|
|
On January 20 2015 09:27 kwizach wrote:
Tariq Ramadan either lies about misquotes or focuses on small details which make you lose sight of the broader point she was making and which was accurate. Again, since you have not read the book, you have no clue of what you're talking about since you're taking for granted his claims without fact-checking what Fourest actually wrote.
And again, when I asked you for examples of that, because I want to do that fact-checking, you said it was off topic here and you ignored my proposition of a PM. If the case is as simple as you say, I'm willing to learn.
|
On January 20 2015 11:33 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2015 09:27 kwizach wrote:
Tariq Ramadan either lies about misquotes or focuses on small details which make you lose sight of the broader point she was making and which was accurate. Again, since you have not read the book, you have no clue of what you're talking about since you're taking for granted his claims without fact-checking what Fourest actually wrote.
And again, when I asked you for examples of that, because I want to do that fact-checking, you said it was off topic here and you ignored my proposition of a PM. If the case is as simple as you say, I'm willing to learn.
It is off-topic and I'm spending enough time as it is on Fourest without going into the detail of her books and of her back-and-forth with Ramadan. I'll send you a PM for further info though.
|
Again, she was absolutely not saying that Muslims families in general want the Shoah out of the curriculum or that Catholic families in general want gender equality out of the curriculum
I quoted accuratly and I never stated that she said all muslim families want the shoah out of the curriculum, I simply quoted her point. Again you're the one going into long interpretation - not to mention you take a sentence make about muslim and catholic families before to change the interpretation of a sentence made afterwards.
But again, she mention that those families are muslim, and not proletarian or comes from immigration, she do not say "some families" either and consider that it is their faith (yes she said it) that explain their refusal to teach the shoah. Now you can, if you want, make another bullshit interpretation to round off the angles like you did all topic long.
she did not say that Muslims had a problem of integration in Europe. What she actually said is that the extremist preachers who hope to convert people to their cause and their views in Europe are counting on those among the Muslim population who have difficulties integrating.
The core of your point is that she did not say that all muslim families but only a few or some have trouble integrating. Not only she imply that families with problem in integration are muslim, but she also imply that it is a problem of integration that is at the core of this problem which is not (and that radical islam play a part of it). Again, you don't seem to see what is stupid in this quote and again you argue to no end on interpretation, and not on facts.
Not only I pointed out plenty of things she did wrongly (but we agree, you consider those things to be unimportant) but more than that, I implied that she is always referrencing all problem to problem of laïcité and religion (or racism and biggotry toward minority) which is a stupid position - and weirdly a position that create what it is supposed to prevent, which is the dreaded "clash of civilisation".
I understood you fine and I never wrote that you said they were "equals": you mentioned her as an example of someone who is still invited in the media even though Dieudonné isn't anymore. You used this example and comparison to illustrate your claim of a "double standard". See these posts. So, to repeat, "your entire example of a double standard based on the differing treatments of Dieudonné and Fourest completely crumbles if you look, as I did, at the motives for their respective condemnations. You accuse me of a lack of contextualization, but it's you who tries to equate Fourest's condemnations for defamation (which were often, as I explained, based on the revealing of private details of the lives of the people she was talking about) and Dieudonné's condemnations for incitement to racial/religious hatred. Do you somehow fail to see the difference between the two? How exactly is Fourest getting condemned for publishing private details of the life of the Le Pen family supposed to be comparable to Dieudonné getting condemned repeatedly for blatant antisemitic statements? How is that example supposed to illustrate a double standard?. And like I said, even prior to the condemnations, his statements could already clearly be recognized for what they are, namely antisemitic." Do you seriously not see why the media would treat the two differently?
You are getting more than boring with your complete nonsense. I ask you to focus a little :
- Siné didn't imply rich = jew, his interpretation of his chronic was that convertion to any religion for money is a stupid thing - you didn't refer to his interpretation but to Val's interpretation, which is double standard ;
- Dieudonné, today, said "I am Charlie Coulibaly" and implied that he felt like a terrorist because of how people see him in the media, you didn't refer to his interpretation, but to the justice interpretation (he make the apology of a killer of jews), which is again double standard ;
So I repeat, what I said in my previous post : it is a good explanation of the double standard when someone INTERPRATE the act, while refusing the interpretation of another act in another situation. In one case there is no discussion possible (since the interpretation is set and done without hearing from the "criminal"), while in the other case it's you blatting boring comments. To say it simply, there is an implicit acceptance combine with a desire to explain in some case - especially when those cases specifically touch dominated part of our population - while, in some other case, the media are all bent on judging morally the act / point without any contextualisation / arguments on the intentions.
By going in length about all of Fourest's mistakes - which are nothing more than manipulation - you prove this point, especially when in comparaison you accuse Siné of antisemitism for something that was not.
|
On January 20 2015 07:06 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2015 07:03 OtherWorld wrote:
I think the issue is not religious. Religion is the excuse used by the people who take profit from their protests to make them demonstrate. But the drive, what makes these people go out of their homes and scream at CH, is the result of the conditions they live in, not of the religion they are affiliated to. Why aren't European Muslims protesting too if the issue is religious? So the leaders dictate to us what the issue is? The issue is religious for the people who are on the streets, do they not matter? As for Muslims who are minorities in Europe, they can't protest in the streets. Some spoke openly against CH before the events but obviously right now it would be dangerous for them, both physically and politically. It would be frowned upon in this context.
I don't know if I'm being very clear, but what I mean is that the issue is not religious in the sense of "specific to religions" (or even worse, "specific to that religion"), but is religious when considering religion as a social institution. Basically it happens that they protest in the name of religion because religion is one the most important basis of their societies, but they could as well use nationalism (if only their borders made sense) or political ideologies (well, I guess the ideology propagated by ISIS and the likes is a political ideology after all). And considering religion as the issue leaves the door open for all kind of counter-extremisms, racism and far-right policies (all of them being sadly on the rise in Europe) that do nothing but create more tensions and segregations, and ultimately push more normal Muslims in the arms of the extremists.
On January 20 2015 08:23 zdarr wrote:
Well I thought i just read someone saying there was connexion between islam and terrorism, so I wanted to stand up on that. Sorry for misunderstanding the "and on the other side people will rely too much on that same context and negate any kind of religious influence when there is obviously a connexion."
On the topic of "unviolent terrorism" i was thinking of eco-terrorism or Basque terrorist, who didn't kill to my knowledge, they just blew up buildings and installation.
"Since 1968, ETA has been held responsible for killing 829 people"
And go to the "Victims" section too. It ranges from judges to children, it's not pretty.
|
On January 20 2015 08:23 zdarr wrote:
Well I thought i just read someone saying there was connexion between islam and terrorism, so I wanted to stand up on that. Sorry for misunderstanding the "and on the other side people will rely too much on that same context and negate any kind of religious influence when there is obviously a connexion."
On the topic of "unviolent terrorism" i was thinking of eco-terrorism or Basque terrorist, who didn't kill to my knowledge, they just blew up buildings and installation.
Just going to ask, where do you get this impression of "unviolent terrorism" from? ETA has killed hundreds of people. Why would you say something that is simply not true?
|
Yeah, there is no such thing as nonviolent terrorism. You can't really terrify people without threatening them. So if you are nonviolent, you are not a terrorist, and if you are a terrorist, you are not nonviolent. The two are mutually exclusive.
|
Well, there are terrorists who don't hurt people, only destroy property. Still creates fear, but it's only "violence" of a comparatively harmless kind. The nuns who damaged nuclear weapons or priests who burned draft papers for instance.
|
On January 20 2015 20:13 Yoav wrote:
Well, there are terrorists who don't hurt people, only destroy property. Still creates fear, but it's only "violence" of a comparatively harmless kind. The nuns who damaged nuclear weapons or priests who burned draft papers for instance.
By your definition Gandhi is a terrorist...
|
And as for the nuns, the only reason they might create fear is by showing how easy it apparently is to get into a high security nuclear weapons facility. Which is not fear of them, but fear of the incompetence of the people handling the dealiest weapons in history.
There is no way i would count them as "terrorists".
|
Burning draft papers is terrorism. Protesting is terrorism. ETA never killed anybody. This is just getting a bit silly.
|
|
|
Not sure how it got here but, Cyber terror offers tons of opportunities to cause terror without actually physically harming anyone.
For instance threatening Sony style hack leaks could terrify executives and such but wouldn't be physically harming anyone.
|
what is terrorism and what is the origin of this word?
i can see some right wing people are trying to convert our minds into a position where we think when they say Islam or East, we should think terrorism and terrorists words first. thats a danger. sometimes governments allow these ideas to survive.
and any easterner or muslim IF he thinks west or westerners as enemy, that is highly related to our ex governments imperialistic goals first, and then religion. and WHY religion? because some jackass leaders implemented crazy ideas on them the first day they entered to school or they opened their tv's. who put those leaders in charge? same old ex governments, our boys. after that point its so easy to say religion is the problem here and muslims are terrorists because their prophet was also one, he even massacred many.... yes, religion is a matter. not only islam, but all religions are full of with verses that are inhuman and violent, and everything has done and will be done for religions were - are against free human mind. islam is a crime history, and christianity, and judaism.
this may seem harsh but you cant call islamic state as terrorist just because they chop heads of many civils and soldiers when you send tons of money to israel (who claims itself as jewish state) or while they bomb schools and murder many children (UN report says 80 per cent of Palestinians killed in Israeli offensive are civilians -
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israelgaza-conflict-80-per-cent-of-palestinians-killed-by-israeli-strikes-are-civilians-un-report-says-9606397.html ). remember we destroyed every part of iraq who had one of the most beautiful cities in the world, BAGHDAD, now thorn apart. and why? because our saddam was killing some opposites.
and if you kill more iraqi civil than saddam himself (terrorism?), or if you still veto palestinian state while :
Of the 193 member states of the United Nations, 135 (69.9%) have recognised the State of Palestine as of 30 October 2014. Their total population is over 5.5 billion people, equaling 80 percent of the world's population
this fact is a FACT.
or
UN Security Council vote on Palestinian draft resolution
YES: Jordan, China, France, Russia, Luxembourg, Chad, Chile, Argentina.
NO: United States, Australia.
ABSTAINED: United Kingdom, Lithuania, Nigeria, South Korea, Rwanda.
any reasonable muslim will not like your governments or will name your society as enemy, because these votes are your votes. sorry, but we are still imperialistic. and we still force our thoughts and benefits to the rest of the world, simply because we CAN.
oh by the way, i dont care how many muslim died or how peaceful Islam is, as they claim. i wont be sorry even they nuke middle-east completely tomorrow, i just cant stand blindness of our society. and i think that issue is intentional. BECAUSE these guys are "OURS" and arabs are "THEM"
|
Zurich15359 Posts
On January 20 2015 20:13 Yoav wrote:
Well, there are terrorists who don't hurt people, only destroy property. Still creates fear, but it's only "violence" of a comparatively harmless kind. The nuns who damaged nuclear weapons or priests who burned draft papers for instance.
I am sorry what?
Unfortunately there is no common definition for terrorism, but violence being a necessity is I believe commonly agreed on. Personally I always go by my definition posted a while ago on a different thread on TL:
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/176619-terrorism-in-numbers?page=2#30
|
cabu is dead
a week has gone by and i'm still stuck on that and tears pearl inside me
since i have not read any of the posts, i will refrain from "opening up" before i do
i was however compelled to type:
it is never a good thing to kill people
(including people who kill people)
|
On January 21 2015 01:40 lastpuritan wrote:what is terrorism and what is the origin of this word? i can see some right wing people are trying to convert our minds into a position where we think when they say Islam or East, we should think terrorism and terrorists words first. thats a danger. sometimes governments allow these ideas to survive. and any easterner or muslim IF he thinks west or westerners as enemy, that is highly related to our ex governments imperialistic goals first, and then religion. and WHY religion? because some jackass leaders implemented crazy ideas on them the first day they entered to school or they opened their tv's. who put those leaders in charge? same old ex governments, our boys. after that point its so easy to say religion is the problem here and muslims are terrorists because their prophet was also one, he even massacred many.... yes, religion is a matter. not only islam, but all religions are full of with verses that are inhuman and violent, and everything has done and will be done for religions were - are against free human mind. islam is a crime history, and christianity, and judaism. this may seem harsh but you cant call islamic state as terrorist just because they chop heads of many civils and soldiers when you send tons of money to israel (who claims itself as jewish state) or while they bomb schools and murder many children (UN report says 80 per cent of Palestinians killed in Israeli offensive are civilians - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israelgaza-conflict-80-per-cent-of-palestinians-killed-by-israeli-strikes-are-civilians-un-report-says-9606397.html ). remember we destroyed every part of iraq who had one of the most beautiful cities in the world, BAGHDAD, now thorn apart. and why? because our saddam was killing some opposites. and if you kill more iraqi civil than saddam himself (terrorism?), or if you still veto palestinian state while : Of the 193 member states of the United Nations, 135 (69.9%) have recognised the State of Palestine as of 30 October 2014. Their total population is over 5.5 billion people, equaling 80 percent of the world's populationthis fact is a FACT. or UN Security Council vote on Palestinian draft resolution YES: Jordan, China, France, Russia, Luxembourg, Chad, Chile, Argentina. NO: United States, Australia. ABSTAINED: United Kingdom, Lithuania, Nigeria, South Korea, Rwanda. any reasonable muslim will not like your governments or will name your society as enemy, because these votes are your votes. sorry, but we are still imperialistic. and we still force our thoughts and benefits to the rest of the world, simply because we CAN. oh by the way, i dont care how many muslim died or how peaceful Islam is, as they claim. i wont be sorry even they nuke middle-east completely tomorrow, i just cant stand blindness of our society. and i think that issue is intentional. BECAUSE these guys are " OURS" and arabs are "THEM"
Did you seriously equate Israel with ISIS? Trolololol!
|
I wouldn't mind seeing cold numbers in terms of who killed more people.
|
On January 20 2015 15:27 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +Again, she was absolutely not saying that Muslims families in general want the Shoah out of the curriculum or that Catholic families in general want gender equality out of the curriculum I quoted accuratly and I never stated that she said all muslim families want the shoah out of the curriculum, I simply quoted her point. Again you're the one going into long interpretation - not to mention you take a sentence make about muslim and catholic families before to change the interpretation of a sentence made afterwards. But again, she mention that those families are muslim, and not proletarian or comes from immigration, she do not say "some families" either and consider that it is their faith (yes she said it) that explain their refusal to teach the shoah. Now you can, if you want, make another bullshit interpretation to round off the angles like you did all topic long.
You did present erroneous interpretations of both of her statements (I address the second one below). You said she "targeted an entire group". She did not target the "entire group" of "Muslim families", she targeted the group of Catholic families who asked for a change of curriculum and the group of Muslim families who asked for a change of curriculum. That's not the "entire group" of Muslim families. It's not either a statement that Islam (and Christianism) simply explains why those families asked for a change of curriculum. She said that those specific families were asking for a change in curriculum "in the name of their faith", not that having that faith is the factor leading those families to take that stance. Likewise, if I said that Christian families in the US asking for evolution not to be taught at school in the name of their faith are to be opposed, I would not be saying that all Christian families ask for evolution not to be taught or that being Christian is what explains that they want evolution not to be taught. It's surprising to me that you seem utterly incapable of grasping these elementary distinctions. It's like your strong dislike of Fourest is completely preventing you from analyzing this coolheaded and rationally.
On January 20 2015 15:27 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +she did not say that Muslims had a problem of integration in Europe. What she actually said is that the extremist preachers who hope to convert people to their cause and their views in Europe are counting on those among the Muslim population who have difficulties integrating. And that is bullshit. The core of your point is that she did not say that all muslim families but only a few or some have trouble integrating. Not only she imply that families with problem in integration are muslim, [...]
Already false. Saying that there are some among the Muslim population who have trouble integrating (which is a factual statement) is NOT akin to saying that those who have trouble integrating in general are Muslim, or that they're having trouble integrating because of their faith. That is, again, not what she's saying. Stop distorting her statements. Also, she's not saying either that those who have trouble integrating (Muslim or not) are to blame, since she's blaming socio-economic and urban policies of the state as well as racism and xenophobia in our societies.
On January 20 2015 15:27 WhiteDog wrote:
Not only she imply that families with problem in integration are muslim, but she also imply that it is a problem of integration that is at the core of this problem which is not (and that radical islam play a part of it). Again, you don't seem to see what is stupid in this quote and again you argue to no end on interpretation, and not on fact, which is a good exemple of double standard.
I'm not sure what your first sentence is supposed to mean exactly since it appears to be incomplete. I already explained why the first half was you distorting her statement, but to reiterate what I told you in previous posts she was not making a point about Muslims and integration or about Islam and integration. Like I said, she has never said that Muslims cannot or do not integrate, or that Islam is a barrier to integration. She was talking about radical islamists trying to recruit and convert people among those who do not integrate. That is the fact of what she was saying, not your utterly wrong interpretation, as you would know if you had actually read her paper. No double standard here either.
On January 20 2015 15:27 WhiteDog wrote:
I would gladly continue reading your stupid bullshit, but I would love if you could understand a little and use your brain. Not only I pointed out plenty of things she did wrongly (but we agree, you consider those things to be unimportant) but more than that, I implied that she is always referrencing all problem to problem of laïcité and religion (or racism and biggotry toward minority) which is a stupid position - and weirdly a position that create what it is supposed to prevent, which is the dreaded "clash of civilisation".
You didn't point out "plenty of things she did wrongly", you got plenty of things utterly wrong by misinterpreting her and distorting her statements. Perhaps you should brush up on your vaunted social science training to remember what "rigor" is. Her position is at the opposite of a clash of civilizations and her work on laïcité precisely aims to make it easier to coexist together and oppose those who try to install a fear of the Other or limit personal liberties, both from the far right and from religious extremism.
On January 20 2015 15:27 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +I understood you fine and I never wrote that you said they were "equals": you mentioned her as an example of someone who is still invited in the media even though Dieudonné isn't anymore. You used this example and comparison to illustrate your claim of a "double standard". See these posts. So, to repeat, "your entire example of a double standard based on the differing treatments of Dieudonné and Fourest completely crumbles if you look, as I did, at the motives for their respective condemnations. You accuse me of a lack of contextualization, but it's you who tries to equate Fourest's condemnations for defamation (which were often, as I explained, based on the revealing of private details of the lives of the people she was talking about) and Dieudonné's condemnations for incitement to racial/religious hatred. Do you somehow fail to see the difference between the two? How exactly is Fourest getting condemned for publishing private details of the life of the Le Pen family supposed to be comparable to Dieudonné getting condemned repeatedly for blatant antisemitic statements? How is that example supposed to illustrate a double standard?. And like I said, even prior to the condemnations, his statements could already clearly be recognized for what they are, namely antisemitic." Do you seriously not see why the media would treat the two differently? You are getting more than boring with your complete nonsense. I ask you to focus a little : - Siné didn't imply rich = jew, his interpretation of his chronic was that convertion to any religion for money is a stupid thing - you didn't refer to his interpretation but to Val's interpretation, which is double standard ;
Val's interpretation was not a double standard, as I already explained and as you keep ignoring ("focus a little", please!). According to Val's interpretation, Siné was not targeting Judaism but targeting Jews and linking them to a thirst for, and a control of, money/power. Now you can very well argue that Val's interpretation is wrong, and that's what the courts decided, but that's nevertheless his interpretation and that's why he decided to fire Siné, because he felt that, contrary to what Charlie Hebdo is doing when mocking religious symbols, Siné was attacking religious people and not religion. That's the difference he made and that's why it's not a double standard at all: attacking religious people gets you fired, not attacking religions.
On January 20 2015 15:27 WhiteDog wrote:
- Dieudonné, today, said "I am Charlie Coulibaly" and implied that he felt like a terrorist, you didn't refer to his interpretation, but to the justice interpretation (he is a killer of jew), which is again double standard ;
I didn't refer to any interpretation since I did not even mention the topic of his recent statement, but at this point I suppose paying attention to what I'm writing is too much to ask.
On January 20 2015 15:27 WhiteDog wrote:
So I repeat, what I said in my previous post : it is a good explanation of the double standard when someone INTERPRATE the act, while refusing the interpretation of another act in another situation. In one case there is no discussion possible (since the interpretation is set and done without hearing from the "criminal"), while in the other case it's you blatting boring comments. To say it simply, there is an implicit acceptance combine with a desire to explain in some case - especially when those cases specifically touch dominated part of our population - while, in some other case, the media are all bent on judging morally the act / point without any contextualisation / arguments on the intentions.
By going in length about all of Fourest's mistakes - which are nothing more than manipulation - you prove this point, especially when in comparaison you accuse Siné of antisemitism for something that was not.
I did not accuse Siné of antisemitism, so that's another example of you projecting onto me views that I did not defend here. I'm starting to understand where your misinterpretations and distortions of Fourest's views are coming from.
Your argument that "the media" allows positive interpretations for Fourest and not Dieudonné is simply not rooted in reality. What the problem is is that you have selected what you think is the correct interpretation of Fourest's work, without having actually read it, and that you're angry that "the media" doesn't agree with you that she's essentially a racist who hates Muslims. That's tough, but perhaps you should have the humility of recognizing that you may be the one who's basing himself on a completely distorted interpretation of what her actual views are.
There isn't even an attempt from "the media" of deliberately choosing positive interpretations of Fourest's work and not Dieudonné - there's simply a clear antisemite who's been condemned in court for clearly antisemitic statements on one side, and on the other a journalist and militant who has never been condemned for racial/religious hatred and who is in fact fighting against the far right and extremism in her work. Again, no double standard.
|
Did I read the article in the guardian right, is France going to start teaching patriotism classes ?
|
Muslim having trouble integrating is not a factual statement, it's an interpretation. I'm not answering the rest it's pointless, I don't really want to engage in a deep discussion with a fan, but I believe this point is absolutly central to the topic. You compare this situation to the christian famillies in the US, which are two entirely different things : the muslim as a "community" in France do not exist, and there are no group that legitimatly talk for "the" muslims as a group (no common practice, in education for exemple - unlike the jewish "community").
This idea that there are trouble integrating "muslims" is untrue : we have "trouble" integrating (which mean small criminality in my mind) people coming from specific part of africa mostly - rarely a problem about Iranian immigrants for exemple or pakistanese (who happen to be muslim), not to mention we also have trouble integrating people coming from christian countries in southern Africa (central africa, ghana, gabon, ethiopia, angola or ivory coast - and many more countries - are all mostly christian). Not to mention, most of our problem with the youth has nothing to do with immigration, and more with exclusion, unemployment (and hypocrisy).
On January 23 2015 03:54 Sub40APM wrote:
Did I read the article in the guardian right, is France going to start teaching patriotism classes ?
Yes ridiculous. Three years ago, having the national flag was judged as extremist, and now the ministry wants us to sing the anthem at school ? There's no in between...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
