| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5595 Posts
On October 30 2020 06:40 GreenHorizons wrote: I sincerely hope people don't actually think it's just about the cartoons? Colonialism casts a long shadow. Anyone can use history as way of justifying their own stupid, bigoted and aggressive way of life. That holds true for islamists, communists and white supremacists. It doesn't justify anything. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On October 30 2020 18:21 GreenHorizons wrote: I know you know at least some of the history between Algeria/Tunisia and colonial France, that these attacks are from 1st-3rd generation immigrants from those countries, and that the conditions (including social) they experience in France are deplorable, and yet you insist this known anti-western war fighter recruiter was really only upset about the cartoon. I'd get if it was some 19 yo guy who posted a tweet saying "oh you've done it now!' on a tweet of the cartoon or something. But these guys trained with/recruited for Al Qaeda (as one testified after going from a "occasional Muslim" to a radical recruiter because of US torturing Muslims in Iraq) long before the Charlie Hebdo attacks. I'm not arguing about whether they were freedom fighters or whatever. I'm pointing out they obviously had a lot more motivating them than insecurity about a cartoon. The guy who decapitated the teacher last week was 18 and a chechen. Did France colonize Chechnya ? This one was 21 and entered Italy via Lampedusa on september 20th. So much for your colonialism. Could you maybe stop trying to impart motives to terrorists who fucking SAID what their motive was ? Thank you very much. Most of these recent loner madmen were indoctrinated through the www, some by actual extremist cells in France. The French ones suffer from "poor conditions", okay, but there are also self inflicted wounds. My mother was a teacher in "cités" schools for 20+years. They are not educated by their parents (freely spitting at teachers and a lot of other stuff) who think it's the school's job to raise their children, often are blocked from coming home by their parents before something like 11pm because the home is crowded and their parents do not want them in before sleep time (contraception maybe ?). You can imagine how that goes, and how they end up. They also have an idealised view of the country from their origins, they often go there every summer for the vacation (travelling abroad every year, so underprivileged), but would not want to live there since the situation is still better in France. So if they are pissed at France, tell me, is it purely France's fault ? There are other issues that have deeper roots of course, but stop trying to spin everything your way, when the actual people who did the deed told the reason they did it. For Charlie attacks themselves, here is the official reason given by AQPA (Al Qaida in the Arabic Peninsula, which is NOT Maghreb) : Ce même jour dans la soirée, le site de presse américain The Intercept publie un communiqué qui serait la revendication des attaques terroristes menées en France par Al-Qaïda dans la péninsule Arabique (AQPA) : « Le commandement d'AQPA a dirigé l'opération et ils ont choisi leur cible avec attention pour venger l'honneur du Prophète. La cible était en France en particulier à cause de son rôle évident dans la guerre contre l'Islam et les nations opprimées. L'opération est le résultat de la menace du Cheikh Oussama, qui avait averti l'Occident des conséquences de la persistance du blasphème contre les valeurs sacrées des musulmans137,138. » "The same day during the evening, The Intercept publish a statement by AQPA : 'AQPA leadership oversaw the operation and chose their target carefully, in order to avenge the Prophet's tarnished honor. The target was specifically France due to its obvious role in the war against Islam and oppressed nations. It is the result of Cheick Oussama's threat, who warned the West that constant blasphemy against sacred values of muslims would have dire consequences'". | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23294 Posts
On October 30 2020 21:39 Dangermousecatdog wrote: This has nothing to do with colonism. It's up to Nebuchad and Greenhorizon to explain why they wrote what they wrote, not up to us to explain why it is not. The most obvious connection is that Islam was central to the organizing of the people of Tunisia and Algeria in gaining their independence. That combined with economic and social hardship (also tied to colonial attitudes toward "the other") resulted in largely secularized immigrants turning to Islam as a way to reestablish their identity/humanity/dignity. That gets you to just before their mother's suicide (which may or may not have been linked to oppressive conditions for immigrants from predominately Muslim former colonies/protectorates). Now growing up in an orphanage is tough no matter who you are, but as immigrants amid rising tensions I'm confident it was especially rough, indicated by their joining gangs. Why are there Muslim gangs in France for them to join? Colonialism and the aforementioned conditions it helped bring about (poverty, alienation, segregation, large Muslim immigrant populations, etc). The gang introduces them to Jihadists, who have their message bolstered by things like the US torturing Muslims in Iraq (neocolonialism and good old fashioned imperialism). From there one spends time in prison where they met a man involved in the 1995 Paris Métro and RER bombings where the Armed Islamic Group of Algeria were attempting to expand the Algerian Civil War to France. The other went to Yemen amid the Arab Spring to train and fight with Al Qaeda (according to western intelligence). The consequences of colonialism are interwoven through their whole life story and it's asinine to me that people would reduce all that (not saying they were justified) to a "u mad bro?" about a cartoon. I'm a secularist with no affinity for religion, so I'm largely agreed that there are some extremely difficult issues with integrating Islam (especially some particular sects/regional variants) with western notions of freedom and secularism btw. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12262 Posts
On October 30 2020 21:39 Dangermousecatdog wrote: This has nothing to do with colonism. It's up to Nebuchad and Greenhorizon to explain why they wrote what they wrote, not up to us to explain why it is not. What did I write? | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7902 Posts
It basically says, whatever problem the islamic world has, it's actually about Europe, as if islam couldn't have challenges, problems and questions that are not all about us. It goes as far, in GH case, as not listening to the terrorist themselves and denying them the right to have a motive or a belief that does not fit into his narrative about colonialism, capitalism and so on. Here is an idea, how about listening to muslim extremists, taking their motives seriously? And what about considering that islam and the islamic world can have their problems to solve without transforming muslim extremists - and muslims in general into mindless victims that don't know why they are doing what they are doing? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23294 Posts
On October 31 2020 00:43 Biff The Understudy wrote: What bothers me the most with those mechanical analysis (apart from the insult it is to Charlie's artists) is how incredibly patronizing it is to muslims and muslim countries; in a twisted way it is incredibly eurocentrist. It basically says, whatever problem the islamic world has, it's actually about Europe, as if islam couldn't have challenges, problems and questions that are not all about us. It goes as far, in GH case, as not listening to the terrorist themselves and denying them the right to have a motive or a belief that does not fit into his narrative about colonialism, capitalism and so on. Here is an idea, how about listening to muslim extremists, taking their motives seriously? And what about considering that islam and the islamic world can have their problems to solve without transforming muslim extremists - and muslims in general into mindless victims that don't know why they are doing what they are doing? Literally mentioned how the US contributed to their radicalization, but okay. They also said "We are not like you. You are the ones killing women and children in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan." indicating to me those things also upset them and contributed to their radicalization and feeling of justified anger. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7902 Posts
On October 31 2020 00:49 GreenHorizons wrote: Literally mentioned how the US contributed to their radicalization, but okay. They also said indicating to me those things also upset them and contributed to their radicalization and feeling of justified anger. "Eurocentrism" includes the US but okay. Why don't you open a dictionary once in a while? Or even wikipedia, you know: "Eurocentrism is a worldview that is centered on Western civilization or a biased view that favors it over non-western civilizations." So you believe they targeted cartoonists because of the war in Iraq to which France never participated. Okay too 👍 | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23294 Posts
It basically says, whatever problem the islamic world has, it's actually about Europe My issue was I sincerely hope people don't actually think it's just about the cartoons? Nothing about that excludes things outside of eurocentrism (or the cartoons themselves) as contributing factors. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On October 31 2020 00:43 Biff The Understudy wrote: What bothers me the most with those mechanical analysis (apart from the insult it is to Charlie's artists) is how incredibly patronizing it is to muslims and muslim countries; in a twisted way it is incredibly eurocentrist. It basically says, whatever problem the islamic world has, it's actually about Europe, as if islam couldn't have challenges, problems and questions that are not all about us. It goes as far, in GH case, as not listening to the terrorist themselves and denying them the right to have a motive or a belief that does not fit into his narrative about colonialism, capitalism and so on. Here is an idea, how about listening to muslim extremists, taking their motives seriously? And what about considering that islam and the islamic world can have their problems to solve without transforming muslim extremists - and muslims in general into mindless victims that don't know why they are doing what they are doing? Their motives are pretty easy. Taking over their countries forcefully when it's not possible politically, and enforcing a religious state with Sharia law upon everyone there. They have a problem with the West because we are trying to "defend" the rest of the population who does not want that (the majority). - The fact that the countries are not able to defend themselves properly has a lot to do with prior policy of the West, abusing resources and putting puppet governments, or overthrowing dictators. Which is why it would be the ultimate treason to just leave the place entirely as Trump is doing (then again, we are not achieving a lot, since it's hard to put a country-wide democracy in place, trusted by the people, when it's been pushed by foreign powers, and most of the area was mostly historically warring tribes and local warchiefs). - The fact that these fundamentalist entities are funded and able to operate large scale the way they are has A LOT to do with the West also, mainly in the influence war between SA funded by the west (money money money, oil oil oil), and Iran funded by enemies of the West and that shitty proxy war. The religious/islamic/fundamentalist part itself is NOT about colonialism or capitalism. These guys want us to let the area fend for itself, opening up the way to their rule. They strike terror with whatever justification they can, and the war on these pictures is a way of recruiting idiots. They probably could care less if we were not involved in the region to block their aims, as they don't care about Uighurs or Rohingyas because that would not advance their cause of taking over the region. I thought this was common knowledge and 101 of islamism, but it seems it's not. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12262 Posts
On October 31 2020 01:07 Nouar wrote: Their motives are pretty easy. Taking over their countries forcefully when it's not possible politically, and enforcing a religious state with Sharia law upon everyone there. They have a problem with the West because we are trying to "defend" the rest of the population who does not want that (the majority). - The fact that the countries are not able to defend themselves properly has a lot to do with prior policy of the West, abusing resources and putting puppet governments, or overthrowing dictators. Which is why it would be the ultimate treason to just leave the place entirely as Trump is doing (then again, we are not achieving a lot, since it's hard to put a country-wide democracy in place, trusted by the people, when it's been pushed by foreign powers, and most of the area was mostly historically warring tribes and local warchiefs). - The fact that these fundamentalist entities are funded and able to operate large scale the way they are has A LOT to do with the West also, mainly in the influence war between SA funded by the west (money money money, oil oil oil), and Iran funded by enemies of the West and that shitty proxy war. The religious/islamic/fundamentalist part itself is NOT about colonialism or capitalism. These guys want us to let the area fend for itself, opening up the way to their rule. They strike terror with whatever justification they can, and the war on these pictures is a way of recruiting idiots. They probably could care less if we were not involved in the region to block their aims, as they don't care about Uighurs or Rohingyas because that would not advance their cause of taking over the region. I thought this was common knowledge and 101 of islamism, but it seems it's not. Interesting. Sounds like it's not just the cartoons. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23294 Posts
On October 31 2020 01:10 Nebuchad wrote: Interesting. Sounds like it's not just the cartoons. I'm so confused as to what they think they are arguing against at this point. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18049 Posts
On October 31 2020 00:43 Biff The Understudy wrote: What bothers me the most with those mechanical analysis (apart from the insult it is to Charlie's artists) is how incredibly patronizing it is to muslims and muslim countries; in a twisted way it is incredibly eurocentrist. It basically says, whatever problem the islamic world has, it's actually about Europe, as if islam couldn't have challenges, problems and questions that are not all about us. It goes as far, in GH case, as not listening to the terrorist themselves and denying them the right to have a motive or a belief that does not fit into his narrative about colonialism, capitalism and so on. Here is an idea, how about listening to muslim extremists, taking their motives seriously? And what about considering that islam and the islamic world can have their problems to solve without transforming muslim extremists - and muslims in general into mindless victims that don't know why they are doing what they are doing? Honestly, almost all European Islamic terrorism is committed by Muslims who have established themselves in Europe. Most of them even slowly radicalized *within Europe*. So focusing on Europe as the reason for Islamic terrorism within Europe makes sense. It doesn't really matter that Uyghurs and Rohingya are being treated way worse than European muslims, as that is a "far far away" story, whereas the European muslims are obviously far more involved with European muslims' problems. As for the outrage machine about drawings of the prophet... that's basically propaganda. Clearly insulting the prophet gets people to click and follow and sympathize with the cause in a way that slaughtering Muslims in a village in Africa doesn't. It also fits their anti-West narrative a lot better than slaughter in a village in Africa/Asia, so the outrage machine gets outraged and nasty shit starts happening. On October 30 2020 11:07 ggrrg wrote: I don't think it is as simple as this. First of all you need to have a definition of "moderate" muslims. Would a moderate muslim even care about hijabs? Taking the country I live in as example - Germany - there is a significant Turkish minority. The overwhelming majority of them do identify as muslims and at the same time do not care about hijabs one bit. I know a fair bit of Iranian Germans that call themselves muslims but do not care about hijabs as well. Do muslims that consider hijabs to be "integral to their faith" even qualify as moderate? Taking central Europe (and Germany) as example again, who are the muslims that care about hijabs? Around here these are generally the people that come from extremely conservative/fundamentalist societies. It's normally not the people that go to the Turkey-funded mosques in Germany, it's the people that go to the Saudi-Arabia-funded mosques (albeit with Erdogan's swing towards fundamental Islam this may change). If we then take Belgium as an example of a European country flooded with Saudi-Arabian-funded mosques and a significant muslim minority that visits those, we see a notable muslim community that adheres to a fairly radical interpretation of Islam, refuses to integrate in the country they live in, and churns out extremists at a frightening pace. Considering the above and looking at the issue of banning hijabs from a pragmatic point of view, what exactly could the result of it be? a) Muslims that do not consider hijabs important to their faith: probably won't care too much about the ban, may be a bit upset about it, but probably won't start wearing/imposing hijabs just because of the ban. In the overwhelming majority of cases this will hardly cause any radicalisation in the this part of the muslim population. b) Muslims that would normally like to wear/impose hijabs, but prefer to adhere to the laws of the country. Yes, it would upset the current population, but would hardly cause any increase in the degree of radicalisation amongst them. At the same time, their offspring will have to live in a manner that disregards fundamentalist principles of Islam. The parents, whether they like it or not, will be choosing to raise their children in a manner more suitable to Western society. For their children, this will sever the connection to more radical interpretations of Islam, and allow abstention from fundamentalist communities and an overall easier integration in the local society. c) Muslims that will wear hijabs no matter what. These are mostly unwilling to integrate in the local society anyway. Banning hijabs or not will hardly change that. A hijab ban is unlikely to force them to abandon their beliefs and will not have any positive impact. At best some of their children, forced to accept the hijab ban in schools, will grow up believing that the rules imposed by Islam do not have to be taken too strictly, but that's of course hard to count on if these very same children are surrounded by fundametalists at home. The positive effects on society from the hijab ban would be minimal for this part of the muslim population, but would the negative effects be any worse than the status quo before the hijab ban? In the long run, would this yield a larger number of people drawn towards Islamism from this population than the number of people being spared Islamism from the previous two mentioned muslim populations? You raise a good point about whether the hijab is a device of radicalization, I don't have an answer. On the other hand, I think you are quite focused on Turkish muslims in particular. Turkey has been a secular country and the hijab was forbidden in public spaces for 33 years there, so Turkish women not caring about the hijab is somewhat logical. My wife is a Moroccan muslim. She doesn't wear a hijab, but her sister does. Her sister is a bit old-fashioned, but definitely not radical. FAR less radical than many catholics around me are in their beliefs, but she *does* wear a hijab. Nevertheless, my wife would be very upset if Spain decided to ban the hijab, and she has no intention of wearing one. She does feel, however, that it is a symbol of her faith and an integral part of Islamic women's rights, even if she personally chooses not to wear one. By banning it, you encroach on that right and she feels it backs them into a corner. My wife would probably be in your category (a). She will be very upset about it, but she won't suddenly turn to extremism, nor will other people similar to her. Speaking of women's rights, it just seems like a big step back. Part of wearing a hijab (or any other clothing item) is societal pressure. In Morocco, women face a lot of societal pressure to "dress appropriately" (and the epitome of that is covering your hair demurely, which is a signal that you are a good Muslim). In the west, a hard battle was fought for women to wear what they want. But if what they want is to cover their hair, they are looked down upon. And now, we want to undo these hard-fought rights to wear whatever we want... for what? What good comes from banning the hijab? To me a ban on the hijab is just as bad as Iran or Saudi Arabia's forcing the hijab upon women. The government has no business dictating what people wear (beyond issues of public safety). However, most importantly, I think you mischaracterize your group (b), who you claim won't be radicalized by this either. If something you consider to be integral to your personal belief system gets banned, I don't think you can clearly say that these people won't feel this is an attack on them, and therefore support more extreme measure in repsonse. Obviously only a small minority will do this, but extremists are always only a small minority. They cause extreme harm though. Whether the radicalization of people in this group is outweighed by the "pros" of removing group (b) from the equation over the years as their children grow up in a society where they are forcefully put into group a (or... c)? I personally doubt it, but as I said at the start: I don't know. Finally, we can hypothesize about Turkey and look at how it actually _did_ effect Muslims. The ban on the hijab was put into place in the 80s, but only really enforced at the end of the 90s. Throughout the 2000s Erdogan rose to power by speaking particularly to the more radical muslims. Removing the ban on headscarves was one of his key policies. Perhaps without such a far-reaching ban, that was increasingly strictly applied, we would have avoided the radicalization that is happening in Turkey? Of course, the situation in Turkey is immensely more complex and intertwined than only the headscarf ban. I don't have a clue what effect that single policy had. But given how hard Erdogan campaigned on that in the 2000s, it was very clearly still a sore point 25 years later that at least contributed to activating Erdogan's (radical) base. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On October 31 2020 01:10 Nebuchad wrote: Interesting. Sounds like it's not just the cartoons. Okay, I really thought I would not have to point out that masterminds having a plan, and using the cartoons as a scarecrow to recruit youngsters to commit terror meant that these terror attacks committed by these youngsters were about the cartoons, in the midst of an overall influence war. But it seems I have to. You can see the difference between an overall scheme and specific actions. Both of which have nothing to do with colonisation (oil, though...), that GH keeps pushing as the sole reason of everything as usual. On October 31 2020 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote: You guys seem to think "colonialism casts a long shadow" was somehow supposed to mean that the attackers targeted cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo as a strike against colonialism (and that somehow justified it)? Is that what happened here? I'm so confused as to what they think they are arguing against at this point. Arguing against your characterisation that colonialism in Maghreb is the root cause of terror attacks from organisation from another part of the world. Though it seems you are only talking about Charlie attacks and completely ignoring the latest ones now that Al Qaida lost a lot of its footing. On October 30 2020 18:21 GreenHorizons wrote: I know you know at least some of the history between Algeria/Tunisia and colonial France, that these attacks are from 1st-3rd generation immigrants from those countries, and that the conditions (including social) they experience in France are deplorable, and yet you insist this known anti-western war fighter recruiter was really only upset about the cartoon. I'd get if it was some 19 yo guy who posted a tweet saying "oh you've done it now!' on a tweet of the cartoon or something. But these guys trained with/recruited for Al Qaeda (as one testified after going from a "occasional Muslim" to a radical recruiter because of US torturing Muslims in Iraq) long before the Charlie Hebdo attacks. I'm not arguing about whether they were freedom fighters or whatever. I'm pointing out they obviously had a lot more motivating them than insecurity about a cartoon. Bolded part : that is exactly the case for the most recent attacks, congratulations ! | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12262 Posts
On October 31 2020 03:05 Nouar wrote: Okay, I really thought I would not have to point out that masterminds having a plan, and using the cartoons to recruit youngsters to commit terror meant that these terror attacks committed by these youngsters were about the cartoons, in the midst of an overall influence war. But it seems I have to. Come on you are smarter than that, you can see the difference between an overall scheme and specific actions. Both of which have nothing to do with colonisation (oil, though...). 1) On October 30 2020 03:45 Biff The Understudy wrote: The fact that so many muslims are outraged, but outraged, by some fucking drawings while their muslim co-religionaries are being oppressed and killed all over is one of the most weird and disturbing phenomenon in today's world. The amount of insecurity of those people is just hard to fathom. 2) On October 30 2020 04:14 Biff The Understudy wrote: Yet he goes on burning french flags and call on murder of French people because he heard someone there made a drawing. It's absurd. 3) On October 30 2020 05:30 Biff The Understudy wrote: Nah, cartoons insulting the prophet are more important than genocides or travel bans. 4) On October 30 2020 06:40 GreenHorizons wrote: I sincerely hope people don't actually think it's just about the cartoons? Colonialism casts a long shadow. 5) On October 30 2020 07:04 Biff The Understudy wrote: That's probably why they killed everyone at the Charlie Colonial Bureau. 6) On October 30 2020 07:04 Biff The Understudy wrote: *screeching* REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE For reference, this is the thread you're answering into. I am indeed smarter than that, you are correct. I knew everything you wrote here, I suspect GH knew it as well. The correct answer is that ideology and contextual/material conditions both play a role in just about any terror attack, and arguably in far right terror attacks especially. Everyone came to that conclusion around 2016, everyone knows that now, including Biff who mentions it himself in passing when he's not extremely annoyed with the other people who mention it. I'm not sure we need to do the whole "Surely you must be condoning the fundamentalist part if you point out that context is also a thing". | ||
|
stilt
France2750 Posts
This policy was done in order to : 1) fight the ussr's influence 2) fight against arab nationalism (largely brought by great men like Nasser) which was quite a diverse ideology but overall followed socialist principle (redistribution of wealth) + anti imperialism, sovereignity and securalism. 3) confessionalisation of at the origin, secular conflicts like the palestinian one, it's easier to attack the Hamas or even the Hezbollah and say it is a war of religion rather than an occupation by a western power of arab lands. Rather than slaughtering +1m iraqis, maybe the american citizen should have seek the responsible for the 09/11 in the policy of their own governement in the middle east. For the "islamogauchiste" question, well the current french left, very americanized and liberal corresponds to this critic. Both their rhetorics and our textbooks are just erasing the glorious history of arab nationalism and so secularism, there is no words for Nasser and so few for the FLN. "Leftist" intellectuals don't forget to make the veil a symbol of anti imperialism tho. It's not really surprising that the french left (and even the cgt, what a betrayal by Martinez) walked the last november 10 with the people who actively try to reactivate crime for blasphema. It's not surprising either that a radical islamist intellectual close to the muslim brotherwood like Tariq Ramadan, before the rape allegations, was and is still extremely respected. While the right is calling it "angélisme", this is rather paternalism which is nothing more than another form of control by this new left who is more and more composed of privileged people and is dominant culturally. In the end, this is normal, people fight for their interests. Ofc, that's not the only factor for terrorism, taking religion or even politics aside, there is a shittons of resentment and violence within our own societies and the social media are the catalysts of it, twitter, instagram, facebook are all scary places which have to be more controlled and should not be a place of free speech imo As for Islam itself, well, just like christiannity, it has to be challenged politically, it's not against muslim themselves but the ideas, it's pretty sad to see this form of religious nationalism in Pakistan and Turkey, the instrumentalization is so blatant. Anyway, with the lockdown and the attentats, I am super depressed. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7902 Posts
On October 31 2020 03:18 Nebuchad wrote: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) For reference, this is the thread you're answering into. I am indeed smarter than that, you are correct. I knew everything you wrote here, I suspect GH knew it as well. The correct answer is that ideology and contextual/material conditions both play a role in just about any terror attack, and arguably in far right terror attacks especially. Everyone came to that conclusion around 2016, everyone knows that now, including Biff who mentions it himself in passing when he's not extremely annoyed with the other people who mention it. I'm not sure we need to do the whole "Surely you must be condoning the fundamentalist part if you point out that context is also a thing". Anders Breivik parents were divorced. Probably that played a role in his life, so he might surely not have been a terrorist if they hadn't, right? See it's part of the context, it certainly played a role since he grew up in a very unstable family, but it's a piss poor analysis to consider that it's what the story is about. People are getting killed for satirizing, questioning or making fun of the prophet all around the muslim world. It's more visible in France because we talk more about it, but that happens, often legally, all around. That's the story. That's what it's about. There is a HUGE problem in islam with the notion of freedom of expression when it comes to religion. That happened in France because France has an important muslim population, around which there are tensions for many reasons, some of which have to do with colonialism, others not. So yes, France is a fertile ground for those stories to happen, but they happen in other places for the exact same motives. You want to make it about colonialism, I think you are missing the point. Just like the guy who starts talking about the question of divorce when it comes to Breivik is missing the point. It's not totally unrelated, but that's just not what it's about. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9129 Posts
On October 31 2020 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote: You guys seem to think "colonialism casts a long shadow" was somehow supposed to mean that the attackers targeted cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo as a strike against colonialism (and that somehow justified it)? Is that what happened here? To me, in this context, "colonialism casts a long shadow" reads dangerously close to "you reap what you sow". I reckon that's why you pissed off so many people. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12262 Posts
On October 31 2020 03:53 stilt wrote: For the "islamogauchiste" question, well the current french left, very americanized and liberal corresponds to this critic. Both their rhetorics and our textbooks are just erasing the glorious history of arab nationalism and so secularism, there is no words for Nasser and so few for the FLN. "Leftist" intellectuals don't forget to make the veil a symbol of anti imperialism tho. It's not really surprising that the french left (and even the cgt, what a betrayal by Martinez) walked the last november 10 with the people who actively try to reactivate crime for blasphema. It's not surprising either that a radical islamist intellectual close to the muslim brotherwood like Tariq Ramadan, before the rape allegations, was and is still extremely respected. While the right is calling it "angélisme", this is rather paternalism which is nothing more than another form of control by this new left who is more and more composed of privileged people and is dominant culturally. In the end, this is normal, people fight for their interests. Hi there! This conversation is relevant to my interests. First, I have failed to garner a very good definition of islamoleftism, and you have remained very vague in here as well. Who exactly is doing an islamoleftism, is it some academics, politicians. Is it me on this forum. Are they aware that they're doing it or are they patsies... I would like to have this a little more fleshed out, because the people who mention islamoleftism a lot, like Couturier or Goldnagel, tend to just leave it at that and not dwelve into the details. Could I know more about how the current french left is "americanized"? I suppose you meant "liberal" in the american sense and not the french sense there. Last november 10, there was a march against islamophobia in Paris. That sounds like a good idea to me, islamophobia is pretty bad. They were shouting stuff like "Laicity, we love you, you must protect us"? Sounds pretty based. Could I know a little more about why it was so bad for Mélenchon to participate, and what exactly it was that all these people were betraying? Finally, in this context where terms of the far right like "islamoleftism" are now integrated into mainstream political discourse, are you really sure that the perspective of the left is "dominant culturally"? | ||
|
stilt
France2750 Posts
On October 31 2020 04:07 Dan HH wrote: To me, in this context, "colonialism casts a long shadow" reads dangerously close to "you reap what you sow". I reckon that's why you pissed off so many people. Well, it might be wrong but I don't really see what is so shocking about it. The children of eu djihadists in Syria are not rapatriate because european populations are afraid of them, afraid of children, that's another level of cowardice. They're growing up in djihadists prisoners camps in shitty conditions. What can be say when one of them will surely commit an attentat except that indeed, causes have consequences. | ||
| ||
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Weekly #106
NightMare vs TBD
TBD vs Nicoract
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
OSC
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
RSL Revival
Maru vs Reynor
Cure vs TriGGeR
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Zoun vs Classic
Korean StarCraft League
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
RSL Revival
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
Not sure how one could combat this without throwing more fuel on the fire. 
