|
Please don't use this thread as a platform to argue about religion. -semioldguy |
On September 13 2012 15:09 fluidin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 14:47 starfries wrote:On September 13 2012 14:36 fluidin wrote:On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote:
actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi" Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it. by provoking them? ok, so you only think it's a viable solution in this case. but do you really think providing extremists with more ammunition will help in any way? you'll be legitimizing their perception of the West as anti-Islam, and probably turn more people into violent extremists, as well as alienate the more moderate ones. no, they won't grow a thicker skin because of it - they'll just hate you. After a certain point, they have no choice but to grow that thicker skin. Or WW3 will happen. And I doubt they're stupid enough to let that happen. But that's not the point I'm trying to make, man. I'm saying that there needs to be a change of views from their side, and I'm not sure the optimal way to go about it, with my example as something I put out there while I wonder about its feasibility.
there are religious extremists (suicide bombers) who literally kill themselves trying to harm others. I wouldn't bet on them being unwilling to enter a mutually destructive war.
I agree that a lot of the change needs to come from them, and I'm glad you're willing to argue a stance that I would initially have dismissed as "stupid". that's why I like these threads on TL - people aren't afraid to bring up and defend their own solutions so we can think critically about them. that said, I don't think it's viable.
I think a better way to precipitate real change is to cater to the more level-headed majority. if we show them they have no reason to hate us, then less people will support violent extremist movements. the ones that are left will lack influence and the resources to pull off major acts of terrorism. I mean, your average Muslim in America is not going to shoot you for drawing a picture of Mohammed - but it's not because you've been taunting him with pictures of Mohammed every week. it's because he knows you're just a guy like he is, not some kind of monster.
|
On September 13 2012 15:30 Zahir wrote:
I cannot believe any group of humans would do something this violent, senseless and destructive over a fucking video. I can't believe someone would make a cartoon with the implicit hope that such senseless violence would occur. IMO, the people that made the video are almost as bad as the islamists who reacted to it. Both of them showed no regard at all for the lives of innocents - of, in fact, dedicated and brave individuals trying to make a positive difference in a country not even their own. Ultimately the blame is with the killers though; How do you get to a point where you just don't give a shit and start blasting away at people who are essentially trying to help you and your country. It's sickening, and while I don't blame islam, i have just gained a renewed appreciation for the plague that is Islamic extremism. I really hope the Libyan people can find a way to expunge these terrorists from their soil and their state. I also would like to give a great big fuck you to the producers of that anti Islam film for choosing to spread their message in the most inflammatory, "let's see how many deaths we can indirectly cause" manner possible, while operating from the relative safety of US soil.
Of all the things a Libyan person might care about right now, they choose to go on a rampage over a video...
keep in mind, these guys were probably violently anti-American to begin with. it's not just the video, but the video makes a convenient excuse and rallying point.
|
On September 13 2012 15:03 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 14:56 zalz wrote:On September 13 2012 14:47 starfries wrote:On September 13 2012 14:36 fluidin wrote:On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote:
actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi" Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it. by provoking them? ok, so you only think it's a viable solution in this case. but do you really think providing extremists with more ammunition will help in any way? you'll be legitimizing their perception of the West as anti-Islam, and probably turn more people into violent extremists, as well as alienate the more moderate ones. no, they won't grow a thicker skin because of it - they'll just hate you. Then we clash, don't we? Why would we sacrifice something as critical as freedom of speech, just because someone gets angry over it? There can be no freedom of speech when any group gets to dictate what is and is not acceptable speech. When did anyone ever give this authority? When did we declare them the censor? By what right do they think they can demand anything from western countries? Just for the record, Islam forbids any depiction of prophets, not just the prophet. Should Christians be tolerant and remove depictions of Jesus from their church? People are bowing down to the most extreme, but there are also the even sicker people that masquarade as moderates whilst threatening with exactly these acts: "Well, I'm moderate, and violence is wrong, but you really shouldn't do this, who knows what they might do!" Your hands are no less filthy when you make use of these violent acts, no matter how much you distance yourself from them. If you try to use this violence to get what you want, to push for censorship, you're in bed with them. I'm not sacrificing freedom of speech. I'm not saying you can't say provocative things. I'm saying it's a bad idea to respond to a religiously motivated attack by some nutcases with mass mockery of that religion.
Why is it a bad idea? When cults engage in violence, we criticize said cults. When Scientologists commit crimes we criticize Scientology. When Christians violently attack gays, we criticize Christians too.
We derogate every group that explicitly/tacitly encourages its members to do bad things on behalf of the group, and rightfully so, because such actions should be called out.
Why do you feel that Islam should be exempted from criticism? Because we should fear giving them more "ammunition"?
|
On September 13 2012 15:35 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 15:09 fluidin wrote:On September 13 2012 14:47 starfries wrote:On September 13 2012 14:36 fluidin wrote:On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote:
actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi" Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it. by provoking them? ok, so you only think it's a viable solution in this case. but do you really think providing extremists with more ammunition will help in any way? you'll be legitimizing their perception of the West as anti-Islam, and probably turn more people into violent extremists, as well as alienate the more moderate ones. no, they won't grow a thicker skin because of it - they'll just hate you. After a certain point, they have no choice but to grow that thicker skin. Or WW3 will happen. And I doubt they're stupid enough to let that happen. But that's not the point I'm trying to make, man. I'm saying that there needs to be a change of views from their side, and I'm not sure the optimal way to go about it, with my example as something I put out there while I wonder about its feasibility. there are religious extremists (suicide bombers) who literally kill themselves trying to harm others. I wouldn't bet on them being unwilling to enter a mutually destructive war. I agree that a lot of the change needs to come from them, and I'm glad you're willing to argue a stance that I would initially have dismissed as "stupid". that's why I like these threads on TL - people aren't afraid to bring up and defend their own solutions so we can think critically about them. that said, I don't think it's viable. I think a better way to precipitate real change is to cater to the more level-headed majority. if we show them they have no reason to hate us, then less people will support violent extremist movements. the ones that are left will lack influence and the resources to pull off major acts of terrorism. I mean, your average Muslim in America is not going to shoot you for drawing a picture of Mohammed - but it's not because you've been taunting him with pictures of Mohammed every week. it's because he knows you're just a guy like he is, not some kind of monster.
The onus is not on me to appease a potentially violent fundamentalist by ensuring he knows I'm a guy just like he is. The onus is on him to not shoot me. You're blaming the victims here.
The way to precipitate real change is to call out shitty behavior when it happens, criticize the hell out of bigoted belief systems that encourage such behavior, and to retaliate with overwhelming force when people engage in such behavior. You know, the same way we deal with all crime.
|
On September 13 2012 15:43 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 15:03 starfries wrote:On September 13 2012 14:56 zalz wrote:On September 13 2012 14:47 starfries wrote:On September 13 2012 14:36 fluidin wrote:On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote:
actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi" Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it. by provoking them? ok, so you only think it's a viable solution in this case. but do you really think providing extremists with more ammunition will help in any way? you'll be legitimizing their perception of the West as anti-Islam, and probably turn more people into violent extremists, as well as alienate the more moderate ones. no, they won't grow a thicker skin because of it - they'll just hate you. Then we clash, don't we? Why would we sacrifice something as critical as freedom of speech, just because someone gets angry over it? There can be no freedom of speech when any group gets to dictate what is and is not acceptable speech. When did anyone ever give this authority? When did we declare them the censor? By what right do they think they can demand anything from western countries? Just for the record, Islam forbids any depiction of prophets, not just the prophet. Should Christians be tolerant and remove depictions of Jesus from their church? People are bowing down to the most extreme, but there are also the even sicker people that masquarade as moderates whilst threatening with exactly these acts: "Well, I'm moderate, and violence is wrong, but you really shouldn't do this, who knows what they might do!" Your hands are no less filthy when you make use of these violent acts, no matter how much you distance yourself from them. If you try to use this violence to get what you want, to push for censorship, you're in bed with them. I'm not sacrificing freedom of speech. I'm not saying you can't say provocative things. I'm saying it's a bad idea to respond to a religiously motivated attack by some nutcases with mass mockery of that religion. Why is it a bad idea? When cults engage in violence, we criticize said cults. When Scientologists commit crimes we criticize Scientology. When Christians violently attack gays, we criticize Christians too. We derogate every group that explicitly/tacitly encourages its members to do bad things on behalf of the group, and rightfully so, because such actions should be called out. Why do you feel that Islam should be exempted from criticism? Because we should fear giving them more "ammunition"?
I'm not talking about criticism. good lord, do people only read the last post before responding?
edit: yeah, I see your second post. please reread.
edit2: holy shit bro I have no idea what you think I'm saying
|
No one can defend the killers for sure, and no one in this thread is as far as I read.
That said, what in the world is that movie in the OP? Criticizing anohter religion is fine, but purposefully offending people of another religion is not OK. Freedom of speech is a better idea than thousands of years of censorship that came from dictatorship, one of the most common form of social structure in human history. But when I see these people who abuse the idea, I feel freedom of speech needs to be restricted at some point of human history in like 200-300 years time. We don't want to go back to the world of censorship, so careful consideration will be needed and it will take time. Freedom of speech is overvalued today in my opinion. Some people do stupid things under the protection of "freedom of speech" because it is hard to criticize the idea itself in today's society.
|
On September 13 2012 15:46 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 15:43 sunprince wrote:On September 13 2012 15:03 starfries wrote:On September 13 2012 14:56 zalz wrote:On September 13 2012 14:47 starfries wrote:On September 13 2012 14:36 fluidin wrote:On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote:
actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi" Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it. by provoking them? ok, so you only think it's a viable solution in this case. but do you really think providing extremists with more ammunition will help in any way? you'll be legitimizing their perception of the West as anti-Islam, and probably turn more people into violent extremists, as well as alienate the more moderate ones. no, they won't grow a thicker skin because of it - they'll just hate you. Then we clash, don't we? Why would we sacrifice something as critical as freedom of speech, just because someone gets angry over it? There can be no freedom of speech when any group gets to dictate what is and is not acceptable speech. When did anyone ever give this authority? When did we declare them the censor? By what right do they think they can demand anything from western countries? Just for the record, Islam forbids any depiction of prophets, not just the prophet. Should Christians be tolerant and remove depictions of Jesus from their church? People are bowing down to the most extreme, but there are also the even sicker people that masquarade as moderates whilst threatening with exactly these acts: "Well, I'm moderate, and violence is wrong, but you really shouldn't do this, who knows what they might do!" Your hands are no less filthy when you make use of these violent acts, no matter how much you distance yourself from them. If you try to use this violence to get what you want, to push for censorship, you're in bed with them. I'm not sacrificing freedom of speech. I'm not saying you can't say provocative things. I'm saying it's a bad idea to respond to a religiously motivated attack by some nutcases with mass mockery of that religion. Why is it a bad idea? When cults engage in violence, we criticize said cults. When Scientologists commit crimes we criticize Scientology. When Christians violently attack gays, we criticize Christians too. We derogate every group that explicitly/tacitly encourages its members to do bad things on behalf of the group, and rightfully so, because such actions should be called out. Why do you feel that Islam should be exempted from criticism? Because we should fear giving them more "ammunition"? I'm not talking about criticism. good lord, do people only read the last post before responding?
Mass mockery of uncivilized, infantile, violent belief systems is a form of criticism.
Purposely offending those who hold such beliefs is not only permissable, it's the right thing to do.
|
such a sensitive topic. I wish the families their best and RIP to those that have died.
|
Is there an armed faction in Libya that wants war with the US? And if so, are they aware our defense budget is like 10x the total GDP of their entire country.
|
On September 13 2012 15:52 NovaTheFeared wrote:
Is there an armed faction in Libya that wants war with the US? And if so, are they aware our defense budget is like 10x the total GDP of their entire country.
Considering that members of such groups also engage in things like suicide bombing, I doubt they care.
|
On September 13 2012 15:49 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 15:46 starfries wrote:On September 13 2012 15:43 sunprince wrote:On September 13 2012 15:03 starfries wrote:On September 13 2012 14:56 zalz wrote:On September 13 2012 14:47 starfries wrote:On September 13 2012 14:36 fluidin wrote:On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote:
actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi" Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it. by provoking them? ok, so you only think it's a viable solution in this case. but do you really think providing extremists with more ammunition will help in any way? you'll be legitimizing their perception of the West as anti-Islam, and probably turn more people into violent extremists, as well as alienate the more moderate ones. no, they won't grow a thicker skin because of it - they'll just hate you. Then we clash, don't we? Why would we sacrifice something as critical as freedom of speech, just because someone gets angry over it? There can be no freedom of speech when any group gets to dictate what is and is not acceptable speech. When did anyone ever give this authority? When did we declare them the censor? By what right do they think they can demand anything from western countries? Just for the record, Islam forbids any depiction of prophets, not just the prophet. Should Christians be tolerant and remove depictions of Jesus from their church? People are bowing down to the most extreme, but there are also the even sicker people that masquarade as moderates whilst threatening with exactly these acts: "Well, I'm moderate, and violence is wrong, but you really shouldn't do this, who knows what they might do!" Your hands are no less filthy when you make use of these violent acts, no matter how much you distance yourself from them. If you try to use this violence to get what you want, to push for censorship, you're in bed with them. I'm not sacrificing freedom of speech. I'm not saying you can't say provocative things. I'm saying it's a bad idea to respond to a religiously motivated attack by some nutcases with mass mockery of that religion. Why is it a bad idea? When cults engage in violence, we criticize said cults. When Scientologists commit crimes we criticize Scientology. When Christians violently attack gays, we criticize Christians too. We derogate every group that explicitly/tacitly encourages its members to do bad things on behalf of the group, and rightfully so, because such actions should be called out. Why do you feel that Islam should be exempted from criticism? Because we should fear giving them more "ammunition"? I'm not talking about criticism. good lord, do people only read the last post before responding? Mass mockery of uncivilized, bigoted, violent beliefs is a form of criticism. Purposely offending those who hold such beliefs is not only permissable, it's the right thing to do.
very interesting. but Islam is not uncivilized or violent. bigoted, I don't know. it doesn't have to be. Muslims span the whole spectrum from militant extremists to the most progressive of people. there's no reason someone who practices Islam can't be civilized, unbigoted, and peaceful.
edit: yeah, it's not infantile either, sorry bro
|
On September 13 2012 15:52 NovaTheFeared wrote:
Is there an armed faction in Libya that wants war with the US? And if so, are they aware our defense budget is like 10x the total GDP of their entire country.
The idea that having 10x the total GDP of a country prevents war is wrong in some cases. Sometimes, it is more important to show the spirit than actual win/loss.
|
On September 13 2012 15:59 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 15:49 sunprince wrote:On September 13 2012 15:46 starfries wrote:On September 13 2012 15:43 sunprince wrote:On September 13 2012 15:03 starfries wrote:On September 13 2012 14:56 zalz wrote:On September 13 2012 14:47 starfries wrote:On September 13 2012 14:36 fluidin wrote:On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote:
actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi" Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it. by provoking them? ok, so you only think it's a viable solution in this case. but do you really think providing extremists with more ammunition will help in any way? you'll be legitimizing their perception of the West as anti-Islam, and probably turn more people into violent extremists, as well as alienate the more moderate ones. no, they won't grow a thicker skin because of it - they'll just hate you. Then we clash, don't we? Why would we sacrifice something as critical as freedom of speech, just because someone gets angry over it? There can be no freedom of speech when any group gets to dictate what is and is not acceptable speech. When did anyone ever give this authority? When did we declare them the censor? By what right do they think they can demand anything from western countries? Just for the record, Islam forbids any depiction of prophets, not just the prophet. Should Christians be tolerant and remove depictions of Jesus from their church? People are bowing down to the most extreme, but there are also the even sicker people that masquarade as moderates whilst threatening with exactly these acts: "Well, I'm moderate, and violence is wrong, but you really shouldn't do this, who knows what they might do!" Your hands are no less filthy when you make use of these violent acts, no matter how much you distance yourself from them. If you try to use this violence to get what you want, to push for censorship, you're in bed with them. I'm not sacrificing freedom of speech. I'm not saying you can't say provocative things. I'm saying it's a bad idea to respond to a religiously motivated attack by some nutcases with mass mockery of that religion. Why is it a bad idea? When cults engage in violence, we criticize said cults. When Scientologists commit crimes we criticize Scientology. When Christians violently attack gays, we criticize Christians too. We derogate every group that explicitly/tacitly encourages its members to do bad things on behalf of the group, and rightfully so, because such actions should be called out. Why do you feel that Islam should be exempted from criticism? Because we should fear giving them more "ammunition"? I'm not talking about criticism. good lord, do people only read the last post before responding? Mass mockery of uncivilized, bigoted, violent beliefs is a form of criticism. Purposely offending those who hold such beliefs is not only permissable, it's the right thing to do. very interesting. but Islam is not uncivilized or violent. bigoted, I don't know. it doesn't have to be. Muslims span the whole spectrum from militant extremists to the most progressive of people. there's no reason someone who practices Islam can't be civilized, unbigoted, and peaceful.
Just because the members of a religion span a spectrum doesn't mean change the fact that the religion itself advocates something. For example, not all Christians may be anti-gay, but Christianity as a belief system is anti-gay. The fact that not all Christians are 100% true believers doesn't change the fact that their belief system is bigoted.
Similarly, Islam as a religion sanctions violence and holy war against unbelievers, and the fact that not all Muslims follow their religion so strictly doesn't change the fact that they follow a violent belief system.
On September 13 2012 15:59 starfries wrote:
edit: yeah, it's not infantile either, sorry bro
Any belief system that explains the world using "God said so" is infantile. Civilized adults use things like logic, reason, and science, rather than making shit up and arguing from authority.
|
This is really sad... It's always the extremists that get all the media attention and thus the bais, I have Muslim friends and they are shocked by this as well. Now this will lead to a couple of dumbfucks around the globe to run the Islam hate bandwagon again...
|
On September 13 2012 16:11 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 15:59 starfries wrote:On September 13 2012 15:49 sunprince wrote:On September 13 2012 15:46 starfries wrote:On September 13 2012 15:43 sunprince wrote:On September 13 2012 15:03 starfries wrote:On September 13 2012 14:56 zalz wrote:On September 13 2012 14:47 starfries wrote:On September 13 2012 14:36 fluidin wrote:On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote:
actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi" Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it. by provoking them? ok, so you only think it's a viable solution in this case. but do you really think providing extremists with more ammunition will help in any way? you'll be legitimizing their perception of the West as anti-Islam, and probably turn more people into violent extremists, as well as alienate the more moderate ones. no, they won't grow a thicker skin because of it - they'll just hate you. Then we clash, don't we? Why would we sacrifice something as critical as freedom of speech, just because someone gets angry over it? There can be no freedom of speech when any group gets to dictate what is and is not acceptable speech. When did anyone ever give this authority? When did we declare them the censor? By what right do they think they can demand anything from western countries? Just for the record, Islam forbids any depiction of prophets, not just the prophet. Should Christians be tolerant and remove depictions of Jesus from their church? People are bowing down to the most extreme, but there are also the even sicker people that masquarade as moderates whilst threatening with exactly these acts: "Well, I'm moderate, and violence is wrong, but you really shouldn't do this, who knows what they might do!" Your hands are no less filthy when you make use of these violent acts, no matter how much you distance yourself from them. If you try to use this violence to get what you want, to push for censorship, you're in bed with them. I'm not sacrificing freedom of speech. I'm not saying you can't say provocative things. I'm saying it's a bad idea to respond to a religiously motivated attack by some nutcases with mass mockery of that religion. Why is it a bad idea? When cults engage in violence, we criticize said cults. When Scientologists commit crimes we criticize Scientology. When Christians violently attack gays, we criticize Christians too. We derogate every group that explicitly/tacitly encourages its members to do bad things on behalf of the group, and rightfully so, because such actions should be called out. Why do you feel that Islam should be exempted from criticism? Because we should fear giving them more "ammunition"? I'm not talking about criticism. good lord, do people only read the last post before responding? Mass mockery of uncivilized, bigoted, violent beliefs is a form of criticism. Purposely offending those who hold such beliefs is not only permissable, it's the right thing to do. very interesting. but Islam is not uncivilized or violent. bigoted, I don't know. it doesn't have to be. Muslims span the whole spectrum from militant extremists to the most progressive of people. there's no reason someone who practices Islam can't be civilized, unbigoted, and peaceful. Just because the members of a religion span a spectrum doesn't mean change the fact that the religion itself advocates something. For example, not all Christians may be anti-gay, but Christianity as a belief system is anti-gay. The fact that not all Christians are 100% true believers doesn't change the fact that their belief system is bigoted. Similarly, Islam as a religion sanctions violence and holy war against unbelievers, and the fact that not all Muslims follow their religion so strictly doesn't change the fact that they follow a violent belief system. Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 15:59 starfries wrote:
edit: yeah, it's not infantile either, sorry bro Any belief system that explains the world using "God said so" is infantile. Civilized adults use things like logic, reason, and science, rather than making shit up and arguing from authority.
um. I really don't want to get into a religious debate here. nor do I want to be banned. PM me if you really care to hear my response to these statements.
|
On September 13 2012 15:35 starfries wrote:
I think a better way to precipitate real change is to cater to the more level-headed majority. if we show them they have no reason to hate us, then less people will support violent extremist movements. the ones that are left will lack influence and the resources to pull off major acts of terrorism. I mean, your average Muslim in America is not going to shoot you for drawing a picture of Mohammed - but it's not because you've been taunting him with pictures of Mohammed every week. it's because he knows you're just a guy like he is, not some kind of monster.
This I feel is a very good post. I feel the western world(and USA in particular) need to realize this and stop creating ammunition for the terrorist groups to then fuel in the heart of just the average muslim(and arab too). The obvious sad part about it is, there is really no short term solution to do this. At some point, western world needs to just step up and be the bigger man.
I mean think of how sad loosing those ~3000 people in 9/11 was. Think how sad it must then feel for the Iraqis who've lost in the least ~66.000 civilians(Classified USA logs). You cannot force peace onto people when they have a very rational reason to hate you.
|
On September 13 2012 17:30 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 15:35 starfries wrote:
I think a better way to precipitate real change is to cater to the more level-headed majority. if we show them they have no reason to hate us, then less people will support violent extremist movements. the ones that are left will lack influence and the resources to pull off major acts of terrorism. I mean, your average Muslim in America is not going to shoot you for drawing a picture of Mohammed - but it's not because you've been taunting him with pictures of Mohammed every week. it's because he knows you're just a guy like he is, not some kind of monster. This I feel is a very good post. I feel the western world(and USA in particular) need to realize this and stop creating ammunition for the terrorist groups to then fuel in the heart of just the average muslim(and arab too). The obvious sad part about it is, there is really no short term solution to do this. At some point, western world needs to just step up and be the bigger man.
So when people suicide bomb you for drawing their prophet, you think the solution is to stop drawing their prophet? How about when they then proceed to suicide bomb you for opposing their political interests, will you do what they want? How about when they suicide bomb you for not worshipping their deity, will you convert?
At what point will you realize that the cowardly strategy of appeasement simply boils down to giving violent criminals what they want out of fear?
|
There was NEVER an appeasment policy towards these countries from the west.
They got exploited for as long as possible and now even small "insults" are enough to imflame them.
But yeah, go on Cowboy.. SHOOT EM ALL.
|
On September 13 2012 17:45 Velr wrote:
There was NEVER an appeasment policy towards these countries from the west.
Certain people in this thread are suggesting that we should refrain from offending Muslims in order to protect ourselves from terrorism. That's appeasement.
Thankfully, we've never enacted such a policy.
On September 13 2012 17:45 Velr wrote:
They got exploited for as long as possible and now even small "insults" are enough to imflame them.
Yeah, and that means it's okay for them to suicide bomb civilians when they feel offended, amirite?
Y'know who got ridiculously exploited? China and India. Do you see either of them engaging in terrorism at the slightest provocation? Nope, they got over it and are rapidly developing into major world powers. It probably helps that the cultures/belief systems of China and India don't encourage violence and holy war at the first percieved insult.
|
On September 13 2012 14:19 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 14:19 Azzur wrote:On September 13 2012 14:01 TheSwedishFan wrote:
For some reason, swedish media is censoring this. Doesn't even make it on the front page. Was completely removed from one popular swedish news site. Wow, seriously? What is the motivation for the censorship? Has sweden become so liberal that they even want to surpress truth now? They've become so liberal that they're conservative. edit: I should also add that I might have been wrong about this not being partially planned ahead, Sean Smith apparently noticed one of the "guards" that was supposed to be protecting them taking photos of the compound earlier: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/12/diplomat-killed-in-libya-to-fellow-gamers-assuming-dont-die-tonight/#ixzz26Job8SEx
That makes me so sad to read that... I can't imagine why anyone would defend these peoples actions. It's disgusting what people hiding behind religion can away with. Cases like Rushide are seriously horrifying. How can we allow the few bad apple to keep acting out like this under the guise of religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
