère,
Au milieu de la haine, j'ai trouvé qu'il y avait, en moi, un amour invincible.
Dans le milieu des larmes, j'ai trouvé qu'il y avait, en moi, un sourire invincible.
Au milieu du chaos, j'ai trouvé qu'il y avait, en moi, un calme invincible."
A fine and tremendously apt quote from a great man. Kudos.
-
And while what happened in Paris is a tragedy so is what happened in Beirut
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34805466
-
Isis has now claimed the attacks
-
"Ma chère,
Au milieu de la haine, j'ai trouvé qu'il y avait, en moi, un amour invincible.
Dans le milieu des larmes, j'ai trouvé qu'il y avait, en moi, un sourire invincible.
Au milieu du chaos, j'ai trouvé qu'il y avait, en moi, un calme invincible."
Found this translated, NS, thank you.
-
For anybody mystified, a (very) rough translation runs:
"In an atmosphere of hatred, I found that I have within me an invincible love.
In an atmosphere of tears, I found that I have within me an invincible smile.
In an atmosphere of chaos, I found that I have within me an invincible calm."
-
So you wouldn't teach a child not to murder, Floo? The problem with the idea of not teaching children such things as philosophies is that what might be defined as that is wider than just labelled 'isms'.
-
Terrible. I understand machine guns and shot guns were involved. This seems to be happening regularly in France despite it's strict gun laws. If people want to kill, they will.
-
Roddy Doyle's attempt to deal with the tragedy in Paris in a lighter fashion.
'-Paris.
-Fuckin' hell.
-Unbelievable. Can yeh imagine? Out on a Friday nigh'. An' that happens.
-Fuckin' savages.
-Fuckin' terrible.
-Were yeh ever there?
-Paris?
-Yeah.
-No, I wasn’t - not really.
-What's tha' mean?
-Well, like - I was never in Paris but I'd nearly feel like I was, yeh know. Cos o' the - yeh know - the images an' the songs an' tha'. They're just so well known an' brilliant. The fillums an' stories - Pinocchio.
-Fuckin' Pinocchio?
-The Hunchback of Notre Dame.
-Tha' wasn't fuckin' Pinocchio.
-Who was it then?
-The other fella - I can't remember. Pinocchio was the little wooden fucker.
-That's righ'.
-Italian
-That's righ'.
-Irritatin’ little bollix.
-That’s righ’. Anyway. Thinkin' about it – wha’ happened last night, like. Football, music, a bit o' grub on a Friday nigh', a few drinks. They don't like life, the cunts tha' did it. Sure they don't?
-Looks tha’ way, alrigh’. Quasimodo.
-Good man. That's the Hunchback.
-I remembered - I was worried there for a bit.
-The bells, the bells. He was brilliant, Quasimodo, wasn’t he?
-One o' the lads.
-Je suis Quasimodo.'
-
There is nothing to show that the perpetrators of the Paris atrocity were French!
Apart form the fact that at least one of them was French (identified by his fingerprints and already known to the authorities).
-
There is nothing to show that the perpetrators of the Paris atrocity were French!
Apart form the fact that at least one of them was French (identified by his fingerprints and already known to the authorities).
One out of how many?
Nitpicking maybe, but . . .
-
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/what-a-charlie-hebdo-cartoonist-drew-after-the-second-paris-terror-attack-in-a-year--Z1ZZbO3VYx
-
Even jihadi John seemed to have a relatively secular upbringing, it sounds the opposite of a narrow religious upbringing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11438545/Jihadi-John-From-ordinary-schoolboy-to-worlds-most-wanted-man.html
IMO this shows Ippy is wrong in his claim that a religious upbringing causes this.
Isis must have filled some hole or missing part in his life, like bright students at university getting drawn into something ridiculous.
I don't agree completely with ippy but the article doesn't say he was brought up in a secular manner. It states he was religious and became more devout.
-
BBC news just now: 129 confirmed dead, 352 injured of which 99 are deemed to be critically so :(
There's a time and place for religious debate, and contrary to popular belief I enjoy a good barney as much as the next man, but perhaps it might be an idea to split those posts onto another thread and leave this one for a discussion of the events in Paris which are going to keep changing as more facts become known.
Just a suggestion, that's all.
-
Thoughts of an ex Muslim on twitter tackling people who blame those who finance the murderers (nothing to do with Islam).
To those who are asking who is financing terrorism
You have been raising children on tales of prophets avenging, on celebrating great massacres, on praising heroes beheading enemies, on religious role models killing infidels, on stories of the hell that awaits those on the other side, on exalting martyrdom for murderer and murdered equally (f**k this whole concept by the way), on Armageddon and its war and blood.
And when those you bred start living up to you, your role models, your religion and your God you begin to wonder who is financing them! Who gives a f**k who gives them the money.
You are the one mentally financing them, they just found a source of income to make your tales reality.
-
Following my comment in M19, it now seems that at least two of the Paris murderers are recent "refugees." And, frighteningly, how many more are infiltrating in this way?
-
Following my comment in M19, it now seems that at least two of the Paris murderers are recent "refugees." And, frighteningly, how many more are infiltrating in this way?
Yes that might be a frightening prospect.
It is a more frightening propsect still that Europe might close its borders and its compassion to people fleeing atrocities because we risk inadvertantly importing a few more terrorists. What happened in Paris was appalling to be sure but lets not forget that equates to a fairly peaceful day in Syria which has routinely seen a higher death toll day in day out for years now. To turn our backs on them is to condemn them to deaths in far greater numbers than if we take the risk of resettling them.
-
Following my comment in M19, it now seems that at least two of the Paris murderers are recent "refugees." And, frighteningly, how many more are infiltrating in this way?
Yes that might be a frightening prospect.
It is a more frightening propsect still that Europe might close its borders and its compassion to people fleeing atrocities because we risk inadvertantly importing a few more terrorists. What happened in Paris was appalling to be sure but lets not forget that equates to a fairly peaceful day in Syria which has routinely seen a higher death toll day in day out for years now. To turn our backs on them is to condemn them to deat
As most politicians agree, the answer can never be to accept countless hundreds of thousands of refugees: that is an impossible route to take. It is not a question of lacking compassion. The answer lies in somehow solving the problem at source, and settling the Syrian war.
It seems that if only point one of one per cent of the total migrants so far in Europe is a trained terrorist, that amounts to a possible 15,000 of them!! Horrific possibility!
-
It seems that if only point one of one per cent of the total migrants so far in Europe is a trained terrorist, that amounts to a possible 15,000 of them!! Horrific possibility!
Clearly 0.1% of them aren't terrorists then. Otherwise we'd have this kind of mayhem every day.
-
Following my comment in M19, it now seems that at least two of the Paris murderers are recent "refugees." And, frighteningly, how many more are infiltrating in this way?
Which is why Europe shouldn't be accepting half the Middle-East, but it seems Europe is determined to press the self-destruct button and soon Europe will no longer be recognisably European anymore.
-
Moderator:
As suggested in the original thread, we have now removed a number of posts that went beyond the recent ongoing events in Paris into wider issues in order that this thread remains mainly about the immediate situation in Paris.
We will now look at these other posts and try to make a separate thread from these other posts.
-
Somewhat shocked that given the source, both the newspaper and the writer, to find I agree with a lot of this. I am still in the position of trying to process recent events, and standing with Paris and those suffering from violence elsewhere, and rather like Peter Hitchens I have no suggestions that are magic wands but I think I is clear that some actions will not deal with things.
http://tinyurl.com/pmjq53l
-
Somewhat shocked that given the source, both the newspaper and the writer, to find I agree with a lot of this. I am still in the position of trying to process recent events, and standing with Paris and those suffering from violence elsewhere, and rather like Peter Hitchens I have no suggestions that are magic wands but I think I is clear that some actions will not deal with things.
http://tinyurl.com/pmjq53l
There cannot be, as far as I can see, any simple solution to the question that is being asked - How do we stop these kinds of incidents?
Without curbing the democratic freedoms of one group or another it would seem to be impossible.
Unfair though it mighht be to say it but when terrorist attacks are carried out under the banner of one particular group, be it Islam, Communism, or nationality the entire membership of the related religion, political philosophy or nation are immediately under suspicion of, at the very least, tacit, support of the particular terrorist group. Thus all Muslims, all Communists (or Left-wingers) or Irishmen are immediately tarred with the same brush as the terrorists. Those members of these groupos who deny any sympathy are immediatly seen as "well, you would say that wouldn't you" and previously firm friendships of long standing are destroyed in a haze of not knowing who is and who is not supporting the extremeists.
It is fine to watch the American President denouncing terrorism, but it should be remembered that, for quite a while, the IRA was funded by Americans, funded and armed, and they even had coach tours to sites of IRA murders. I hope that the Americans have, and it seems that they might have, learned that the Atlantic and Pacific oceans are no protection any more than the Channel is the bulwark that it once was.
No one country can beat terrorism that is bases upon a worldwide belief - politics or religion - and the sooner that the entire world gets its act together, and that includes the Russians, the sooner we might have a chance of defeating these terrorists.
-
Surely the idea that somehow Barack Obama is not supposed to denounce terrorism because some Americans funded the IRA 30 years ago, leads to no one being able to speak on anything as that sort of thinking is exactly the same as those who seek to tie the actions of the murdering thugs in Paris etc to actions of the Americans, French etc.?
The problems with 'curbing democratic freedoms', whatever you actually have in mind there, for one group is that (a) that is quite difficult to do without affecting everyones' freedoms, and (b) then becomes a legitimate grievance for that group.
-
Surely the idea that somehow Barack Obama is not supposed to denounce terrorism because some Americans funded the IRA 30 years ago, leads to no one being able to speak on anything as that sort of thinking is exactly the same as those who seek to tie the actions of the murdering thugs in Paris etc to actions of the Americans, French etc.?
The problems with 'curbing democratic freedoms', whatever you actually have in mind there, for one group is that (a) that is quite difficult to do without affecting everyones' freedoms, and (b) then becomes a legitimate grievance for that group.
My apologies - NS - I did not, on re-reading make myself clear.
It took a direct attack on America, 9/11, to bring home to America the realities of being the target of terrorism.
Also re "curbing democratic freedoms" I meant that working on the Paris situation - curbing freedom of travel, placing restictions on people who are members of the religion, political philisophy, nationality that the terrorists are identified with to attempt prevention of attacks and your a and b above amply demonstrates exactly what I meant even if I did not put it as well as you did.
-
John Oliver on the attacks in Paris
NSFW or BA
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/8573068
-
John Oliver on the attacks in Paris
NSFW or BA
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/8573068
Enjoyed and applauded the clip but and not sure of the meaning of your "NSFW or BA" reference - showing my thicko side I have no doubt!
-
John Oliver on the attacks in Paris
NSFW or BA
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/8573068
Enjoyed and applauded the clip but and not sure of the meaning of your "NSFW or BA" reference - showing my thicko side I have no doubt!
NSFW - Not Safe For Work.
O.
-
NSFW = Not Safe For Work (usually indicates swearing or some sexual or otherwise adult content) for B(ashful) A(nthony).
-
NSFW = Not Safe For Work (usually indicates swearing or some sexual or otherwise adult content) for B(ashful) A(nthony).
Clever! Must remember that one!
-
Note America had been the subject of both international terrorism with the first Twin Tower attack and domestic terrorism with most noticeably the Oklahoma bomb amongst numerous others. The idea that you can identify a nation of some 250 million to 320 million, over the time being discussed as having a single view on terrorism because a tiny subset of mainly Irish extraction contributed to 'the struggles' is merely part of the same mindset that justifies terrorism on civilians because they, the Brits, the Yanks, the French, the Jews are all the same.
-
Not to detract from the sorrow surrounding the deaths in the Paris attacks....but this is a tragedy also to be considered.
http://us.cnn.com/2015/11/16/middleeast/beirut-explosions/index.html
**************
As buildings lit up in the colors of the French flag, and the 129 people killed in Paris on Friday filled headlines, many people in Beirut felt the West -- and its news media -- had forsaken them.
A day before the French attacks, two suicide bombers had killed 43 people and wounded 239 more in the Lebanese capital in an ISIS-propagated murder.
The explosions detonated within 150 meters (490 feet) and five minutes of each other in the Bourj al-Barajneh district in southern Beirut on Thursday, Lebanon's state-run National News Agency said.
But on Friday, Western cameras turned away, focusing intently on France.
****************
-
Not to detract from the sorrow surrounding the deaths in the Paris attacks....but this is a tragedy also to be considered.
http://us.cnn.com/2015/11/16/middleeast/beirut-explosions/index.html
**************
As buildings lit up in the colors of the French flag, and the 129 people killed in Paris on Friday filled headlines, many people in Beirut felt the West -- and its news media -- had forsaken them.
A day before the French attacks, two suicide bombers had killed 43 people and wounded 239 more in the Lebanese capital in an ISIS-propagated murder.
The explosions detonated within 150 meters (490 feet) and five minutes of each other in the Bourj al-Barajneh district in southern Beirut on Thursday, Lebanon's state-run National News Agency said.
But on Friday, Western cameras turned away, focusing intently on France.
****************
Understandable, perhaps, but counter-productive. It feeds into the right-wing media's 'us and them' depiction of this as a clash between Islamic world and the West rather, but that just entrenches opinions on both sides.
O.
-
Understandable, perhaps, but counter-productive. It feeds into the right-wing media's 'us and them' depiction of this as a clash between Islamic world and the West rather, but that just entrenches opinions on both sides.
O.
I rather think it is not a matter of right or left politics. People seem united in this matter. And it is not seen as Islam v the West; it is clearly being expressed as Isis v the West. What evidence have you to suggest it is being portrayed as Islam v the West?
-
I rather think it is not a matter of right or left politics. People seem united in this matter. And it is not seen as Islam v the West; it is clearly being expressed as Isis v the West. What evidence have you to suggest it is being portrayed as Islam v the West?
All of the right wing media's focus on the Islamic attack on a secular western nation versus it's almost complete ignorance of an Islamic attack on a broadly Islamic nation.
It is a matter of right or left politics - right wing outlets tend towards nationalistic jingoism, whereas left-wing outlets tend towards class-based jingoism (though I find the left-wing are less overt about it, but that's possibly personal preference).
O.
-
All of the right wing media's focus on the Islamic attack on a secular western nation versus it's almost complete ignorance of an Islamic attack on a broadly Islamic nation.
It is a matter of right or left politics - right wing outlets tend towards nationalistic jingoism, whereas left-wing outlets tend towards class-based jingoism (though I find the left-wing are less overt about it, but that's possibly personal preference).
O.
I follow the news quite avidly, and the coverage of all aspects of this dreadful situation are pretty well-rounded, and non-discriminating. Unless you can quote me evidence to the contrary.
-
I follow the news quite avidly, and the coverage of all aspects of this dreadful situation are pretty well-rounded, and non-discriminating. Unless you can quote me evidence to the contrary.
I follow the news as best I can, and both stories are there if you want to go find them. If you don't want to go find them, if you wait to have your news fed to you, you're getting one of these stories and not the other.
O.
-
I follow the news as best I can, and both stories are there if you want to go find them. If you don't want to go find them, if you wait to have your news fed to you, you're getting one of these stories and not the other.
O.
Well, give me some evidence of what you say by quoting some news coverage.
-
Just to note I had posted about the tragedy in Beirut in message 21. And there had been further deaths in Baghdad previously. The lack of coverage realise might be because of the overall thought that these tragedies happen constantly there, though interestingly at one stage yesterday the most read story on the BBC was the university massacre in Kenya that happened in April as it got shared bypeoplegoing 'what about this, why does no one pay attention' and not noticing the date.
There's a certain amount of focus on Paris by people who have been there frequently, lived there, have friends there. I went to a number of concerts at the Bataclan in the 90s so it has a resonance. I appreciate that there is a valid point to be made about every death in these actions being a tragedy but there is a sort of caring oneupmanship that becomes a little distasteful, and I am aware of a couple of instances where people searched back through other people's comments on social media to check about whether they had been 'sufficiently' outpouring their grief in other tragedies.
-
Well, give me some evidence of what you say by quoting some news coverage.
Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, BBC News. All right wing or centrist outlets, all devoted masses of coverage to Paris, but minimal observances of the Beirut incident. All of them have dropped any news of the Sinai plane bombing - perhaps lack of any new information, perhaps lack of enough Western victims...
O.
-
Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, BBC News. All right wing or centrist outlets, all devoted masses of coverage to Paris, but minimal observances of the Beirut incident. All of them have dropped any news of the Sinai plane bombing - perhaps lack of any new information, perhaps lack of enough Western victims...
O.
I think you would expect anyone to concentrate on the horror of something close to home: that doesn't mean other horrors are ignored. There is foulness going on all over the world - all over Africa, the Middle East, etc. Apart from anything else, there isn't time or space to give it all coverage daily.
-
I think you would expect anyone to concentrate on the horror of something close to home: that doesn't mean other horrors are ignored. There is foulness going on all over the world - all over Africa, the Middle East, etc. Apart from anything else, there isn't time or space to give it all coverage daily.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Responsible journalists though, you'd think, would be reporting everything equally - it's an horrific event regardless of how far away it is, we're a global community these days, it's not like these things have no impact.
I can understand Beirut being relegated for the newer atrocity of Paris, but I can't understand the relative lack of coverage for it before Paris happened - that sense that it's important because it's happening to people like us reinforces the differences rather than emphasising the shared humanity.
We aren't going to fix this by highlighting differences, and although journalists might well claim that they aren't there to fix the problem but to report on them, their partial coverage is lending itself to the problem not the solution.
O.
-
Perhaps, perhaps not. Responsible journalists though, you'd think, would be reporting everything equally - it's an horrific event regardless of how far away it is, we're a global community these days, it's not like these things have no impact.
I can understand Beirut being relegated for the newer atrocity of Paris, but I can't understand the relative lack of coverage for it before Paris happened - that sense that it's important because it's happening to people like us reinforces the differences rather than emphasising the shared humanity.
We aren't going to fix this by highlighting differences, and although journalists might well claim that they aren't there to fix the problem but to report on them, their partial coverage is lending itself to the problem not the solution.
O.
So, when 132 people have been murdered, a couple of hundred injured, some British, you expect editors to say, in the immediacy of it, " we must make sure to cover Beirut equally." That has been covered, not ignored, and no doubt will be again.
-
So, when 132 people have been murdered, a couple of hundred injured, some British, you expect editors to say, in the immediacy of it, " we must make sure to cover Beirut equally." That has been covered, not ignored, and no doubt will be again.
No, I expect a hundred people blown up in a co-ordinated terrorist attack to merit top billing, whether it happens in Paris or Beirut. Friday's papers had the Beirut story as third or fourth option, at best, but Paris was a multiple-page spread.
If we don't show the Arab world that we value them, we just provide ammunition for the Islamists.
O.
-
Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, BBC News. All right wing or centrist outlets, all devoted masses of coverage to Paris, but minimal observances of the Beirut incident. All of them have dropped any news of the Sinai plane bombing - perhaps lack of any new information, perhaps lack of enough Western victims...
O.
I would agree that there was very little coverage of the Beirut bombing, but not so the Sinai plane bombing. I think there was extensive coverage of that - both of the parochial nature (Brits stranded abroad) but also of the crash first, then the recognition that it was a likely terrorist attack.
I'd agree that the level of coverage was less than over the weekend, but I'm not sure how you 'measure' levels of coverage to ensure it is commensurate with the significance of the incident. I think (and it is always likely to be the case) that some events strike a chord with the public, and therefore within the media, in a manner that others don't quite. And some end up 'buried' due to other events. So for example there was quite a serious train crash in France on Saturday, which would have got much more publicity than it actually did if it hadn't happened the day after the Paris attacks.
-
No, I expect a hundred people blown up in a co-ordinated terrorist attack to merit top billing, whether it happens in Paris or Beirut. Friday's papers had the Beirut story as third or fourth option, at best, but Paris was a multiple-page spread.
If we don't show the Arab world that we value them, we just provide ammunition for the Islamists.
It is simple human nature to cover your personal losses as paramount, not some way of trying to minimise the ordeals of others. Goodness knows, the situation in the Middle East gets huge coverage over the media, all but daily.
-
In addition to the news coverage, there is also the political coverage, we didn't have a minutes silence for those killed at Garissa in April and no Kenyan flags projected onto Tower Bridge. That the tragedies in Paris gets the coverage that it does is not surprising, that those killed in Garissa get less on the news outlets is also not surprising but there is an easy narrative here that white lives matter more.
-
I would agree that there was very little coverage of the Beirut bombing, but not so the Sinai plane bombing. I think there was extensive coverage of that - both of the parochial nature (Brits stranded abroad) but also of the crash first, then the recognition that it was a likely terrorist attack.
I'd agree that the level of coverage was less than over the weekend, but I'm not sure how you 'measure' levels of coverage to ensure it is commensurate with the significance of the incident. I think (and it is always likely to be the case) that some events strike a chord with the public, and therefore within the media, in a manner that others don't quite. And some end up 'buried' due to other events. So for example there was quite a serious train crash in France on Saturday, which would have got much more publicity than it actually did if it hadn't happened the day after the Paris attacks.
The train was thought at the time to be manned by a few test engineers, and whilst that's an horrendous event it's of a different level to the Paris attacks. I absolutely think the Paris attacks merited multiple pages, but I think the Beirut attacks did when they happened and before Paris.
The Russian plane bombing was widely reported, but I wonder if we'll hear of it again - that might be lack of any new information, as I said, but it might equally be that Russia is less like us than Paris, and so not as emotive.
O.
-
I think the Sinai tragedy is a bit different. It's now been subsumed into a narrative that seems to accept it as being part of some co-ordinated campaign by the murdering thugs and the nature of the initial lack of clarity meant that it wasn't something where the whole uses them narrative could be used, leaving aside a certain ambivalence about the shooting down of a plane given earlier events in the Ukraine.
-
In addition to the news coverage, there is also the political coverage, we didn't have a minutes silence for those killed at Garissa in April and no Kenyan flags projected onto Tower Bridge. That the tragedies in Paris gets the coverage that it does is not surprising, that those killed in Garissa get less on the news outlets is also not surprising but there is an easy narrative here that white lives matter more.
That's true - there there was massive coverage over the Westgate shopping mall attacks back in 2013. Quite why one got lots of coverage and the other much less is difficult to understand, although it has to be noted that there were British casualties in the shopping mall attacks.
-
I am no fan of the media. I think that I am rather shock proof against terrorist attacks in the middle east and Africa. It's as though it has become a very routine thing to happen in those parts of the world. I don't think I am the only one to become shock proof and the media knows this and will drop a horrible event, say in Pakistan, for a more shocking and let's face it, a more money generating event closer to home. That being said, I do disagree with the notion that the BBC is right wing.
-
The train was thought at the time to be manned by a few test engineers, and whilst that's an horrendous event it's of a different level to the Paris attacks. I absolutely think the Paris attacks merited multiple pages, but I think the Beirut attacks did when they happened and before Paris.
The Russian plane bombing was widely reported, but I wonder if we'll hear of it again - that might be lack of any new information, as I said, but it might equally be that Russia is less like us than Paris, and so not as emotive.
O.
The Russian plane crash was less immediate for us, and the take in the media was slanted towards the political consequences.
-
The train was thought at the time to be manned by a few test engineers, and whilst that's an horrendous event it's of a different level to the Paris attacks. I absolutely think the Paris attacks merited multiple pages, but I think the Beirut attacks did when they happened and before Paris.
Of course - but on another day it would have received far more coverage.
-
Of course - but on another day it would have received far more coverage.
Except they didn't when they happened before Paris
-
I think if you questioned the average person standing there in the minute silence, and asked them why they weren't bothering more about Beirut, you'd get short shrift. Not because people don't care, that's a risible suggestion, but it's only natural that you care immediately about your own loss and the very personal horror of it.
-
I think if you questioned the average person standing there in the minute silence, and asked them why they weren't bothering more about Beirut, you'd get short shrift. Not because people don't care, that's a risible suggestion, but it's only natural that you care immediately about your own loss and the very personal horror of it.
Yes, you're absolutely right. And that's part of the problem, that division of humanity into people who are progressively less and less 'like me' as though that made them less worthy of attention, or empathy, or sympathy.
I know you probably don't mean it like that, I know they probably don't mean it like that, but affinity for those like is, by definition, segregation from those we deem unlike us.
It's in that segregation that people like Isis find their recruits, and it's in displays of that segregation that they find their propoganda.
O.
-
I think it is perfectly valid to question the coverage of the different tragedies, or indeed to bring people's attention to what they mussed, which is why I posted about the bombings in Beirut but as already noted there is something vacuous about the blaming people for not caring about the right thing. Many of my friends changed their profile pics to French flags, or French flag filters,I tend to avoid such as it all seems seems bit pointless to me, but I understand why they did and support them in doing it.
The article in the Independent linked to takes a differing view. I think it is risible trolling
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153232814226636&id=13312631635&ref=bookmarks
-
Somewhat shocked that given the source, both the newspaper and the writer, to find I agree with a lot of this. I am still in the position of trying to process recent events, and standing with Paris and those suffering from violence elsewhere, and rather like Peter Hitchens I have no suggestions that are magic wands but I think I is clear that some actions will not deal with things.
http://tinyurl.com/pmjq53l
Yes, a decent article, somewhat spoiled by the rants of the armchair warriors in the comments below. But well done Hitchens for not taking the inane 'it's the fault of Islam' line. I hope the French can resist this, and not follow Le Pen down the road to ruin.
Actually, to be fair, some of the comments are reasonable as well. What is the Daily Mail playing at?
-
Yes, a decent article, somewhat spoiled by the rants of the armchair warriors in the comments below. But well done Hitchens for not taking the inane 'it's the fault of Islam' line. I hope the French can resist this, and not follow Le Pen down the road to ruin.
Actually, to be fair, some of the comments are reasonable as well. What is the Daily Mail playing at?
Being the Daily Mail - as usual?
-
Triggered by the Independent article linked to above, I wrote the following on Facebook.
I have not put a French flag filter on. I just don't see the point. That said I understand my friends that have and I share their shock and horror at events in Paris, and indeed in Beirut and Baghdad, and Manchester where one kid was shot. It's not about numbers, and caring about one thing more than an other for reasons of likeness to you, or meaning for you does not make anyone a bad person, never mind some of the tosh in this article.
This indulgent one-upmanship on caring is deeply uncaring. It precisely treats real human suffering as an abstract numbers game. It does not promote news about the suffering of others but buries it in a whine of my caring is better than your's. None of us can begin to deal with the enormity of pain, suffering and death that we as a species seem inordinately skilled at inflicting on each other, but we will never deal with any of it while vacuously indulging in a wankfest of condemning others for not caring enough. If people care about suffering, and you want things to change ask them to help, ask them to speak up for who you see as suffering, realise that they are like the imperfect struggling person that you are. Reach out, don't attack them for not thinking exactly like you because that will just alienate and is too ironic to deal with.
A French flag does not mean there are people you don't care about, rather there are people you do care about and that is where we all must start.
-
There is an aspect of this horror that is slightly different. People who plant bombs and then, disappear, in a sense make their action impersonal. But these murderers in Paris, looked their victims in the eye, listened to pleas for mercy, and still slaughtered them. That is a particular type of evil.
-
Triggered by the Independent article linked to above, I wrote the following on Facebook.
I have not put a French flag filter on. I just don't see the point. That said I understand my friends that have and I share their shock and horror at events in Paris, and indeed in Beirut and Baghdad, and Manchester where one kid was shot. It's not about numbers, and caring about one thing more than an other for reasons of likeness to you, or meaning for you does not make anyone a bad person, never mind some of the tosh in this article.
This indulgent one-upmanship on caring is deeply uncaring. It precisely treats real human suffering as an abstract numbers game. It does not promote news about the suffering of others but buries it in a whine of my caring is better than your's. None of us can begin to deal with the enormity of pain, suffering and death that we as a species seem inordinately skilled at inflicting on each other, but we will never deal with any of it while vacuously indulging in a wankfest of condemning others for not caring enough. If people care about suffering, and you want things to change ask them to help, ask them to speak up for who you see as suffering, realise that they are like the imperfect struggling person that you are. Reach out, don't attack them for not thinking exactly like you because that will just alienate and is too ironic to deal with.
A French flag does not mean there are people you don't care about, rather there are people you do care about and that is where we all must start.
I totally agree.
I find the Tricolour overlay, on Facebook, very similar to various "I know who of my friends will share this" and the "99% of people will not share this - let's see if you are part of the 1%" a kind of moral blackmail.
Of course I am horrified at the deaths in Paris, as I have been at all the deaths from terrorist activity since I lost friends and colleagues during the Malayan Insurgency in the late 1960's. Large scale deaths in full-scale wars are bad enough but at least then you know who you are fighting, here it could be your next-door neighbour who kills you because you sonmehow "different".
-
Worried about what the fella next door might do to ya Matty? Try being friendly.
-
Hmmm maybe I have to rewrite Owlswing as it was almost precisely the opposite point I was making.
-
Worried about what the fella next door might do to ya Matty? Try being friendly.
BEEP - the number you have called is busy - please leave message.
-
Good article on ISIS, quite long and needs an update after Paris
-
All my posts have been removed :(
-
All my posts have been removed :(
Moderator:
We decided to split this thread, Julie. We will restore the missing posts to a new thread, probably tomorrow now - it was a very busy day in Mod HQ today :)
-
One of the problems in dealing with IS is that it is part of a Sunni revivalism, which is itself intent on countering the rise of Shia power, as in Iraq, supported by Iran. I think this means that a purely military solution is going to be very difficult, since many Sunni tribes are watching like hawks to see which way the West will tilt, as also Turkey and the Saudis. Any hint that the West favours Iran and Iraq (and Assad), will reinforce suspicion, and will help IS find favour.
Of course, one solution is to pull out completely, but that is probably unacceptable to politicians in the West.
-
I totally agree.
I find the Tricolour overlay, on Facebook, very similar to various "I know who of my friends will share this" and the "99% of people will not share this - let's see if you are part of the 1%" a kind of moral blackmail.
Of course I am horrified at the deaths in Paris, as I have been at all the deaths from terrorist activity since I lost friends and colleagues during the Malayan Insurgency in the late 1960's. Large scale deaths in full-scale wars are bad enough but at least then you know who you are fighting, here it could be your next-door neighbour who kills you because you sonmehow "different".
I have done the tricolour overlay on Facebook.
It is about solidarity with the people in Paris and it doesn't mean that I don't care about people elsewhere and I know of others who have added a Facebook overlay with a more 'balanced' message (including Lebanon, Russia etc etc) but that is up to them.
Perhaps one of the reasons why I felt I should do this in solidarity is because of the proximity and similarity between life in London and life in Paris. So as someone who was out on Friday night in London, first at a restaurant and then at a theatre the fact that at exactly the same time people in restaurants and in a theatre in Paris were being brutally murdered unsurprisingly hit home. There is also a kind of link back to 7:7 which affected me deeply as I could easily have been on one of the tube trains.
And this morning coming into work who was the first colleague I met - a colleague who is from Paris, whose parents still live there (actually they were visiting him this weekend and so in the UK) who has attended concerts at the Bataclan and knows the areas around there very well. Perhaps it is these kind of things which make an individual somehow more affected and more in need to show solidarity by some event than by others. Perhaps that's wrong, I don't know, but I am just being honest about it.
-
I think it a matter of personal feeling. To judge one gesture as superior to another makes no sense to me.
As a former Londoner myself who had family who both commuted through and worked at Aldgate East I relate to what you say, PD.
-
Moderator:
We decided to split this thread, Julie. We will restore the missing posts to a new thread, probably tomorrow now - it was a very busy day in Mod HQ today :)
Ok :)
-
Moderator:
Just to confirm that the posts split from this thread have been used to create a new thread on the Religion & Ethics Board.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11193.msg570091#new
-
Of course, one solution is to pull out completely, but that is probably unacceptable to politicians in the West.
Oddly to pull out is UKIP policy as i recall.
-
An interesting article on the pressure to open "back doors" into our communications in the wake of the disaster.
https://theintercept.com/2015/11/15/exploiting-emotions-about-paris-to-blame-snowden-distract-from-actual-culprits-who-empowered-isis/
For most people not directly involved, I think this will be the worst consequence of the terrorist attack: further erosion of our freedom and privacy "in the name of security".
-
It's already started; I caught something yesterday about Cameron using it as a pretext for hustling through even more surveillance powers.
-
It's already started; I caught something yesterday about Cameron using it as a pretext for hustling through even more surveillance powers.
The old adage comes to mind - if you have nothing to hide what do you have to fear!
-
https://www.corbettreport.com/nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear/
Hydra would be proud of your stance Owlswing ;)
-
An article that was written following the Charlie Hebdo attacks but still relevant.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-ways-to-keep-terrorists-from-ruining-world_p2/
-
The old adage comes to mind - if you have nothing to hide what do you have to fear!
The government is going to put a surveillance camera in every bedroom in the land. Still not concerned about your privacy?
-
The old adage comes to mind - if you have nothing to hide what do you have to fear!
A government that spies on the private lives and behaviour of the people - that's something to fear.
-
The old adage comes to mind - if you have nothing to hide what do you have to fear!
Say I'm gay and haven't come out to my parents yet, and this sort of surveillance shows that, and some humpfart looking through the data finds it and blackmails me. Nothing to hide but life's a tad more complicated than adages, else a watched pot won't boil. I was four when I disproved that one.
-
King O, jeremyP, Shaker,
I just hope your privacy remains as important to you when it is you who suffers from a lack of intelligence.
You know, what a botnet is? Are you absolutely certain no-one is "piggy-backing" on your innocent e-mails etc?
-
Say I'm gay and haven't come out to my parents yet, and this sort of surveillance shows that, and some humpfart looking through the data finds it and blackmails me. Nothing to hide but life's a tad more complicated than adages, else a watched pot won't boil. I was four when I disproved that one.
I am so glad that you have such a high opinion of those trying, in the intelligence community, not their political bosses, to protect us from a possible Paris repeat!
What is one gay being outed or blackmailed to the murders of hundreds! And blackmail can be reported to the police!
-
Stiff Little Fingers were due to play in Paris this evening, and obviously there was concern about the gig going ahead but they have sorted it out and will play, citing that their growing up in NI, they lost the chance to see too many bands because of the the 'troubles'. Kudos.
http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=RBYoNYuUVk0
-
I have as high an opinion of the intelligence community as I do of the rest of humanity
-
Say I'm gay and haven't come out to my parents yet, and this sort of surveillance shows that, and some humpfart looking through the data finds it and blackmails me. Nothing to hide but life's a tad more complicated than adages, else a watched pot won't boil. I was four when I disproved that one.
But there are already numerous chances that this could happen anyhow, regardless of surveillance.
So you might be blackmailed by someone who saw you out with a same sex partner, or even by that partner themselves. Perhaps you were seen buying a particular kind of magazine, or seen leaving a particular club etc etc.
Maybe someone with access to your bank records could already do this by checking your payment history.
The point is that in every case there would be some offence committed. In every case blackmail, but only in the case of the bank records and the proposed surveillance would using that information for purposes other than intended be of itself an offence.
-
That there are other ways it could be found out, is not a justification for increasing the ways. The point that was being made is that we should object to no amount of surveillance because it is only had things that we might not completely honest about. The example I was using was to show this to be invalid but if some of you want to give up your liberty, count me out, at least until you make better arguments that the intelligence community are saints, and that it might be able to be established anyway.
-
That blackmail can be reported to the police must mean it never works?
-
King O, jeremyP, Shaker,
I just hope your privacy remains as important to you when it is you who suffers from a lack of intelligence.
I can think of nothing that would remove, shake or diminish my belief in the primacy of individual privacy.
As NS said, meekly give up your liberties if you want to, but I won't let it happen without complaint. It will happen anyway because nobody can do anything to stop it, but I won't have it done to me willingly or silently.
-
That there are other ways it could be found out, is not a justification for increasing the ways. The point that was being made is that we should object to no amount of surveillance because it is only had things that we might not completely honest about. The example I was using was to show this to be invalid but if some of you want to give up your liberty, count me out, at least until you make better arguments that the intelligence community are saints, and that it might be able to be established anyway.
I am rather more concerned about the current ways in which companies suck in data, for example, records of purchasing habits and sell it on to third parties who may use it for purposes way beyond its intended use. And sure there are theoretical safeguards but increasing, whether through impenetrable tick boxes with double negatives, tiny wording on massive terms & conditions, cookies etc one mistake and they've pulled in that info.
I really am much less concerned about the government and security forces being able to access data to keep me and others safe then my data being often almost public property within the commercial world.
Frankly the amount of data that could be analysed is so mind bogglingly large and the resources available so relatively small it is almost self policing - the only surveillance that will ever actually be done is that which relates to really serious issues.
-
That blackmail can be reported to the police must mean it never works?
You've missed the point.
That being someone currently can take a picture of you on their mobile phone (not an offence), in public with your partner (not an offence) and use it to blackmail you. The only aspect of that that is currently beyond the law is the blackmail.
They can read a love letter over your shoulder (not an offence) and use that knowledge to blackmail you. The only aspect of that that is currently beyond the law is the blackmail.
If surveillance is allowed, to access information for purposes other than intended (i.e. prevention of crime etc) that in itself would be an offence.
If you are concerned about blackmail I suggest you need to be more concerned about friends and acquaintances, rather than the risk that a government employee with access to millions of bits of data relating to millions of people's web activity and e-mail traffic might decide to target you.
-
The amount of data taken elsewhere is a tuquoque. That you are worried about something else does not justify the govt taking extra information, I suggest you concentrate on the case in point. That you think all govt surveillance is to keep you safe is almost endearing
-
No, sorry, Prof D, this theme who has not only missed the point but decided that all points shall henceforth be fluffy bunnies.
I shall take this slowly for you as you seem to have gone all a bit I love my govt, they are wonderful here.
The point that there is no reason to object to any increase in surveillance because if I did I must have something that needs to be seen to surveillance is what was being raised.
I was merely putting forward an example where I might be doing nothing that needed to be surveilled and yet I might not want it done.
You are Theresa May, and I claim my five pounds.
-
The amount of data taken elsewhere is a tuquoque. That you are worried about something else does not justify the govt taking extra information, I suggest you concentrate on the case in point. That you think all govt surveillance is to keep you safe is almost endearing
I think I have concentrated on the case in point. The government already holds vast amounts of data on us, directly or via its liked organisations, e.g. NHS. Much of this could (theoretically) be put together in a way that could be used to blackmail or to create other problems. I don't see how this is affected in any meaningful manner by some additional surveillance that is, of course, designed to try to prevent serious crimes.
-
No, sorry, Prof D, this theme who has not only missed the point but decided that all points shall henceforth be fluffy bunnies.
I shall take this slowly for you as you seem to have gone all a bit I love my govt, they are wonderful here.
The point that there is no reason to object to any increase in surveillance because if I did I must have something that needs to be seen to surveillance is what was being raised.
I was merely putting forward an example where I might be doing nothing that needed to be surveilled and yet I might not want it done.
You are Theresa May, and I claim my five pounds.
Nope I am not Theresa May.
But in my view there is a balance of freedoms here. And I value the freedom not to be blown up above the freedom that never, ever under any circumstance might anyones electronic traffic be accessed by government in order to protect from the former.
To me it is a reasonable trade-off because I do not hunk that this option for government will affect my life and how I live it one iota and that will be the same for pretty well everyone in this country. However if it helps prevent an attack - good.
And there are plenty of other trade-offs. For example having to bring liquids in tiny bottles onto planes in hand luggage has actually affected me more (and that's really stretching it because the effect is minimal). Sure my 'freedom' to carry any amount of liquid onto a plane has been lost, but that's OK as I can see this is a sensible precaution aimed at helping to ensure that the pane I'm on isn't blown up.
-
Fine, Prof, if you think it is a valid argument that because the govt knows a lot about us, we shouldn't worry about any extension of that, then off you skip to Stasiland.
-
Fine, Prof, if you think it is a valid argument that because the govt knows a lot about us, we shouldn't worry about any extension of that, then off you skip to Stasiland.
Pathetic response.
Godwin's lawesque.
-
Pathetic response.
And that isn't?
-
Shouldn't the authorities be trying to keep track of thousands of known Jihadists, people returning from Syria and properly identifying asylum seekers rather than set up the collection of vast amounts of mostly useless information?
Just as after previous incidents instead of doing what is needed to prevent radicalization and attacks more effort is spent on convincing people that the more freedom they are willing to give up, the safer they will be.
-
Pathetic response.
Godwin's lawesque.
A diddums, you mean comparison of a state increasing surveillance,can never be compared to a state having too much surveillance? Really,Theresa?
-
King O, jeremyP, Shaker,
I just hope your privacy remains as important to you when it is you who suffers from a lack of intelligence.
The statistics are pretty much in my favour. Even if I was a Parisian, my chance of having been killed in the last attack was less than 1/10,000.
You know, what a botnet is? Are you absolutely certain no-one is "piggy-backing" on your innocent e-mails etc?
I'm not absolutely certain, but what is your point? Because I might be a victim of cybercrime I should ignore the government's encroachment on my freedom and privacy?
-
It's everyone's view that it's about a balance of freedoms. That is actually the point of the discussion, where you put the balance.
-
But there are already numerous chances that this could happen anyhow, regardless of surveillance.
So you might be blackmailed by someone who saw you out with a same sex partner, or even by that partner themselves. Perhaps you were seen buying a particular kind of magazine, or seen leaving a particular club etc etc.
Maybe someone with access to your bank records could already do this by checking your payment history.
The point is that in every case there would be some offence committed. In every case blackmail, but only in the case of the bank records and the proposed surveillance would using that information for purposes other than intended be of itself an offence.
Tu quoque to you too.
-
I think I have concentrated on the case in point.
No you haven't. You have pointed at other people who are trying to destroy our privacy as if we can't be concerned about more than one thing at a time.
For most of us, the biggest danger of these attacks is that the government will use them as an excuse to further erode our freedoms and privacy. There's probably going to be a massive increase in security and surveillance spending, but honestly, given the relative risks, they'd get a better return by putting the money into road safety.
The government already holds vast amounts of data on us, directly or via its liked organisations, e.g. NHS. Much of this could (theoretically) be put together in a way that could be used to blackmail or to create other problems. I don't see how this is affected in any meaningful manner by some additional surveillance that is, of course, designed to try to prevent serious crimes.
Are you OK with the government installing a security camera in every bedroom in the land, including yours? That's the logical extrapolation of trying to keep us "safe".
-
Piece by Adam Hills from his Facebook page (so no copyright issues'
'I’ve been called a lot of things in the past few days, many of them deserved. “Leftie wanker”. “Islam apologist”. “Unfunny ****.” I’ve also been called a “traitor” and even worse, “un-Australian.”
Here’s why I don’t think those last two apply.
Earlier this year I was invited to an Australia Day drinks function at the Australian High Commission in London. As the beer flowed and the lamingtons were passed around I found myself in deep conversation with a variety of governmental experts on The Middle East and in particular, Syria.
As this was a few weeks after the Charlie Hebdo attacks I took the opportunity to find out all I could about this so-called Islamic State group.
I learned a lot of things that night, but the one that stood out was this: Islamic State need recruits and they have two steps to get them.
1) Create an uprising against Muslims in the West by carrying out attacks in the name of Allah.
2) Then when young Muslims feel rejected by Western society, make ISIS look like a cool alternative.
Please remember, this was all expressed to me by officials of both the Australian and British Governments.
It seemed to me that a good way of combatting this would be 1) be nice to non-ISIS related Muslims (ie the vast majority of Muslims) and 2) make ISIS look like idiots.
I ran this past my friends at the High Commission, who agreed that this was indeed a good thing to do.
Now there aren’t a lot of things a one-legged comedian can do to combat a bunch of pricks like ISIS, but when experts in the field from your own government tell you what you can do – you damn well do it.
The next week on the show I host - “The Last Leg” - we ran an on-air competition to rename ISIS. The winner was a lady who tweeted “Cyst-ISIS: cos they’re irritating twats”. From that day forth we only ever referred to them as Cystisis.
We then ran a weekly segment called “The G-Hadi Spot” in which we attempted to ridicule them whenever we could.
We played Cystisis training videos with the Benny Hill music over the top. We celebrated the young girls who defrauded them out of thousands of dollars. We made our own ads for the caliphate, in which we clearly mocked them.
We also increased security at the studios. A live TV show would be the perfect target for these arseholes, and to this day my Mum still pleads with me not to provoke them each week.
In amongst all this, I did my best to remind our viewers that Cystisis are interpreting the Islamic faith in a highly extreme, and self-serving way, and that the vast, vast, vast majority of Muslims – around 99.997 per cent – disapprove of them.
I did all this, not because I am a hippy dippy idealist who believes that fairy wings and puppy dog farts can change the world. I did this because I was advised by representatives of my government who are way smarter than I am, that it was the right thing to do.
I might be an unfunny leftie wanker, but I’m no traitor.
And the thing is – you can do it too. There are countless memes going around at the moment decrying Islam; there are people saying their businesses are closed to Muslims; there are jokes going around making Muslims the punchline.
All you have to do is use the word ISIS instead of Islam. Mock the arseholes who are really causing the damage. Cos they hate that. Call them Cystisis. Say your business is closed to any Cystisis member who wants your services. Make a meme about how deluded Cystisis are.
It’s what your government wants you to do.
And what could be more Australian than taking the piss out of those who deserve it, while giving a fair go to those who need it?'
-
Dear Sane or World or even forum,
In amongst all this, I did my best to remind our viewers that Cystisis are interpreting the Islamic faith in a highly extreme, and self-serving way, and that the vast, vast, vast majority of Muslims – around 99.997 per cent – disapprove of them.
And what could be more Australian than taking the piss out of those who deserve it, while giving a fair go to those who need it?'
Dear Adam Hills,
Good on ye mate and fair dikkums and other wonderful Australian sayings :P :P ( which reminds me of Pratchett's "the last continent" brilliant book satirizing our Australian cousins )
Yes! take the piss out of Cystisis, not Islam.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Forum,
Jeremy Vine show, radio 2, just now.
Talking to ordinary Muslims about the atrocities.
One Iman said, not just an attack on Paris but on all humanity.
A business man, Muslim, large banner outside his property condemning the atrocities.
Another Muslim who has started a hashtag ( whatever a hashtag is ) which states, not in my name.
Gonnagle.
-
I find it odd that the deaths in Nigeria from.Boko Haram, isn't even on the first page of the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-34852971
-
Dear Forum,
Jeremy Vine show, radio 2, just now.
Talking to ordinary Muslims about the atrocities.
One Iman said, not just an attack on Paris but on all humanity.
A business man, Muslim, large banner outside his property condemning the atrocities.
Another Muslim who has started a hashtag ( whatever a hashtag is ) which states, not in my name.
Gonnagle.
Did you hear the earlier part of the show? - Ludicrous discussion whether we should nuke ISIS !
:o
-
Did you hear the earlier part of the show? - Ludicrous discussion whether we should nuke ISIS !
:o
There are people in favour of it?
-
There are people in favour of it?
Crazy!
-
Apparently ... I was at the barbers so not listening carefully ... just astounded.
-
I find it odd that the deaths in Nigeria from.Boko Haram, isn't even on the first page of the BBC
http://www.b...
I agree. Part of the problem is that there isn't enough time to cover all the horrors that are going on, world-wide.
-
Shouldn't the authorities be trying to keep track of thousands of known Jihadists, people returning from Syria and properly identifying asylum seekers rather than set up the collection of vast amounts of mostly useless information?
Just as after previous incidents instead of doing what is needed to prevent radicalization and attacks more effort is spent on convincing people that the more freedom they are willing to give up, the safer they will be.
I agree with this. We want to spot crucial pieces of information so we collect a load of useless information in which for it to get lost. Madness.
And it doesn't matter who is doing the snooping; having no true private life does not make you safer. Just the opposite.
-
Dear Udayana,
Did you hear the earlier part of the show? - Ludicrous discussion whether we should nuke ISIS !
Oh yes!! one person suggested just a little nuclear bomb :o :o
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Udayana,
Oh yes!! one person suggested just a little nuclear bomb :o :o
Gonnagle.
To be sung to the tune of Just a Little Bit by Gina G
You're the bomb, you're my loudest thing
Let bombs away, let bombs away
Every night I just hate this way
Can't get enough of your bang
Am I wrong? Would it be unkind?
Letting bombs away this very day
I can't hide these thoughts in my mind
Every moment just thinking of boom
Ooh ah just a little bomb
Ooh ah, just one bomb more
Ooh ah, just a little bomb
Bombs are what I'm looking for
-
The little bomb to make IS go away sounds like a child's wish to make the monster under the bed disappear to me.
-
Well, military action in itself is very appealing, as it has a kind of simplicity. And you could probably go into Syria, and defeat IS, or at least take over the towns which they control.
But as politicians do realize, it's the next bit which is difficult. After all, defeating the Iraqui army wasn't difficult, but it was the next bit which floored Western administrators. I wonder if they thought it was a bit like a bad school, you could install new staff and put it in special measures, and hey presto. Trouble is, quite a lot of local people objected rather vehemently.
Even saying that Syria should be divided up presents a huge political problem - who are we to do that? It sounds like colonialism again.
-
Elsewhere I have been talking about that we need to concentrate on the small and achievable and not grand plans. This is Jake Burns of Stiff Little Fingers writing about playing Paris after the atrocities. Anyone who knows anything about SLF will know why this might have import. It is one of those small steps. There are gigs I am sad to have missed. This is one.
http://classicrock.teamrock.com/features/2015-11-19/why-stiff-little-fingers-paris-gig-had-to-go-ahead-by-jake-burns
-
Dear Forum,
Question time, David Dimbleby, this is not the House of Commons this is a serious programme
.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Forum,
Question time, David Dimbleby,.
Gonnagle.
Do look at This Week; Andrew Neill will hit the nail on the head, i've no doubt.
-
Dear Forum,
Just a thought, listening to Question Time last night, the overwhelming feeling I got from listening to all the Panel members ( even the tory representative, Anna Soubry >:( ) and the vast majority of the audience, we should stop referring to the terrorists as Islamic state, the word Islam should be taken away from these barbaric monsters.
Just a thought!
Gonnagle.
-
This statement from man whose wife was killed in the attacks is incredibly powerful
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34862437
-
Dear Forum,
Just a thought, listening to Question Time last night, the overwhelming feeling I got from listening to all the Panel members ( even the tory representative, Anna Soubry >:( ) and the vast majority of the audience, we should stop referring to the terrorists as Islamic state, the word Islam should be taken away from these barbaric monsters.
Just a thought!
Gonnagle.
Why.
I find the argument that these people somehow aren't 'islamic' or muslim disingenuous. It is just as bad as implying that somehow all muslims are potential terrorists.
I think we have to start being honest here. Sure the brand of islam espoused by ISIS is abhorrent to the vast majority of muslims, but that doesn't mean that ISIS are somehow not muslims or somehow do not base their ideology fundamentally on islamic teaching - they do. I think they are mostly likely to be very devout muslims - the point is that they are murderous devout muslims.
So lets not pretend they aren't muslims (they are) and lets also not pretend that because they are muslims it somehow means that all muslims are extremists (they aren't).
-
Dear Prof,
As I said it was just a thought, my thinking and yes you can accuse me of maybe not thinking it through properly, take away from them the very thing they think they are fighting for.
On this forum ( in my own humble opinion ) we have posters who actually put some thought into what is happening, I could list them, but the list would be to long, but your average Joe, the man or woman rushing to work, trying to earn a living, they read their paper or watch the news and see or hear the words Islamic state.
From what I have heard over the last couple of days and as I stated in my last post, the overwhelming feeling I got from the audience ( Muslim and non Muslim ) on Question Time, these monsters are so far removed from Islam that they don't deserve the name.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
As I said it was just a thought, my thinking and yes you can accuse me of maybe not thinking it through properly, take away from them the very thing they think they are fighting for.
On this forum ( in my own humble opinion ) we have posters who actually put some thought into what is happening, I could list them, but the list would be to long, but your average Joe, the man or woman rushing to work, trying to earn a living, they read their paper or watch the news and see or hear the words Islamic state.
From what I have heard over the last couple of days and as I stated in my last post, the overwhelming feeling I got from the audience ( Muslim and non Muslim ) on Question Time, these monsters are so far removed from Islam that they don't deserve the name.
Gonnagle.
If you talked to ISIS they would probably think that moderate muslims are so far removed from Islam that they don't deserve the name.
If we start to pretend they are something that they aren't (i.e. not muslims motivated by their interpretation of islamic teaching, interpretations which I freely accept are completely rejected by the vast majority of muslims) then we are being dishonest. And if it makes us feel queazy to describe them as they are well that's something for us to deal with.
To try to pretend that ISIS aren't muslims motivated by their interpretation of islamic teaching is like trying to pretend that the IRA weren't Irish or republican and motivated by their desire for a united Ireland.
-
Dear Prof,
I am not pretending anything, merely putting my thoughts down in black and white, it helps me see my mistakes.
http://tinyurl.com/ohm8dt5
Gonnagle.
PS: Sorry, where are my manners, the link was courtesy of our Rose.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11218.msg571136#msg571136
-
As I said it was just a thought, my thinking and yes you can accuse me of maybe not thinking it through properly, take away from them the very thing they think they are fighting for.
We can't take Islam away from them. If we try to rename them, that's just more ammunition for them - "They refuse to even recognise the truth of Allah and his prophet!"
On this forum ( in my own humble opinion ) we have posters who actually put some thought into what is happening, I could list them, but the list would be to long, but your average Joe, the man or woman rushing to work, trying to earn a living, they read their paper or watch the news and see or hear the words Islamic state.
You can, unfortunately, not force people to take up the education they are offered any more than you can force them to take up or give up a faith.
From what I have heard over the last couple of days and as I stated in my last post, the overwhelming feeling I got from the audience ( Muslim and non Muslim ) on Question Time, these monsters are so far removed from Islam that they don't deserve the name.
Whereas what I get from those sorts of discussions is the realisation that Islam - and the other religions - are so vague as to be able to justify just about anything.
O.
-
Dear Outrider,
On reading about how we name these monsters I see the word Daesh is being banded about by Obama and the French President Hollande, but there is a bit of debate about what that word actually means.
Another word being thrown about is Solidarity, Solidarity with who, over the past couple of days I have heard many ordinary Muslims protesting, not in my name, they are as disgusted as you and me over the atrocities.
Where does my solidarity lie.
We can't take Islam away from them. If we try to rename them, that's just more ammunition for them
Not from what I have read, they will cut the tongue out of anyone using the word Daesh.
You can, unfortunately, not force people to take up the education they are offered any more than you can force them to take up or give up a faith.
But why fan the flames of Islamaphobia, because that is definitely what they want.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Outrider,
On reading about how we name these monsters I see the word Daesh is being banded about by Obama and the French President Hollande, but there is a bit of debate about what that word actually means.
I gather it is an acronym for the Arabic phrase al-Dawla al-Islamiya al-Iraq al-Sham (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). The reason they don't like it is not because it indicates they are islamic, but because it sounds very similar to Daes and Dahes which are considered derogatory terms.
But this is really silly from the west - scared to be honest and accept that the group's prime motivation is their interpretation of islamic teaching, so call them effectively the same but in a language most don't understand. It would be like calling the IRS its equivalent in Gaelic because you are afraid of being seen to accept their motivation being ... err ... Irish republicanism.
Another word being thrown about is Solidarity, Solidarity with who, over the past couple of days I have heard many ordinary Muslims protesting, not in my name, they are as disgusted as you and me over the atrocities.
Where does my solidarity lie.
Not from what I have read, they will cut the tongue out of anyone using the word Daesh.
But why fan the flames of Islamaphobia, because that is definitely what they want.
Gonnagle.
You aren't going to quench islamophobia through dishonesty. The honest view is to accept first that ISIS are muslims and are motivated by their interpretation of islamic teaching, but also to recognise and reiterate time after time that most muslims do not accept their interpretation of islam and certainly completely and utterly reject their methods.
-
Another word being thrown about is Solidarity, Solidarity with who, over the past couple of days I have heard many ordinary Muslims protesting, not in my name, they are as disgusted as you and me over the atrocities.
Where does my solidarity lie.
Solidarity with anyone, in the short term, who is prepared to endorse a secular, peacable, 'live and let live' approach, I'd think, pretty much like mine.
Not from what I have read, they will cut the tongue out of anyone using the word Daesh.
And there are a number of reasons for that, not least is the fact that they want to be seen to be 'the face of Islam'.
But why fan the flames of Islamaphobia, because that is definitely what they want.
On the one hand we do need to be ensuring that they aren't painting the entire picture of what Islam is, but on the other hand we can't deny the reality that they are an Islamic sect, that what they are doing is inspired, at least in a large part, by their religious view and their take on that religion's texts.
Isis aren't all of Islam, but at the same time Islam isn't an irrelevant concept in this issue.
O.
-
Dear Prof,
You aren't going to quench islamophobia through dishonesty. The honest view is to accept first that ISIS are muslims and are motivated by their interpretation of islamic teaching, but also to recognise and reiterate time after time that most muslims do not accept their interpretation of islam and certainly completely and utterly reject their methods.
Fair enough, but as I have stated, on this forum we have some fine minds which actually think deeply about the subject, out there in the big bad world we have a public who are bombarded with soundbites, they don't see the political or the profit, they see the word Islam.
But then again maybe I am not giving Joe public its due.
Anyway that big bad world beckons me, and yes I hate shopping.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
Fair enough, but as I have stated, on this forum we have some fine minds which actually think deeply about the subject, out there in the big bad world we have a public who are bombarded with soundbites, they don't see the political or the profit, they see the word Islam.
But then again maybe I am not giving Joe public its due.
Anyway that big bad world beckons me, and yes I hate shopping.
Gonnagle.
The best way to deal with this isn't to pretend that ISIS aren't islamic and muslims - the public aren't daft. Rather to recognise that there is a battle within islam on ideology and therefore to encourage the groupings to be moderates (whether muslim or not) vs the extremists, rather than muslims vs the rest. But to do this will require the muslim community to recognise that ISIS extremists are muslims and often have come from their communities - and once they get beyond the 'I can't believe he would go on to be an extremist, he seemed like a ordinary, normal muslim', kind of denial and look really hard at what may be occurring in plain sight in those communities that may act to support radicalisation, or perhaps more reasonably to fail to prevent it.
-
Good old Prof D, seeing into the mind of any Muslim who is a bit shocked about someone they might know becoming radicalised to kill people, and being able to pronounce they are in denial.
-
Good old Prof D, seeing into the mind of any Muslim who is a bit shocked about someone they might know becoming radicalised to kill people, and being able to pronounce they are in denial.
And your level of understanding of the issues is exactly? How closely are you linked to any of these communities in your personal or professional life?
And I am not the only person to think this - and someone else recently espousing a similar view is Sadiq Khan, who I would think has a pretty good insight into muslim communities, being from one of those communities himself and also having worked very closely with the broader muslim community particularly in London.
-
And your level of understanding of the issues is exactly? How closely are you linked to any of these communities in your personal or professional life?
And I am not the only person to think this - and someone else recently espousing a similar view is Sadiq Khan, who I would think has a pretty good insight into muslim communities, being from one of those communities himself and also having worked very closely with the broader muslim community particularly in London.
I think expecting people to see the big picture at times like that and judge them, all of them, people you don't know as being in denial is a ridiculous place of posturing.
I don't know what Sadiq Khan has specifically said but iif he did phrase it in the patronising and judgmental way you did about individuals he win't know either then he's being as silly in his estimates of individuals as you are.
-
I think expecting people to see the big picture at times like that and judge them, all of them, people you don't know as being in denial is a ridiculous place of posturing.
I don't know what Sadiq Khan has specifically said but iif he did phrase it in the patronising and judgmental way you did about individuals he win't know either then he's being as silly in his estimates of individuals as you are.
I ask again:
'And your level of understanding of the issues is exactly? How closely are you linked to any of these communities in your personal or professional life?'
Any chance of answering please.
-
I ask again:
'And your level of understanding of the issues is exactly? How closely are you linked to any of these communities in your personal or professional life?'
Any chance of answering please.
No, because rather as with Bashful's appeal to his own authority earlier this week, it is essentially irrelevant. If we merely want to dictate discussion on the basis you want to go down, it will entirely defeat the point of the forum.
Whenever you feel capable of justifying your point rather attempt to go down this irrelevance, get back to me. If not I will leave you to patting yourself on the back.
-
No, because rather as with Bashful's appeal to his own authority earlier this week, it is essentially irrelevant. If we merely want to dictate discussion on the basis you want to go down, it will entirely defeat the point of the forum.
Classic obfuscation tactic. It is entirely relevant, given that proximity to dealing with some of these issues provides a level of understanding of the situation. I am asking about your understanding and proximities to muslim communities and requirement to deal with the issues of radicalisation and extremism. I suspect by your refusal to answer the reality is 'none' in your case. That isn't the same in my case.
Whenever you feel capable of justifying your point rather attempt to go down this irrelevance, get back to me. If not I will leave you to patting yourself on the back.
My comment was based on any number of comments from members of the relevant communities (whether recently in Paris, or in London e.g. in relation to young men and women travelling to Syria to join ISIS) when they became aware that a member of their community, usually a person they knew personally, had become radicalised in this manner. These aren't my comments, but come from the communities themselves.
I fully accept that I may have 'paraphrased' rather than used real quotes, but the meaning is pretty similar. So here are some direct quotes of the type, in this case from the father of one of the schoolgirls from Bethnal Green:
'Mr Abase said that Amira has been behaving in a "normal way" when he last saw her.
He said: "She said 'daddy, I'm in a hurry.
"There was no sign to suspect her at all."
Speaking at Scotland Yard's headquarters, Mr Abase said his daughter had not mentioned Syria or politics to her family.
However he said that he did not know if she had spoken about the topics with friends.
He added: "She doesn't dare discuss something like this with us. She knows what the answer would be."'
Or a remarkably similar comment from a neighbour who grew up with one of the Paris attackers:
'"He was not an angry kid," Sheikh Mohammed told the BBC. "He was not something, someone bad, I don't know what happened. When I saw his picture I was like, 'What? Really? This guy?'"'
-
But surely some families say that they had no idea about their son's or daugher's radicalization. It doesn't happen in the mosque or in the family, and parents are often bewildered.
Since the Syrian civil war began four years ago, some 20,000 foreign nationals have made their way to Syria and Iraq to fight for various radical Islamist factions. Over 3,000 are from Western countries. While some go with their families’ blessing, most leave in secret, taking all sense of normalcy with them. After they’ve gone, their parents are left with a form of grief that is surreal in its specificity. It is sorrow at the loss of a child, it is guilt at what he or she may have done, it is shame in the face of hostility from friends and neighbors, and it is doubt about all the things they realize they did not know about the person whom they brought into the world.
http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/mothers-of-isis/
-
But surely some families say that they had no idea about their son's or daugher's radicalization. It doesn't happen in the mosque or in the family, and parents are often bewildered.
http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/mothers-of-isis/
Which is exactly my point - and the same point as that being made by Sadiq Khan.
Radicalisation is happening in many of these communities, and those communities need to recognise that fact because only if they are fully recognising of what may be happening in 'plain sight' are those communities going to be better able to identify those at risk, those actually in the process and help to stop it.
Report from the comments of Sadiq Khan:
'Sadiq Khan today called on his fellow Muslims not to “bury our heads in the sand” over the scale of extremism in the UK — and to do more to root out radicalisation.'
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/sadiq-uk-muslims-must-do-more-to-root-out-cancer-of-extremism-a3118801.html
-
Which is exactly my point - and the same point as that being made by Sadiq Khan.
Radicalisation is happening in many of these communities, and those communities need to recognise that fact because only if they are fully recognising of what my be happening in 'plain sight' are those communities going to be better able to identify those at risk, those actually in the process and help to stop it.
Report from the comments of Sadiq Khan:
'Sadiq Khan today called on his fellow Muslims not to “bury our heads in the sand” over the scale of extremism in the UK — and to do more to root out radicalisation.'
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/sadiq-uk-muslims-must-do-more-to-root-out-cancer-of-extremism-a3118801.html
I thought the point is that it's not happening in plain sight at all. I don't understand the idea of denial - what does that mean? Denial means that you are aware of it.
-
But surely some families say that they had no idea about their son's or daugher's radicalization. It doesn't happen in the mosque or in the family, and parents are often bewildered.
http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/mothers-of-isis/
I can understand that, as many of the terrorists have only had their "extremist Muslim" views for a very short period. Eg the Paris terrorists who a few weeks previously were running a bar in Brussels or the woman, Hasna Aitboulahcen, who blew herself up in the raid and was reported as not even religious.
i.e. In general, they are not very religious and have not lived devout or even observant lives but something or someone must make them change their mindset.
-
So actually Sadiq Khan isn't saying the same thing at all. He isn't saying that any individual who states they do not understand how someone they knew became radicalized is in denial. He isn't really talking about those individuals at all. How odd to cite something that doesn't back oneself up.
-
I can understand that, as many of the terrorists have only had their "extremist Muslim" views for a very short period. Eg the Paris terrorists who a few weeks previously were running a bar in Brussels or the woman, Hasna Aitboulahcen, who blew herself up in the raid and was reported as not even religious.
i.e. In general, they are not very religious and have not lived devout or even observant lives but something or someone must make them change their mindset.
It seems difficult to generalize. There are kids who suddenly seem to go off to Syria, with no warning, and others, who had become more religious. But some people argue that Muslims must know where it's going on, and do nothing - this is just another form of bigotry.
-
So actually Sadiq Khan isn't saying the same thing at all. He isn't saying that any individual who states they do not understand how someone they knew became radicalized is in denial. He isn't really talking about those individuals at all. How odd to cite something that doesn't back oneself up.
Really?
'Sadiq Khan today called on his fellow Muslims not to “bury our heads in the sand” over the scale of extremism in the UK'
Isn't bury your head in the sand a different way to talk about denial. Both mean (in this context) refusal to confront or acknowledge a problem.
-
I can understand that, as many of the terrorists have only had their "extremist Muslim" views for a very short period. Eg the Paris terrorists who a few weeks previously were running a bar in Brussels or the woman, Hasna Aitboulahcen, who blew herself up in the raid and was reported as not even religious.
i.e. In general, they are not very religious and have not lived devout or even observant lives but something or someone must make them change their mindset.
I don't think you can conclude that merely because someone was outwardly running a bar that they weren't at the same time becoming increasingly radicalised. There may have not been outward signs, but that doesn't mean it wasn't happening. Apparently Hasna Aitboulahcen was described by her brother as being 'permanently on her phone, looking at Facebook or WhatsApp'. Given that social media is often used extensively in the radicalisation process, this doesn't mean she wasn't in the process of being radicalised - it is quite possible that her obsession with social media was part of the process.
-
Really?
'Sadiq Khan today called on his fellow Muslims not to “bury our heads in the sand” over the scale of extremism in the UK'
Isn't bury your head in the sand a different way to talk about denial. Both mean (in this context) refusal to confront or acknowledge a problem.
Which is why in my post I didn't say anything about the difference between burry head in sand and denial.
But rather, to repeat myself, he isn't talking about the individual who might express confusion over someone they know becoming radicalized as being in denial/burying their head in the sand.
-
Which is why in my post I didn't say anything about the difference between burry head in sand and denial.
But rather, to repeat myself, he isn't talking about the individual who might express confusion over someone they know becoming radicalized as being in denial/burying their head in the sand.
In what way wouldn't that individual classify as one of Sadiq Khan's 'fellow Muslims' (his term not mine). He doesn't specify and particular individual because he was addressing all members of the Muslim community, which of course includes the people I referred to and yet somehow in your mind they aren't included in the people Sadiq was addressing.
Any chance of responding to my earlier question please. Evasion and obfuscation aren't pretty traits you know.
-
In what way wouldn't that individual classify as one of Sadiq Khan's 'fellow Muslims' (his term not mine). He doesn't specify and particular individual because he was addressing all members of the Muslim community, which of course includes the people I referred to and yet somehow in your mind they aren't included in the people Sadiq was addressing.
Any chance of responding to my earlier question please. Evasion and obfuscation aren't pretty traits you know.
The difference is in the generaluzation, he is talking about the community as awhile, not specific individuals as you were doing this, this changes the meaning.
To illustrate Sadiq Khan might also say 'The Labour party should stop with the backstabbing or else it will be history' . This is different from someone saying, 's my individual who expresses any reservations about Jeremy Corbyn is a vicious traitor'
I am not evading the question, I explained why I think it is irrelevant. Kindly do not misrepresent me.
-
I don't think you can conclude that merely because someone was outwardly running a bar that they weren't at the same time becoming increasingly radicalised. There may have not been outward signs, but that doesn't mean it wasn't happening. Apparently Hasna Aitboulahcen was described by her brother as being 'permanently on her phone, looking at Facebook or WhatsApp'. Given that social media is often used extensively in the radicalisation process, this doesn't mean she wasn't in the process of being radicalised - it is quite possible that her obsession with social media was part of the process.
Indeed, they may be "being radicalized", but it just shows how difficult it is for those around them to see it.
Which young adults aren't permanently on their smartphones or social media? Also, if the parents have only taken religion casually, and the youngsters have not paid it any special attention, how will they recognize that their children are being radicalized?
-
We've seen that women can be persuaded to abuse children because they fall under the spell of men they meet through social media. Could this be something similar?
-
It is common that people can be persuaded into dysfunctional behaviours merely by an authority figure; see Milgram; here, a piece on whether evil is a pathology :
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830471-000-syndrome-e-can-neuroscience-explain-the-executioners-of-isis/?cmpid=ILC|NSNS|2015-webpush-syndromee&utm_medium=ILC&utm_source=NSNS&utm_campaign=webpush&utm_content=syndromee
-
From what I have heard over the last couple of days and as I stated in my last post, the overwhelming feeling I got from the audience ( Muslim and non Muslim ) on Question Time, these monsters are so far removed from Islam that they don't deserve the name.
OK two things here.
1. Do not call them monsters. They are not monsters, they are people. Calling them monsters is just a way of avoiding the horrible truth about what human beings are capable of if not handled correctly.
2. They are not far removed from Islam. They are Muslims. The main difference between them and the vast majority of Muslims is in their attitude to people who disagree with them on matters of religion.
-
OK two things here.
1. Do not call them monsters. They are not monsters, they are people. Calling them monsters is just a way of avoiding the horrible truth about what human beings are capable of if not handled correctly.
2. They are not far removed from Islam. They are Muslims. The main difference between them and the vast majority of Muslims is in their attitude to people who disagree with them on matters of religion.
Well, just say, they behaved monstrously, then.
You are totally wrong to say the above: the difference between them and the majority of Muslims is that they have totally mis-represented what the Qu'Ran is saying.
-
Well, just say, they behaved monstrously, then.
You are totally wrong to say the above: the difference between them and the majority of Muslims is that they have totally mis-represented what the Qu'Ran is saying.
You mean the same Quran that says "death to infidels"?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
What the Quran says bears as much relation to the attitude of most Muslims as what the Bible says does to Christians. After all, I bet you suffer witches to live and you probably don't stone adulterers even though the Bible says you must.
-
You mean the same Quran that says "death to infidels"?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
Good grief! What spine-chilling ignorance these "Holy Books" display. Even worse is the fact that some people still believe them!
-
The difference is in the generaluzation, he is talking about the community as awhile, not specific individuals as you were doing this, this changes the meaning.
To illustrate Sadiq Khan might also say 'The Labour party should stop with the backstabbing or else it will be history' . This is different from someone saying, 's my individual who expresses any reservations about Jeremy Corbyn is a vicious traitor'
Nope your analogy is completely off beam.
Sadiq was talking about individuals, not an organisation. He didn't talk about Islam, he talked about 'fellow Muslims' - in other words individuals.
So the correct analogy in terms of Labour wouldn't be:
'The Labour party should stop with the backstabbing ...' - as you claim, but:
'My fellow Labour party members should stop with the backstabbing ...' - in other words.
So stop trying to twist something to accord with your argument, when it doesn't work. Sadiq Khan's comments were clearly aimed at individuals within the Muslim community, not merely the community itself - which of course would be largely nonsense anyhow as a community is merely a collection of individuals drawn together by some attribute.
-
I am comparing your comments which state that any Muslim who expresses shock at someone becoming radicalised as being in denial with Khan's that's why your change to the analogy doesn't work in getting it closer to your position. At no point does he imply that shock at an individual being radicalised if you knew them is necessarily being in denial.
I am really struggling to understand why you don't see the difference here.
-
BTW I am perfectly happy with the change to the words of the analogy for Khan's bit. It doesn't make any difference to the gap between what he said and what you said.
-
I am comparing your comments which state that any Muslim who expresses shock at someone becoming radicalised as being in denial with Khan's that's why your change to the analogy doesn't work in getting it closer to your position. At no point does he imply that shock at an individual being radicalised if you knew them is necessarily being in denial.
I am really struggling to understand why you don't see the difference here.
Once again you are making things up.
I never said that any Muslim expressing shock at someone being radicalised was in denial.
My comment was much more specific than that - it was about comments where an individual expressed a refusal to believe that someone could have been radicalised, when clearly they had been. I think considering this to be denial is perfectly appropriate and never did I infer this applied to every individual who is shocked at attacks, let alone all muslims.
So I suggest you actually start reading what I wrote, not what you'd have liked me to have written to justify your little rant.
And I'd apply the same in other circumstances. If there was a case of serious bullying in a school and the Head Teacher is quoted as saying that he or she 'can't believe that there is bullying in my school' - I think it would be perfectly apt to suggest this person is in denial and I imagine you'd agree with me. Clearly that is different to the Head Teacher saying they are shocked at the bullying, which clearly wouldn't be a case of denial as there is a clear acceptance that it is or has happened.
And in that context I think my comment and that of Sadiq Khan are pretty well identical in their meaning.
-
BTW I am perfectly happy with the change to the words of the analogy for Khan's bit. It doesn't make any difference to the gap between what he said and what you said.
Actually if there is a difference between him and me it is that he was somewhat more generalising - effectively aiming the 'head in the sand' comment to all his fellow Muslims, including himself as he talked of burying our heads in the sands.
My comments related only to those who refused to believe that individuals in their community could have become radicalised.
-
I thought the point is that it's not happening in plain sight at all. I don't understand the idea of denial - what does that mean? Denial means that you are aware of it.
The point about plain sight is about the inability of people sometimes to see what is going on right in front of them. And that may sometimes be because they don't recognise the signs or, in other cases, because they don't want to accept that something bad might be happening.
Clearly in many cases the radicalisation was going on right in the heart of the communities, and related to new people that the person was interacting with, in person or over social media. I think as well in many of the cases there were changes in behaviour that might have been identified as risk factors by those people nearest to the person being radicalised. And again to try to broaden it a little - this doesn't just link to radicalisation, but other problems, such as kids becoming part of gang cultures, getting involved in drugs etc. Often the signs are plain to see - in plain sight, so to speak, but those closest are either unable to see them or unwilling to admit to the potential problem.
-
Dear Forum,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/isis-world-powers-plan-united-nations-security-council-resolution-to-declare-war-against-group-in-a6741181.html
Good news/bad news or just news, my problem ( yes mine ) I don't know enough about the situation ( who does ).
And I see chemical warfare raising its ugly head again.
More news.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34877717
Walk a mile in a Muslims shoes, not an easy task.
Belgium, Glasgow, France, have Daesh ( sorry Prof and Jeremyp, call it my confirmation bias ) done what they set out to do.
Gonnagle.
-
You mean the same Quran that says "death to infidels"?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
What the Quran says bears as much relation to the attitude of most Muslims as what the Bible says does to Christians. After all, I bet you suffer witches to live and you probably don't stone adulterers even though the Bible says you must.
The Bible does not say that you must stone adulterers, but that at one time you had to, when we were under the old covenant. That's the difference between Christianity and Islam. You seem to be saying that Islam itself is the problem, based on the verses quoted in your link. If so then I agree.
http://tinyurl.com/pfsabne
-
The Bible does not say that you must stone adulterers, but that at one time you had to, when we were under the old covenant. That's the difference between Christianity and Islam. You seem to be saying that Islam itself is the problem, based on the verses quoted in your link. If so then I agree.
http://tinyurl.com/pfsabne
Christianity has featured in a lot of nastiness over the centuries, and some Biblical literalist nutters are still responsible for unpleasant abuse.
Those who try to excuse the OT for its nastiness, saying it has been superseded by the NT, seem to forget it is the same deity featured in each. ::) Besides which the NT is far from perfect. Jesus might have said and done good things but he also said and did things which were far from sensible, imo. The NT hosts that daft book of Revelation which gives free rein to Biblical extremists to interpret in mindbogglingly crazy ways!
-
Floo, the fact that adultery (and for that matter all sin) deserves death has not changed.
-
Floo, the fact that adultery (and for that matter all sin) deserves death has not changed.
You are joking, of course! :o
-
Floo, the fact that adultery (and for that matter all sin) deserves death has not changed.
Unsurprisingly you seem to be in an abusive relationship with the concept of 'fact.'
-
To clarify, i meant in God's eyes. As taught in genesis 3.
-
Thanks for clarifying that God as presented in your book is no authority on moral matters and that no decent human being would have anything to do with it.
-
The Bible does not say that you must stone adulterers, but that at one time you had to, when we were under the old covenant. That's the difference between Christianity and Islam. You seem to be saying that Islam itself is the problem, based on the verses quoted in your link. If so then I agree.
http://tinyurl.com/pfsabne
And that would be an inflammatory and bigoted statement, which adds to the mess. So thanks for that. Le Pen would be proud of you.
-
The Bible does not say that you must stone adulterers, but that at one time you had to, when we were under the old covenant.
There's nothing in the Bible that abolishes that law.
That's the difference between Christianity and Islam.
No it isn't. Most Muslims ignore the silly violent bits in their book and most Christians ignore the silly violent bits in their book.
You seem to be saying that Islam itself is the problem, based on the verses quoted in your link. If so then I agree.
http://tinyurl.com/pfsabne
No I was specifically refuting the claim that the terrorists were the ones misrepresenting their holy book. It's the vast majority of Muslims, and that is a good thing.
-
Jeremy, that the koran contains those verses without any instructions to ignore them is where the danger lies.
-
Plus jeremy, did you read my link? The old testament says there will be a new covenant, and the new testament, eg hebrews, says that the old is done away with.
-
You mean the same Quran that says "death to infidels"?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
What the Quran says bears as much relation to the attitude of most Muslims as what the Bible says does to Christians. After all, I bet you suffer witches to live and you probably don't stone adulterers even though the Bible says you must.
That's rather what I was suggesting, that most Muslims take the nasty exhortations with a pinch of salt; whereas the murderous Daesh and the like, take the such passages as their guide, implicitly.
-
To clarify, i meant in God's eyes. As taught in genesis 3.
You don't know that for a FACT, anymore than you KNOW any deity exists! If that were true, it doesn't say anything good about the deity!
-
Plus jeremy, did you read my link? The old testament says there will be a new covenant, and the new testament, eg hebrews, says that the old is done away with.
And Jesus specifically said that the law would not be altered.
You cherry pick your holy book and so do Muslims. That's not a bad thing.
-
That's rather what I was suggesting, that most Muslims take the nasty exhortations with a pinch of salt; whereas the murderous Daesh and the like, take the such passages as their guide, implicitly.
For once, I agree with you.
-
And Jesus specifically said that the law would not be altered.
You cherry pick your holy book and so do Muslims. That's not a bad thing.
Indeed Jesus did not alter the law about executing an adulteress (John 8 ). But he did make it impossible for anyone but himself to carry it out, by allowing anyone who was without sin to do so.
-
Christianity has featured in a lot of nastiness over the centuries, and some Biblical literalist nutters are still responsible for unpleasant abuse.
Those who try to excuse the OT for its nastiness, saying it has been superseded by the NT, seem to forget it is the same deity featured in each. ::) Besides which the NT is far from perfect. Jesus might have said and done good things but he also said and did things which were far from sensible, imo. The NT hosts that daft book of Revelation which gives free rein to Biblical extremists to interpret in mindbogglingly crazy ways!
You have no idea, have you!
-
Islam needs a reformation, hopefully not as bloody as the Christian one!
-
Christianity has featured in a lot of nastiness over the centuries, and some Biblical literalist nutters are still responsible for unpleasant abuse.
If it was only Christianity that 'has featured in a lot of nastiness over the centuries' Floo, I could understand your pov; however, when one looks at history, it is clear that 'nastiness' has taken place for millennia - and often before Christianity had even been thought about or without having any connection to Christianity. In view of this reality, isn't it more logical to find humanity to be the common denominator in the issue, as opposed to this or that religious or political standpoint.
Those who try to excuse the OT for its nastiness, saying it has been superseded by the NT, seem to forget it is the same deity featured in each. ::)
'Nastiness'is a very non-descript term, Floo. Perhaps you could explain what you feel to be the 'nasty' events, why you understand them to have occurred (bearing in mind the contexts into which they fit) and whether they were as nasty as many of the events that neighbouring nations carried out in the name of their deities?
Besides which the NT is far from perfect.
Examples, with references, please.
Jesus might have said and done good things but he also said and did things which were far from sensible, imo.
Perhaps you could enlighten folk as to those things that Jesus said and did 'which (in your opinion) were far from sensible'.
The NT hosts that daft book of Revelation which gives free rein to Biblical extremists to interpret in mindbogglingly crazy ways!
Actually, 'free rein' is the wrong term to use, Floo. At the beginning of your post, you referred to Biblical literalists. Literalists of any type disregard the context of literature that they are dealing with. When one context into account, the range of interpretations is remarkably limited.
-
And Jesus specifically said that the law would not be altered.
Yet alter it he did!!
You cherry pick your holy book and so do Muslims. That's not a bad thing.
I think they may have learnt that skill from critics like youself ;)
-
Hope, you won't get a discussion from Floo: all she deals in is condemnation.
-
If it was only Christianity that 'has featured in a lot of nastiness over the centuries' Floo, I could understand your pov; however, when one looks at history, it is clear that 'nastiness' has taken place for millennia - and often before Christianity had even been thought about or without having any connection to Christianity. In view of this reality, isn't it more logical to find humanity to be the common denominator in the issue, as opposed to this or that religious or political standpoint.
Yes and no - humanity isn't uniformly this terrible, so it's not enough for it to be purely about being human. What tends to show is that totalitarianism leads to mistreatment, tribalism/nationalism leads to mistreatment... religions are replete with these ideas, particularly the monotheist Abrahamic religions.
O.
-
You are joking, of course! :o
Before you go off o your hobby horse, Floo, remember the context in which this law was given. The people of Israel were effectively nomads, and therefore had no secure gaols to put wrongdoers into. As nomads they would probably have had limited food supplies. They couldn't afford to 'carry' people who had broken society's laws and therefore damaged society. Basically, they would have two options; kill them or leave them to starve, both in the name of justice. Under such circumstances, theft and rape were no different in that they both damaged social cohesion and trust, and would likely be punished in the same way.
Rather than constantly looking at history through the rose-tinted glasses of 20th and 21st Western civilisation - which isn't, by any standards, perfect - you need to start looking at things contextually.
-
Yes and no - humanity isn't uniformly this terrible, so it's not enough for it to be purely about being human. What tends to show is that totalitarianism leads to mistreatment, tribalism/nationalism leads to mistreatment... religions are replete with these ideas, particularly the monotheist Abrahamic religions.
O.
The fact that you pick out religion as having those traits, when we know that non-religious thinking is replete with them as well, highlights your mistake. The fact that you then particularise the Abrahamic religions reinforces that.
Now, I'm not denying that followers of those 3 faiths - not to mention those of polytheistic faiths and no faith at all - have committed some horrendous crimes against humanity, but rarely is it easy to find Scriptural support, or its non-religious equivalent, for these actions unless one reads the material outside of any context.
I would also agree that "humanity isn't uniformly this terrible", but that doesn't mean that the tendency to committing atrocities isn't human as opposed to political or religious or whatever. As we now know you can't recognise a criminal by the shape of their head; everyone has the potential for either good or bad.
-
The fact that you pick out religion as having those traits, when we know that non-religious thinking is replete with them as well, highlights your mistake. The fact that you then particularise the Abrahamic religions reinforces that.
I was explaining why it applied to religious ideas - I'm not saying that it doesn't happen anywhere else, you only need to look at Stalin's Soviet Union to see that. The fact that I emphasise the Abrahamic religions over the others is that their tendency towards claims of absolute truth and enforcing that on others is far, far more pronounced in history than other faiths.
Now, I'm not denying that followers of those 3 faiths - not to mention those of polytheistic faiths and no faith at all - have committed some horrendous crimes against humanity, but rarely is it easy to find Scriptural support, or its non-religious equivalent, for these actions unless one reads the material outside of any context.
Actually, it's not difficult to find scriptural support at all, and they all do. It might not be how you interpret those segments, but I keep explaining to you that you aren't the arbiter of 'True' Christianity, or Islam or Judaism - nobody is. Christianity is not a clear code, it's the sum of the actions of the people who do what they do because they are Christian, likewise with Islam. ISIS are no more nor less Islamic than Muslim shop-owners in Ruislip, they are both contributing to what Islam is.
I would also agree that "humanity isn't uniformly this terrible", but that doesn't mean that the tendency to committing atrocities isn't human as opposed to political or religious or whatever. As we now know you can't recognise a criminal by the shape of their head; everyone has the potential for either good or bad.
They do; in religion they have a tool that leads to authoritarian and totalitarian thinking - that's inherently dangerous.
O.
-
Cats to the rescue in Brussels.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34897645
-
We can't take Islam away from them. If we try to rename them, that's just more ammunition for them - "They refuse to even recognise the truth of Allah and his prophet!"
You can, unfortunately, not force people to take up the education they are offered any more than you can force them to take up or give up a faith.
Whereas what I get from those sorts of discussions is the realisation that Islam - and the other religions - are so vague as to be able to justify just about anything.
O.
Moral values are a large component of religion and moral values are so vague as to be able to justify just about anything, so it's not really surprising that religions are equally as vague as people's moral values. Lots of non-religious people think killing people is wrong but given a certain set of circumstances and a certain feeling of desperation to achieve a goal, all subjectively defined of course, and killing people suddenly becomes ok - hence drone strikes.
Hence the moral value of not killing people in religion turns into it being ok to kill people - given the right circumstances and desperation, all subjectively defined of course.
Also, people do not have to be religious to lean towards a totalitarian mindset when it comes to moral values. When a country passes laws, it is effectively trying to enforce certain moral values on people who may not agree with those values.
-
Moral values are a large component of religion and moral values are so vague as to be able to justify just about anything, so it's not really surprising that religions are equally as vague as people's moral values.
Unfortunately moral values aren't that widely advocated in religion, instead behavioural precepts and absolutes are espoused. That's not universal, but it's typical. If more value were advocated so that people could apply those to situations we'd be in a much, much better place.
Lots of non-religious people think killing people is wrong but given a certain set of circumstances and a certain feeling of desperation to achieve a goal, all subjectively defined of course, and killing people suddenly becomes ok - hence drone strikes.
Yes, it's almost like morality is a complex thing and eternal absolute pronouncements devoid of a context are unhelpful.
Also, people do not have to be religious to lean towards a totalitarian mindset when it comes to moral values.
And I've already accepted that, and indeed put forward a non-religious example in Stalin's Soviet Union. However, I also pointed out that the nature of religion - the 'definitive' arbiters of the will and judgments of an absolute authority - is such that it lends itself to totalitarian enforcement.
When a country passes laws, it is effectively trying to enforce certain moral values on people who may not agree with those values.
That rather depends on the country - totalitarian states, say like the Arabic theocracies, are indeed trying to enforce particular moral absolutes. By contrast, democratic nations with a legislature based on a mentality of personal rights only tend to invoke laws for economic purposes (which can have a moral dimension as a secondary factor) or to try to mediate the balance between conflicting rights, in as general a way as possible to allow for contextual variation.
They aren't always successful, and there are movements towards authoritarianism even within those, but mechanisms exist to counter that.
O.
-
Moral values are a large component of religion and moral values are so vague as to be able to justify just about anything, so it's not really surprising that religions are equally as vague as people's moral values. Lots of non-religious people think killing people is wrong but given a certain set of circumstances and a certain feeling of desperation to achieve a goal, all subjectively defined of course, and killing people suddenly becomes ok - hence drone strikes.
Hence the moral value of not killing people in religion turns into it being ok to kill people - given the right circumstances and desperation, all subjectively defined of course.
Also, people do not have to be religious to lean towards a totalitarian mindset when it comes to moral values. When a country passes laws, it is effectively trying to enforce certain moral values on people who may not agree with those values.
I think there is a difference here between situationalist ethics, i.e. that we take multiple factors into account in a situation to determine what we consider is right and having such a wide selection of ethical positions able to be justified that even if they are non situationalist, that there are others available. At base it doesn't make that much difference, as I would argue all morality is judged subjectively as individuals,but individuals can be consistent to their own models and still be situationalists.
A religion does not need any consistency and can easily accommodate multiple contradictory positions justified by different traditions, leaders and 'scriptures'. I think there is a valid argument that a religion, or indeed any ideology, based on the idea of an essentially omniscient god, individual, or cadre, lends itself to an absolutist and totalitarian approach.
That there are religions or ideologies out there based on some form.of communitarianism, and lacking in the idea of a central dictated and in changing, if capable of being cherry picked to justify almost any approach, is the reason why we contrast something as being totalitarian vs no totalitarian. That sanctions are imposed by laws us not in itself indicative of totalitarianism, and using that as an argument is a bit like Vlad's indiscriminate use of Stalinism.
That societies are on some form of continuum as regards freedom, is I would agree, correct. That doesn't mean that we regard any society that is not completely anarchic as being able to be sensibly referred to in any real sense as totalitarian.
-
Which is exactly my point - and the same point as that being made by Sadiq Khan.
Radicalisation is happening in many of these communities, and those communities need to recognise that fact because only if they are fully recognising of what may be happening in 'plain sight' are those communities going to be better able to identify those at risk, those actually in the process and help to stop it.
Report from the comments of Sadiq Khan:
'Sadiq Khan today called on his fellow Muslims not to “bury our heads in the sand” over the scale of extremism in the UK — and to do more to root out radicalisation.'
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/sadiq-uk-muslims-must-do-more-to-root-out-cancer-of-extremism-a3118801.html
Except that Sadiq Khan did not call on specifically his fellow Muslims to stop burying their heads in the sand. From your link he actually made the speech to a Westminster lunch - so not to a group of Muslims at all but to politicians and everyone in the room and the wider audience, when he said not enough had been done to root out radicalisation and "for too long we have buried our heads in the sand".
http://www.sadiq.london/press_gallery_speech
That you thought he was just talking to the Muslim community is either a reflection of your own prejudices Prof D, or you are naive enough to take media headlines at face value rather than look into the contents of the actual speech made.
ETA: specifically
-
I think there is a difference here between situationalist ethics, i.e. that we take multiple factors into account in a situation to determine what we consider is right and having such a wide selection of ethical positions able to be justified that even if they are non situationalist, that there are others available. At base it doesn't make that much difference, as I would argue all morality is judged subjectively as individuals,but individuals can be consistent to their own models and still be situationalists.
A religion does not need any consistency and can easily accommodate multiple contradictory positions justified by different traditions, leaders and 'scriptures'. I think there is a valid argument that a religion, or indeed any ideology, based on the idea of an essentially omniscient god, individual, or cadre, lends itself to an absolutist and totalitarian approach.
That there are religions or ideologies out there based on some form.of communitarianism, and lacking in the idea of a central dictated and in changing, if capable of being cherry picked to justify almost any approach, is the reason why we contrast something as being totalitarian vs no totalitarian. That sanctions are imposed by laws us not in itself indicative of totalitarianism, and using that as an argument is a bit like Vlad's indiscriminate use of Stalinism.
That societies are on some form of continuum as regards freedom, is I would agree, correct. That doesn't mean that we regard any society that is not completely anarchic as being able to be sensibly referred to in any real sense as totalitarian.
Based on my experience of religious books, it appears that the books have a context. But I can see how it would suit the agendas of people engaged in violence to ignore the context of 7th century wars with swords between 2 armies and turn it into 21st century missiles or hidden explosives aimed at soft targets and infrastructure, rather than armies. Since religions have evolved through human interpretation and additions to their philosophy, it explains why one religion can be different things to different people as people try to apply the religion to new contexts. It is no longer the religion of the 7th century as it is being interpreted and applied by people of the 21st century in a 21st century context.
Propaganda is key during violent conflicts so anything, including religion, will be used as a tool for propaganda purposes to gain recruits and funding to gain victory.
Also, people who believe in their right to certain lands and resources presumably don't need it to be based on some sort of concept of a "God-given" right.
Even if there is a concept of an omniscient God, based on my experience of religious people, they don't all claim to know what God wants - some people do claim this and some people don't. I don't know what causes some people to have that level of certainty about what God wants while others don't.
To clarify my point about totalitarianism when it comes to laws, I meant that there is potential for totalitarianism, not that passing laws automatically equates with totalitarianism.
What I see in ISIS is people trying to recreate that context to justify their actions - my impression is that they want all out war so they can justify anything they do as self-defence.
-
Based on my experience of religious books, it appears that the books have a context. But I can see how it would suit the agendas of people engaged in violence to ignore the context of 7th century wars with swords between 2 armies and turn it into 21st century missiles or hidden explosives aimed at soft targets and infrastructure, rather than armies. Propaganda is key so anything, including religion, will be used as a tool for propaganda purposes to gain recruits and funding to gain victory. People who believe in their right to certain lands and resources presumably don't need it to be based on some sort of concept of a "God-given" right.
Also based on my experience of religious people, they don't all claim to know what God wants - some people do and some people don't. I don't know what causes some people to have that level of certainty about what God wants while others don't.
Also, what I see in ISIS is people trying to recreate that context to justify their actions - my impression is that they want all out war so they can justify anything they do as self-defence.
I agree that people din't always state they k of what their god wants, that isn't what was being said, and that is why I, and indeed, Outrider have highlighted that it isn't just religions, nor indre all religions, or even those in religions that have an implicit totalitarianism by having an omni god
-
Unfortunately moral values aren't that widely advocated in religion, instead behavioural precepts and absolutes are espoused. That's not universal, but it's typical. If more value were advocated so that people could apply those to situations we'd be in a much, much better place.
The emphasis placed on moral values or behavioural precepts rather depends on the human being practising the religion and also their ability to enforce their view. As with the laws and judicial systems in any country - where some judges pass lenient sentences, taking into account background and intention and context, and some don't. Sometimes the Appeals process for overly harsh or lenient sentences work and sometimes they don't. Sometimes there is prosecutorial misconduct, hiding of evidence, sloppy defence cases, unreliable witnesses, undue political influence and miscarriages of justice and sometimes there isn't.
Yes, it's almost like morality is a complex thing and eternal absolute pronouncements devoid of a context are unhelpful.
Good thing so many theists recognise the need for context in religious philosophy then.
And I've already accepted that, and indeed put forward a non-religious example in Stalin's Soviet Union. However, I also pointed out that the nature of religion - the 'definitive' arbiters of the will and judgments of an absolute authority - is such that it lends itself to totalitarian enforcement.
The nature of religion? Does religion have a nature or is it the adherents who have a nature? Are you about to provide evidence of the objective "nature" of religion? Do you also believe there is an objective "nature of" politics?
That rather depends on the country - totalitarian states, say like the Arabic theocracies, are indeed trying to enforce particular moral absolutes. By contrast, democratic nations with a legislature based on a mentality of personal rights only tend to invoke laws for economic purposes (which can have a moral dimension as a secondary factor) or to try to mediate the balance between conflicting rights, in as general a way as possible to allow for contextual variation.
Interesting - now you seem to believe that some legislatures are based on a mentality of personal rights and only invoke laws for economic purposes. Is this the same way you erroneously believed on another thread that the law did not require couples to justify why they were getting divorced before a divorce would be granted?
They aren't always successful, and there are movements towards authoritarianism even within those, but mechanisms exist to counter that.
And whether those mechanisms are successful or not depends entirely on the will an nature of the people administering them - Chilcot enquiry ring a bell?
-
The emphasis placed on moral values or behavioural precepts rather depends on the human being practising the religion and also their ability to enforce their view. As with the laws and judicial systems in any country - where some judges pass lenient sentences, taking into account background and intention and context, and some don't. Sometimes the Appeals process for overly harsh or lenient sentences work and sometimes they don't. Sometimes there is prosecutorial misconduct, hiding of evidence, sloppy defence cases, unreliable witnesses, undue political influence and miscarriages of justice and sometimes there isn't.
Those are instances of people adding context to the scripture - the scriptures are not always principle based. And yes, there are failures of legal systems, and of the evidentiary systems that support them, but that would be the case regardless of which system of laws was being applied.
Good thing so many theists recognise the need for context in religious philosophy then.
Indeed - imagine how scary it would be if they were all fundamentalist theocratic dingbats like ISIS or the Tea Party.
The nature of religion? Does religion have a nature or is it the adherents who have a nature? Are you about to provide evidence of the objective "nature" of religion?
It was meant in the sense of 'characteristic', possibly not my clearest piece of writing.
Interesting - now you seem to believe that some legislatures are based on a mentality of personal rights and only invoke laws for economic purposes.
Not only, but primarily for economic purposes and - as I expressly said - to intervene when individual rights conflict.
Is this the same way you erroneously believed on another thread that the law did not require couples to justify why they were getting divorced before a divorce would be granted?
No, because that was not erroneous - no-fault divorces are an option, you don't have to have a specific reason beyond 'we no longer wish to be married'.
O.
-
Those are instances of people adding context to the scripture - the scriptures are not always principle based. And yes, there are failures of legal systems, and of the evidentiary systems that support them, but that would be the case regardless of which system of laws was being applied.
Does this mean that you think laws have a nature or characteristic separate from the people interpreting and administering the laws?
Indeed - imagine how scary it would be if they were all fundamentalist theocratic dingbats like ISIS or the Tea Party.
Indeed and imagine how scary it would be if all atheists were totalitarian dingbats - given that a lack of belief in gods does not prevent someone from being a totalitarian dingbat.
Not only, but primarily for economic purposes and - as I expressly said - to intervene when individual rights conflict.
I have no idea what you mean by your opinion that laws are "primarily for economic purposes". It just seems to be some vague assertion you have posted on here without any type of critical analysis or supportive evidence. Having studied law at university, I seem to have formed a different opinion from you about the purpose of criminal or constitutional law - but maybe we should discuss that on another thread.
No, because that was not erroneous - no-fault divorces are an option, you don't have to have a specific reason beyond 'we no longer wish to be married'.
Which you have to justify or prove by being separated for the period specified by the law - so even if both parties want a divorce they have to show in court that they have been separated for 2 years before a divorce will be granted. Or one party has to admit or prove unreasonable behaviour or admit/ prove adultery before the state will permit you to legally divorce. Maybe you just have a different definition of "no fault" from the people in the legal profession.
Maybe the links below will help clarify the difference between 2 people simply deciding today that they want a divorce and getting the divorce within a few weeks or months, and the situation as it actually exists in England - where they have to be separated for 2 years to be granted their divorce:
http://www.divorce-online.co.uk/blog/no-fault-divorce-does-it-exist-in-england-and-wales/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27206987
-
Does this mean that you think laws have a nature or characteristic separate from the people interpreting and administering the laws?
No, because it's a human endeavour, it has no existence outside of human behaviour. That doesn't stop it having identifiable characteristics or it wouldn't be a meaningful term.
Indeed and imagine how scary it would be if all atheists were totalitarian dingbats - given that a lack of belief in gods does not prevent someone from being a totalitarian dingbat.
It doesn't lead to it, either, whereas religion can.
I have no idea what you mean by your opinion that laws are "primarily for economic purposes". It just seems to be some vague assertion you have posted on here without any type of critical analysis or supportive evidence. Having studied law at university, I seem to have formed a different opinion from you about the purpose of criminal or constitutional law - but maybe we should discuss that on another thread.
As someone who studied law I'm sure you appreciate that it goes a long, long way beyond just criminal and constitutional.
Which you have to justify or prove by being separated for the period specified by the law - so even if both parties want a divorce they have to show in court that they have been separated for 2 years before a divorce will be granted.
Yes, there is a qualifying period.
Or one party has to admit or prove unreasonable behaviour or admit/ prove adultery before the state will permit you to legally divorce. Maybe you just have a different definition of "no fault" from the people in the legal profession.
I don't see how two people agreeing to live apart constitutes something that is one or the other's 'fault'.
Maybe the links below will help clarify the difference between 2 people simply deciding today that they want a divorce and getting the divorce within a few weeks or months, and the situation as it actually exists in England - where they have to be separated for 2 years to be granted their divorce:
http://www.divorce-online.co.uk/blog/no-fault-divorce-does-it-exist-in-england-and-wales/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27206987
So neither has done anything in particular, and they separate - which doesn't have to be physically living in different places, but that's the easiest way to demonstrate it. Then they file, and in a clean settlement it can be as little as five or six months. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I meant by a no fault divorce in a few months, I'm not sure where you're disagreeing with me.
O.
-
No, because it's a human endeavour, it has no existence outside of human behaviour. That doesn't stop it having identifiable characteristics or it wouldn't be a meaningful term.
The interpretation and practice of religion is a human endeavour. The OP is about the manifestation of religion based on seeing a few humans endeavouring to practise their interpretation of it.
It doesn't lead to it, either, whereas religion can
So can atheism - it depends how extreme the atheist is and how much power they have.
Some atheists might just have a lack of belief in gods. Other atheists might take their lack of belief in gods further than a personal belief, leading them to believe that no one else should be allowed to express a belief in or practice something with religious overtones because it could lead to totalitarian dingbatism.
If the extremist atheist vehemently believes that religious totalitarian dingbatism is worse for society than any other type of totalitarian dingbatism, and if the atheist has sufficient numbers and political power the extremist atheist might try to force others, outwardly at least, to adopt his way of thinking. It only takes a few extremists to give other atheists and atheism in general a bad name...
As someone who studied law I'm sure you appreciate that it goes a long, long way beyond just criminal and constitutional.
Still waiting for some supporting evidence on how you arrived at the conclusion that the law is "primarily" for economic purposes. Like I said, the assertion is not worth discussing unless you provide some evidence to support your assertion.
Yes, there is a qualifying period.
I don't see how two people agreeing to live apart constitutes something that is one or the other's 'fault'.
You suggested in a thread on the Muslim board that if 2 people want a divorce they could get one without having to jump through arbitrary hoops imposed by the State because the State has no interest in defining the moral aspect of civil marriage - and you suggested this was a no fault divorce . I disagreed and said the State does seem to have an interest in defining some moral issues involved in civil marriage as they would not grant a divorce without the couple meeting certain criteria to the satisfaction of the State, and that the 2 year separation period was not just the time it takes to deal with the administrative aspects of breaking a marriage contract.
If the 2 people are not physically separated they have to demonstrate to the court's satisfaction a separation of lives - the court will look into whether they share a room, meals, bills, even though both consent to and want a divorce.
And if the 2 people who want to divorce have attempted to reconcile during that 2 year period, and do reconcile for a period, they are not allowed by the State to include that reconciliation period in the count of the arbitrary 2 years of separation imposed by the State.
We just seem to be disagreeing on the level of State involvement in letting a couple divorce.
-
The interpretation and practice of religion is a human endeavour. The OP is about the manifestation of religion based on seeing a few humans endeavouring to practise their interpretation of it.
More than 'a few'.
So can atheism - it depends how extreme the atheist is and how much power they have.
No, it can't. It's not a sovereign defence against totalitarianism, by any stretch, but you can't get from 'I don't find a god' to 'therefore I have instructions from an absolute authority that you all have to follow'.
If the extremist atheist vehemently believes that religious totalitarian dingbatism is worse for society than any other type of totalitarian dingbatism, and if the atheist has sufficient numbers and political power the extremist atheist might try to force others, outwardly at least, to adopt his way of thinking. It only takes a few extremists to give other atheists and atheism in general a bad name...
But that's not springing from their atheism, but from their sociological view of the ills of religion.
Still waiting for some supporting evidence on how you arrived at the conclusion that the law is "primarily" for economic purposes. Like I said, the assertion is not worth discussing unless you provide some evidence to support your assertion.
The majority of the laws that are discussed and enacted are to do with governing people's, companies' and the nation's financial interactions. Even when there are criminal laws enacted they integrate financial penalties.
You suggested in a thread on the Muslim board that if 2 people want a divorce they could get one without having to jump through arbitrary hoops imposed by the State because the State has no interest in defining the moral aspect of civil marriage - and you suggested this was a no fault divorce . I disagreed and said the State does seem to have an interest in defining some moral issues involved in civil marriage as they would not grant a divorce without the couple meeting certain criteria to the satisfaction of the State, and that the 2 year separation period was not just the time it takes to deal with the administrative aspects of breaking a marriage contract.
If the 2 people are not physically separated they have to demonstrate to the court's satisfaction a separation of lives - the court will look into whether they share a room, meals, bills, even though both consent to and want a divorce.
And if the 2 people who want to divorce have attempted to reconcile during that 2 year period, and do reconcile for a period, they are not allowed by the State to include that reconciliation period in the count of the arbitrary 2 years of separation imposed by the State.
We just seem to be disagreeing on the level of State involvement in letting a couple divorce.
We want people to adequately establish the change in their status - yes. Does that constitute a 'fault', I don't think so. Does it place any extra burden on them - no, if they're separating anyway. The courts want the efficiency of not having to flip-flop back and forward with every drama-seeker's change of heart.
It does seem as though we both understand the law's details and simply have a different impression of what that constitutes as a personal impact.
O.
-
http://tinyurl.com/o2uzyew
Quite a heated debate
Unbelievable? Is ISIS Islamic?
-
Dear World,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34903407
"The terrorists do not represent Islam. They don't have a religion, the only religion they have is terror," says 19-year-old Anissa. "They cite the Koran but take verses about times of war out of context. They forget the verses that promote tolerance. Everything I know about tolerance has been instilled in me by the Koran."
Seven-year-old Dado puts it very simply: "Terrorists are very nasty. They have made people afraid and that's not good because if people had done the same to them they wouldn't have liked it. In killing people they prevent them from having pleasure in the future, celebrating their birthdays or having a visit from the tooth fairy when they lose a tooth."
Gonnagle.
-
Islam needs a reformation, hopefully not as bloody as the Christian one!
Too late. The division between Sunni and Shia is already pretty bloody.
-
Yet alter it he did!!
Which supports my point.
-
Dear World,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34903407
Gonnagle.
The terrorists do claim to represent Islam though you think more Muslims would be campaigning against such misrepresentation. Maybe ISIS should learn to draw cartoons because that seems to really hit home. :)
-
More than 'a few'.
Have no interest in arguing about your definition of the word "few" in relation to the Paris attack.
No, it can't. It's not a sovereign defence against totalitarianism, by any stretch, but you can't get from 'I don't find a god' to 'therefore I have instructions from an absolute authority that you all have to follow'.
But that's not springing from their atheism, but from their sociological view of the ills of religion.
Yes it can. Atheists can believe there is a moral or ethical imperative to control the actions of others that over rides other considerations of individual personal autonomy - that belief can be the atheist's absolute authority. Unless you have evidence that a theist's belief in God and God's wishes is something more than a belief? Do you think there is a God or absolute authority directing the theist's thoughts or do you think the thoughts are based on beliefs about right and wrong?
The majority of the laws that are discussed and enacted are to do with governing people's, companies' and the nation's financial interactions. Even when there are criminal laws enacted they integrate financial penalties.
Another assertion so nothing to discuss. You think the purpose of laws is financial, I think the purpose is moral - based on maintaining peace through concepts of equality, justice, protecting the vulnerable, directing rights and responsibilities so we'll agree to disagree on this thread.
We want people to adequately establish the change in their status - yes. Does that constitute a 'fault', I don't think so. Does it place any extra burden on them - no, if they're separating anyway. The courts want the efficiency of not having to flip-flop back and forward with every drama-seeker's change of heart.
It does seem as though we both understand the law's details and simply have a different impression of what that constitutes as a personal impact.
Yes it places an extra burden to have to refrain from having dinner together to prove I am serious about getting divorced. If I was divorcing my husband that wouldn't stop me sharing meals with him or sharing household chores with him, especially if we both remained in the marital home because of recession and housing cost issues or providing stability for children, rather than because of a change of heart.
-
Dear Jakswan,
Listening to your link, Christian twats >:( >:(
Muslims would be campaigning against such misrepresentation.
They are, the two Muslim gentlemen on your link are doing a fine job.
I love books but if I had to burn one it would be the tripe that those so called Christians have written, how to respond to Islam, bullshit.
And it is nice to hear from the Muslims reminding us that we in the west are not blameless, of course they are polite about it, me, Blair is a warmongering wanker.
And from my link, nice to read that the children are referring to the terrorists as daesh ( my confirmation bias again ).
Gonnagle.
-
Yes it can. Atheists can believe there is a moral or ethical imperative to control the actions of others that over rides other considerations of individual personal autonomy - that belief can be the atheist's absolute authority.
That's not because of their atheism, though. 'I don't believe in God' can't lead to 'therefore the world has to follow my lead', whereas 'I believe in God' can lead through 'I know what God wants' to 'therefore do as I say'.
Do you think there is a God or absolute authority directing the theist's thoughts or do you think the thoughts are based on beliefs about right and wrong?
No, I think that religion claims a source of absolute moral justification, whereas atheism explicitly (and solely) rejects that claim. It doesn't prevent other types of claim of absolute moral justification, but it also doesn't lead to them.
O.
-
Listening to your link, Christian twats >:( >:(
Harsh!
-
That's not because of their atheism, though. 'I don't believe in God' can't lead to 'therefore the world has to follow my lead', whereas 'I believe in God' can lead through 'I know what God wants' to 'therefore do as I say'.
No, I think that religion claims a source of absolute moral justification, whereas atheism explicitly (and solely) rejects that claim. It doesn't prevent other types of claim of absolute moral justification, but it also doesn't lead to them.
O.
If you think "I don't believe in Allah but do believe in Shiva" can lead to the totalitarian mindset of "I should stop the worship of Allah" and l"the world should follow my lead", then it seems inconsistent to argue that "I don't believe in God/ gods / Thor / Zeus / Ganesh /" cannot lead to "I believe those people who do believe in God/gods/Thor / Zeus etc are "infecting" and "corrupting" young minds with their unevidenced theist beliefs and I believe these people should be stopped and the world should follow my lead"
I think some people claim their moral values to be a source of justification for their actions - not quite sure what,in practice, you think the word " absolute" adds to this.
-
Which supports my point.
Not really. By giving himself as a once for all sacrifice Jesus made the sacrificial aspect of the law unnecessary; similarly many of the ceremonial laws were no longer needed. They did not change, rather he fulfilled them.
The difference between the West and the Muslim world is that the West is founded on Christianity, the belief that Christ fulfilled the law. Muslims however do not recognize this and so it still imposes five-times-daily prayer on people, and flogs and kills people for non-capital offenses.
The danger for the West is that if it becomes too liberal (easy divorce, gay marriage for example) Muslims will be more determined to dominate it and ultimately impose sharia law.
-
Not really. By giving himself as a once for all sacrifice Jesus made the sacrificial aspect of the law unnecessary; similarly many of the ceremonial laws were no longer needed. They did not change, rather he fulfilled them.
The difference between the West and the Muslim world is that the West is founded on Christianity, the belief that Christ fulfilled the law. Muslims however do not recognize this and so it still imposes five-times-daily prayer on people, and flogs and kills people for non-capital offenses.
The danger for the West is that if it becomes too liberal (easy divorce, gay marriage for example) Muslims will be more determined to dominate it and ultimately impose sharia law.
Extreme Christianity is very nasty just like extreme Islam!
-
Agreed; so what is your opinion on Sharia law, as practiced in Arab countries, is that extreme or normal Islam?
-
Agreed; so what is your opinion on Sharia law, as practiced in Arab countries, is that extreme or normal Islam?
Come on, Spud: don't embarrass Floo!
-
Agreed; so what is your opinion on Sharia law, as practiced in Arab countries, is that extreme or normal Islam?
Sharia law is not pleasant, but then nor is extreme Christianity which requires wives to be submissive and obey their husbands, among many other unpleasant things!
-
Sharia law is not pleasant, but then nor is extreme Christianity which requires wives to be submissive and obey their husbands, among many other unpleasant things!
Are you kidding? Do you really think that is in any way common. Even of it was, it does not in any sense compare with Sharia Law. Do you understand what Sharia Law entails?
-
Are you kidding? Do you really think that is in any way common. Even of it was, it does not in any sense compare with Sharia Law. Do you understand what Sharia Law entails?
I'm sure we had this discussion somewhere else earlier - there's a difference between the word of law and the interpretation and application of the law.
How we currently - when we do - interpret the frankly disturbing instruction that women should be submissive doesn't change the fact that it's open to a far stricter interpretation. Similarly, the fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic doctrine is equally as open to interpretation, which is why Muslims with a less rigid view of their religion don't necessarily need to hide their women behind sheets.
All laws are applied, and in the application there is subjective interpretation.
O.
-
I'm sure we had this discussion somewhere else earlier - there's a difference between the word of law and the interpretation and application of the law.
How we currently - when we do - interpret the frankly disturbing instruction that women should be submissive doesn't change the fact that it's open to a far stricter interpretation. Similarly, the fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic doctrine is equally as open to interpretation, which is why Muslims with a less rigid view of their religion don't necessarily need to hide their women behind sheets.
All laws are applied, and in the application there is subjective interpretation.
O.
Somebody once said I was expecting my wife to be submissive to me because she was always walking three steps behind. But as I pointed out, anybody would be three steps behind if they had to carry all those bags. (After Omid Djalili. )
-
I was thinking more of practices such as flogging a thief, for example. I know the Mosaic law was similar to Sharia law in this respect, but my point to jeremy was that Christianity changed society because of the mercy God showed us in sending his son. From the shopkeeper's perspective the thief might deserve to be flogged, but because of mercy he will be spared that and instead serve time in prison.
-
I was thinking more of flogging a thief, for example. I know the Mosaic law was similar to Sharia law in this respect, but my point to jeremy was that Christianity changed society because of the mercy God showed us in sending his son. From the shopkeeper's perspective the thief might deserve to be flogged, but because of mercy he will be spared that and instead serve time in prison.
You are JOKING! ::)The deity should have killed its flipping self if that was necessary rather than its offspring, the evil so and so! >:(
-
You are JOKING! ::)The deity should have killed its flipping self if that was necessary rather than its offspring, the evil so and so! >:(
Such a joy to watch the great intellects in action.
;D
-
Let's hope at least a little rubs off on you, Bashers :)
-
Let's hope at least a little rubs off on you, Bashers :)
Eh, what? Oh, it's Shaky (by name and by posting style!) Just back from your afternoon nap then. Let's hope you are refreshed enough to post something akin to good sense, eh?
-
Eh, what? Oh, it's Shaky (by name and by posting style!) Just back from your afternoon nap then. Let's hope you are refreshed enough to post something akin to good sense, eh?
Don't blame other people for your inability to understand.
-
Don't blame
Cutting comment, but so harsh. :(