|
|
On January 09 2015 07:35 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2015 07:29 Sub40APM wrote:On January 09 2015 07:18 KeksX wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I get that it should not be a religion thread in the sense of discussion religion as a thing itself, but if the incident is linked to Religion (and when the perpetrators shout "Allahu Akbar" during all of this it is a valid assumption) it is impossible to have this discussion without talking about how it is linked to Religion, or at least people's use/abuse of it.
However, I can completely understand the mod's reaction when I read stuff that goes completely beyond that and it does happen a lot in here. What these... things did has nothing to do with all muslims or the Islam in general, but everything with the islamistic splitter groups that are also responsible for things like ISIS and such.
You have to also keep in mind that Islam is also not only a Religion, it is a whole idea of how a country should be run as well(Sharia Law) and many other systems. This is why you see muslims in Germany(for example) being almost completely different from muslims in countries where they actually have Sharia Law. They might have the same religion and their theistic principles align, but they definitely do not believe in the same principles when it comes to law and ethics in general.
This is a problem seen a lot, e.g. people blaming the Islam for brutal circumcision of women in Central Africa, when this is a regional issue and not a religious one.
What I'm trying to say is:
We cannot deny that this has some links to Religion, more or less the abuse of it, as a motivation/catalyst, but we can also not pretend that this is the fault of the Religion itself. We need to differentiate, and I think the mods are doing a very difficult job keeping the discussion in the right direction. On-Topic: Chef Editor of the TITANIC(german satire) puts a bold statement on the topic. He basically says that every form of satire and comedy, even if it is dull and holds no obvious "value", is valid. There is no such thing for him as "appropriate satire" - all satire automatically is appropriate. They also have no plan at all to increase security whatsoever and said in a TV interview that they have never received any threats from muslims in Germany. You can read up on it here(google translate works fine): http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Ihr-werdet-der-Komik-nicht-Herr-article14279746.htmlThe interview is here(german, sorry  ) www.tagesschau.de/sendung/nachtmagazin/index.html 8 minutes in. I get that it should not be a religion thread in the sense of discussion religion as a thing itself, but if the incident is linked to Religion (and when the perpetrators shout "Allahu Akbar" during all of this it is a valid assumption) it is impossible to have this discussion without talking about how it is linked to Religion, or at least people's use/abuse of it. 2/12 victims were Muslims, and they make up only 8% of the population making this attack one that disproportionately hurt Muslims. But you dont see anyone posting 'French Muslims at greater threat than others in France' on this post because of how ludicrous it sounds. And thats the problem, every asshole shouting Allah Akbar is instantly connected to billions of people -- including millions in the West who seem to be just fine when they arent ghettoized (American and Canadian Muslims are economically and socially indistinguishable from our societies in terms of economic and social mobility). But you see a crazy white guy mass murder and he gets to be just a crazy white guy, no one is sitting around and asking how come white guys are so much more prone to mass murdering people than all the other cultures. Well we have to be honest here. If people don't think so it's because 90% of these attacks are carried out by Muslims. If the Madrid, London accidents would have been done by Hinduists, the western world would have the same attitude towards them that it has today towards Muslims. While I can concede that we have to separate between integralists and moderates, the fact that Hinduists, Gianists, Buddhists, Protestants, Rastafarians, Shintoists did (and are still not doing) not do these kind of attacks HAS to be a question. There are populations that would almost be justified in doing these kinds of attacks (Tibetans for example) but they still do not do it. Why?
We also can't forget that non-Islamic countries are killing more innocent civilians in their "home countries" than the extremists are in ours. We just have different justifications and "targets".
|
On January 09 2015 07:39 Lazare1969 wrote:
I think it would be best to lock this thread and just let the mods update the OP due to how much the events have escalated. It is not in TeamLiquid's professional interests to take any chances with what could easily end up as politically incorrect discussion regarding religion, race and immigration. The worst that could happen would be Stephano, undoubtedly the most popular SC2 foreign pro-gamer, coming in this thread, mistranslating and taking some of the posts personally, with arguments ensuing. Not the kind of publicity TeamLiquid would want.
You're welcome to create a topic in website feedback and discuss the above. This thread is not the place for it however.
|
I just want to remind people of the Utöya massacre only 3,5 years ago, where a Christian terrorist killed 77 people. This is not about religion, it's about fucked up individuals and sects.
|
Canada13422 Posts
On January 09 2015 07:35 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2015 07:29 Sub40APM wrote:On January 09 2015 07:18 KeksX wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I get that it should not be a religion thread in the sense of discussion religion as a thing itself, but if the incident is linked to Religion (and when the perpetrators shout "Allahu Akbar" during all of this it is a valid assumption) it is impossible to have this discussion without talking about how it is linked to Religion, or at least people's use/abuse of it.
However, I can completely understand the mod's reaction when I read stuff that goes completely beyond that and it does happen a lot in here. What these... things did has nothing to do with all muslims or the Islam in general, but everything with the islamistic splitter groups that are also responsible for things like ISIS and such.
You have to also keep in mind that Islam is also not only a Religion, it is a whole idea of how a country should be run as well(Sharia Law) and many other systems. This is why you see muslims in Germany(for example) being almost completely different from muslims in countries where they actually have Sharia Law. They might have the same religion and their theistic principles align, but they definitely do not believe in the same principles when it comes to law and ethics in general.
This is a problem seen a lot, e.g. people blaming the Islam for brutal circumcision of women in Central Africa, when this is a regional issue and not a religious one.
What I'm trying to say is:
We cannot deny that this has some links to Religion, more or less the abuse of it, as a motivation/catalyst, but we can also not pretend that this is the fault of the Religion itself. We need to differentiate, and I think the mods are doing a very difficult job keeping the discussion in the right direction. On-Topic: Chef Editor of the TITANIC(german satire) puts a bold statement on the topic. He basically says that every form of satire and comedy, even if it is dull and holds no obvious "value", is valid. There is no such thing for him as "appropriate satire" - all satire automatically is appropriate. They also have no plan at all to increase security whatsoever and said in a TV interview that they have never received any threats from muslims in Germany. You can read up on it here(google translate works fine): http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Ihr-werdet-der-Komik-nicht-Herr-article14279746.htmlThe interview is here(german, sorry ) www.tagesschau.de/sendung/nachtmagazin/index.html 8 minutes in. I get that it should not be a religion thread in the sense of discussion religion as a thing itself, but if the incident is linked to Religion (and when the perpetrators shout "Allahu Akbar" during all of this it is a valid assumption) it is impossible to have this discussion without talking about how it is linked to Religion, or at least people's use/abuse of it. 2/12 victims were Muslims, and they make up only 8% of the population making this attack one that disproportionately hurt Muslims. But you dont see anyone posting 'French Muslims at greater threat than others in France' on this post because of how ludicrous it sounds. And thats the problem, every asshole shouting Allah Akbar is instantly connected to billions of people -- including millions in the West who seem to be just fine when they arent ghettoized (American and Canadian Muslims are economically and socially indistinguishable from our societies in terms of economic and social mobility). But you see a crazy white guy mass murder and he gets to be just a crazy white guy, no one is sitting around and asking how come white guys are so much more prone to mass murdering people than all the other cultures. Well we have to be honest here. If people don't think so it's because 90% of these attacks are carried out by Muslims. If the Madrid, London accidents would have been done by Hinduists, the western world would have the same attitude towards them that it has today towards Muslims. While I can concede that we have to separate between integralists and moderates, the fact that Hinduists, Gianists, Buddhists, Protestants, Rastafarians, Shintoists did (and are still not doing) not do these kind of attacks HAS to be a question. There are populations that would almost be justified in doing these kinds of attacks (Tibetans for example) but they still do not do it. Why?
Look. I'm going to try and extend fully my perspective on how you can discuss this topic without religion even though it is linked to religion.
Extremist groups and fundamentalists such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda etc can be discussed in this context.
I would be totally fine with people decrying fundamentalist, and extremist, exclusionary islam and the actions of those who use it as an excuse.
You can say these shooters are assholes because they use religion as an excuse, thats on topic.
What people seem to do in these posts is blanket discuss how islam, in general is bad. Or how all religion is poison.
THAT is what we don't want, but sadly ANY time someone discusses religion it becomes this. A discussion on the merits of ideologies from the perspective of another ideology (that religion shouldn't exist for example).
I don't want to get into that discussion, but the fact of the matter is when people begin discussing islam in this thread it turns into a bunch of posts that seem islamophobic, and that eventually derails. There are happenings related to the actual thread topic which should be discussed.
What about the shooters? Are there updates on that?
What about decrying the anti-muslim actions of some french as also being terrible? That is happening right now in france with people attacking mosques. Thats not right, neither was the shooting of the cartoonists.
The moderators can only do so much and rather than wade through all the bullshit, and in keeping with the TL rule about no religion threads, we have just decided to say no discussing religion and its merits.
Of course the people were spurned on to do something due to their religious views, but those are extreme, and negative, and violent views which are shared by very few religious people.
So lets focus on the topic at hand - the evolving situation in france which resulted from the charlie hebdo shooting. Thats it, its really not that hard.
So basically: "these guys were assholes who used islam as an excuse" or "tool" -- totally okay
"people should not be doing X violent act its despicable" -- okay
"reports say that X is happening in Y region of France" -- okay
"islam is poison and these guys prove that religion is evil and results in murder and mayhem" -- not okay
Discussions of religion again, as a religion, as a theological debate not wanted.
|
On January 09 2015 04:12 SixStrings wrote:
Calling a parasite a parasite isn't racist.
I hope you understand the environment statements like this create.
On January 09 2015 07:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
We also can't forget that non-Islamic countries are killing more innocent civilians in their "home countries" than the extremists are in ours. We just have different justifications and "targets".
See this kind of us/them thing is the problem. Muslims living in France are not a party to the war in Syria for what happens to IS any more than I am a party to the war in Syria for what happens to Christians. They are French. Their problems are France's problems. If your welfare system is rife for abuse, reform that. Don't blame some swath of your population for being poor, and definitely don't go on to say they're all violent.
This is a globalized world. We have to learn to get along with people we disagree with. LePen and Choudary are not the only alternatives.
|
|
|
anyone who's been to syria is probably on the US no fly list 
|
ahh!
any news on the chase from french people?
|
On January 09 2015 08:34 SoSexy wrote:ahh! any news on the chase from french people?
no big news, apart that obama went to the french ambassy at washington dc
the terrorist are surely exhausted right now, i give 2-3 days before they get caught
|
Yes, I simply do not understand why people like this aren't just rounded up and imprisoned.
I mean okay they may not have yet committed a terrorist attack (before their attack of course), but their mindset and their ideas were a threat and not in accord with the European mindset.
I mean if I run around sympathizing with Nazis or Islamic fundamentalist or any other kind of extremists one should get arrested and reeducated until there is proof that they are no longer a threat to society.
It seems everyone knew what they were up to ideologically and they even got arrested for it and they were under surveillance (whatever that means, maybe french police has their internet porn history...).
So why not just arrest and reeducate them until they no longer pose a threat at all? One of them was even arrested for his ideology? Why was he even released? I mean just locking people away for a certain random period and then just releasing them without making sure they no longer pose a threat or that they have changed sufficiently is not logical.
Europe has to champion the values it learned during its age of enlightenment and rationalism.
It has to stand for freedom and liberty.
It has to stand for freedom of thought, freedom of religion.
The equal rights of all humans.
And it has to oppose all that threaten these liberties.
It has to oppose religious fundamentalists.
It has to oppose fascism.
It has to oppose ideologies were women are oppressed and not treated as equals.
And many more things.
Yes lines are blurred and there are shades of grey but that doesn't mean that there are no lines at all and that doesn't mean that grey makes dark or light disappear. Its no justification to do nothing and just become the observer because to intervene means to take responsibility. Well, one has also to take responsibility for not intervening.
|
THAT is what we don't want, but sadly ANY time someone discusses religion it becomes this. A discussion on the merits of ideologies from the perspective of another ideology (that religion shouldn't exist for example).
It is rather difficult to address the specific causes and underlying ideological basis of this kind of terrorism without acknowledging the structural problems of islam as doctrine which consistently create friction between it and democratic ideals.
If it helps, we can leave any supernatural truth claim out of the picture unless it is relevant to the topic, but that does not change the fact that those selfsame truth claims are very much in play here, and have to be accounted for. We simply cannot understand this behaviour unless we understand the beliefs that drive it. We can pretend like the core doctrines of the religion are in no way implicated here, but then all we'd be doing is an elaborate exercise in self-deception. In the end, we are talking about a set of idea that just so happen to involve a proposed supernatural entity, and these ideas really do take centre stage here. If we cannot explore these ideas fully and honestly, perhaps you might be better off closing the thread and just leaving it be.
|
On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote:
Yes, I simply do not understand why people like this aren't just rounded up and imprisoned.
I mean okay they may not have yet committed a terrorist attack (before their attack of course), but their mindset and their ideas were a threat and not in accord with the European mindset.
I mean if I run around sympathizing with Nazis or Islamic fundamentalist or any other kind of extremists one should get arrested and reeducated until there is proof that they are no longer a threat to society.
It seems everyone knew what they were up to ideologically and they even got arrested for it and they were under surveillance (whatever that means, maybe french police has their internet porn history...).
So why not just arrest and reeducate them until they no longer pose a threat at all? One of them was even arrested for his ideology? Why was he even released? I mean just locking people away for a certain random period and then just releasing them without making sure they no longer pose a threat or that they have changed sufficiently is not logical.
Europe has to champion the values it learned during its age of enlightenment and rationalism.
It has to stand for freedom and liberty.
It has to stand for freedom of thought, freedom of religion.
The equal rights of all humans.
And it has to oppose all that threaten these liberties.
It has to oppose religious fundamentalists.
It has to oppose fascism.
It has to oppose ideologies were women are oppressed and not treated as equals.
And many more things.
Yes lines are blurred and there are shades of grey but that doesn't mean that there are no lines at all and that doesn't mean that grey makes dark or light disappear. Its no justification to do nothing and just become the observer because to intervene means to take responsibility. Well, one has also to take responsibility for not intervening.
just curious whether you have read 1984.
|
On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote:
Yes, I simply do not understand why people like this aren't just rounded up and imprisoned.
I mean okay they may not have yet committed a terrorist attack (before their attack of course), but their mindset and their ideas were a threat and not in accord with the European mindset.
I mean if I run around sympathizing with Nazis or Islamic fundamentalist or any other kind of extremists one should get arrested and reeducated until there is proof that they are no longer a threat to society.
It seems everyone knew what they were up to ideologically and they even got arrested for it and they were under surveillance (whatever that means, maybe french police has their internet porn history...).
So why not just arrest and reeducate them until they no longer pose a threat at all? One of them was even arrested for his ideology? Why was he even released? I mean just locking people away for a certain random period and then just releasing them without making sure they no longer pose a threat or that they have changed sufficiently is not logical.
Europe has to champion the values it learned during its age of enlightenment and rationalism.
It has to stand for freedom and liberty.
It has to stand for freedom of thought, freedom of religion.
The equal rights of all humans.
And it has to oppose all that threaten these liberties.
It has to oppose religious fundamentalists.
It has to oppose fascism.
It has to oppose ideologies were women are oppressed and not treated as equals.
And many more things.
Yes lines are blurred and there are shades of grey but that doesn't mean that there are no lines at all and that doesn't mean that grey makes dark or light disappear. Its no justification to do nothing and just become the observer because to intervene means to take responsibility. Well, one has also to take responsibility for not intervening.
I might agree with you...but then my country probably wouldn't exist.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
you don't see the disconnect in reasoning between
On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote:
Yes, I simply do not understand why people like this aren't just rounded up and imprisoned.
I mean okay they may not have yet committed a terrorist attack (before their attack of course), but their mindset and their ideas were a threat and not in accord with the European mindset.
So why not just arrest and reeducate them until they no longer pose a threat at all? One of them was even arrested for his ideology?
and
On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote:
Europe has to champion the values it learned during its age of enlightenment and rationalism.
It has to stand for freedom and liberty.
It has to stand for freedom of thought, freedom of religion.
The equal rights of all humans.
???
|
On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote:
Yes, I simply do not understand why people like this aren't just rounded up and imprisoned.
I mean okay they may not have yet committed a terrorist attack (before their attack of course), but their mindset and their ideas were a threat and not in accord with the European mindset.
I mean if I run around sympathizing with Nazis or Islamic fundamentalist or any other kind of extremists one should get arrested and reeducated until there is proof that they are no longer a threat to society.
It seems everyone knew what they were up to ideologically and they even got arrested for it and they were under surveillance (whatever that means, maybe french police has their internet porn history...).
So why not just arrest and reeducate them until they no longer pose a threat at all? One of them was even arrested for his ideology? Why was he even released? I mean just locking people away for a certain random period and then just releasing them without making sure they no longer pose a threat or that they have changed sufficiently is not logical.
Europe has to champion the values it learned during its age of enlightenment and rationalism.
It has to stand for freedom and liberty.
It has to stand for freedom of thought, freedom of religion.
The equal rights of all humans.
And it has to oppose all that threaten these liberties.
It has to oppose religious fundamentalists.
It has to oppose fascism.
It has to oppose ideologies were women are oppressed and not treated as equals.
And many more things.
Yes lines are blurred and there are shades of grey but that doesn't mean that there are no lines at all and that doesn't mean that grey makes dark or light disappear. Its no justification to do nothing and just become the observer because to intervene means to take responsibility. Well, one has also to take responsibility for not intervening.
you are literally advocating to arrest people based on what kind of beliefs they hold.
it can hardly get more totalitarian.
On January 09 2015 07:18 KeksX wrote:
On-Topic:
Chef Editor of the TITANIC(german satire) puts a bold statement on the topic. He basically says that every form of satire and comedy, even if it is dull and holds no obvious "value", is valid. There is no such thing for him as "appropriate satire" - all satire automatically is appropriate.
What may satire do?
Everything
|
On January 09 2015 09:17 ahswtini wrote:you don't see the disconnect in reasoning between Show nested quote +On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote:
Yes, I simply do not understand why people like this aren't just rounded up and imprisoned.
I mean okay they may not have yet committed a terrorist attack (before their attack of course), but their mindset and their ideas were a threat and not in accord with the European mindset.
So why not just arrest and reeducate them until they no longer pose a threat at all? One of them was even arrested for his ideology?
and Show nested quote +On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote:
Europe has to champion the values it learned during its age of enlightenment and rationalism.
It has to stand for freedom and liberty.
It has to stand for freedom of thought, freedom of religion.
The equal rights of all humans.
???
No. Your reasoning is like: we must be just, therefore we won't send anyone to jail. Sending guilty people to jail IS being just.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On January 09 2015 09:22 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2015 09:17 ahswtini wrote:you don't see the disconnect in reasoning between On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote:
Yes, I simply do not understand why people like this aren't just rounded up and imprisoned.
I mean okay they may not have yet committed a terrorist attack (before their attack of course), but their mindset and their ideas were a threat and not in accord with the European mindset.
So why not just arrest and reeducate them until they no longer pose a threat at all? One of them was even arrested for his ideology?
and On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote:
Europe has to champion the values it learned during its age of enlightenment and rationalism.
It has to stand for freedom and liberty.
It has to stand for freedom of thought, freedom of religion.
The equal rights of all humans.
??? No. Your reasoning is like: we must be just, therefore we won't send anyone to jail. Sending guilty people to jail IS being just.
Guilty of what though? Just having a certain ideology? Because that's what Holy_AT made it sound like.
|
On January 09 2015 09:26 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2015 09:22 SoSexy wrote:On January 09 2015 09:17 ahswtini wrote:you don't see the disconnect in reasoning between On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote:
Yes, I simply do not understand why people like this aren't just rounded up and imprisoned.
I mean okay they may not have yet committed a terrorist attack (before their attack of course), but their mindset and their ideas were a threat and not in accord with the European mindset.
So why not just arrest and reeducate them until they no longer pose a threat at all? One of them was even arrested for his ideology?
and On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote:
Europe has to champion the values it learned during its age of enlightenment and rationalism.
It has to stand for freedom and liberty.
It has to stand for freedom of thought, freedom of religion.
The equal rights of all humans.
??? No. Your reasoning is like: we must be just, therefore we won't send anyone to jail. Sending guilty people to jail IS being just. Guilty of what though? Just having a certain ideology? Because that's what Holy_AT made it sound like.
Guilty of thinking things he doesn't like.
|
On January 09 2015 09:26 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2015 09:22 SoSexy wrote:On January 09 2015 09:17 ahswtini wrote:you don't see the disconnect in reasoning between On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote:
Yes, I simply do not understand why people like this aren't just rounded up and imprisoned.
I mean okay they may not have yet committed a terrorist attack (before their attack of course), but their mindset and their ideas were a threat and not in accord with the European mindset.
So why not just arrest and reeducate them until they no longer pose a threat at all? One of them was even arrested for his ideology?
and On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote:
Europe has to champion the values it learned during its age of enlightenment and rationalism.
It has to stand for freedom and liberty.
It has to stand for freedom of thought, freedom of religion.
The equal rights of all humans.
??? No. Your reasoning is like: we must be just, therefore we won't send anyone to jail. Sending guilty people to jail IS being just. Guilty of what though? Just having a certain ideology? Because that's what Holy_AT made it sound like.
I'll post an example under spoiler.
+ Show Spoiler + This is an english imam. Just listen to few minutes. He lives in England and he can live a free life propagating these ideas. Do you think it is right? I follow Holy_AT here, if people like this would be kicked/put in jail, the world would be a much safer place.
|
On January 09 2015 09:26 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2015 09:22 SoSexy wrote:On January 09 2015 09:17 ahswtini wrote:you don't see the disconnect in reasoning between On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote:
Yes, I simply do not understand why people like this aren't just rounded up and imprisoned.
I mean okay they may not have yet committed a terrorist attack (before their attack of course), but their mindset and their ideas were a threat and not in accord with the European mindset.
So why not just arrest and reeducate them until they no longer pose a threat at all? One of them was even arrested for his ideology?
and On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote:
Europe has to champion the values it learned during its age of enlightenment and rationalism.
It has to stand for freedom and liberty.
It has to stand for freedom of thought, freedom of religion.
The equal rights of all humans.
??? No. Your reasoning is like: we must be just, therefore we won't send anyone to jail. Sending guilty people to jail IS being just. Guilty of what though? Just having a certain ideology? Because that's what Holy_AT made it sound like.
Your reasoning is flawed.
Lets just say there is a person who runs around claiming Hitler wasn't that bad and sympathizes with Nazis. Defends their ideology and what not. Lets say that person may have even been arrested once for something but has not yet killed any Jew or committed any act of terror.
Why shouldn't this person be arrested and reeducated?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
