|
Keep the discussion ON TOPIC. This thread is for discussing the terror attacks in Paris. |
On November 15 2015 05:53 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 04:57 Roe wrote:On November 15 2015 04:43 ZeromuS wrote:On November 15 2015 04:14 Falling wrote:On November 15 2015 04:07 BlitzerSC wrote:On November 15 2015 04:03 Falling wrote:On November 15 2015 04:00 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 03:58 Falling wrote:On November 15 2015 03:49 Saumure wrote:On November 15 2015 03:43 ticklishmusic wrote:![[image loading]](http://3p3mq242g5jc2ki76r3wi6fq.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Screen-Shot-2015-11-13-at-4.38.22-PM.png) So our duty is to welcome the world's deserters? Gaaaah. I find this attitude so frustrating. I get the anger in the wake of the violent attack. But I'm so grateful that Canada welcomed my Mennonite ancestors who 'deserted' communist Russia, as the ones who stayed behind were hauled off to the gulags. And there was significant suspicion in Canada that Ukrainian immigrants might be communist infiltrators, but the fear of those who fled was misplaced. We survived and integrated. It's ironic considering how harsh are Canadas conditions of emmigration Oh Canada was very, very harsh in their immigration policy. East Europe immigrants were middle of the totem pole- lower in desirability than the Brits, and Germans, but higher than Africans, Jews, and Asians. The fact that we were given a chance, makes we want to see my own country give the Syrians refugees the same chance- my uncle is helping coordinate our community sponsor a family. Does Canada come to Europe to pick up Syrians refugees or does it just wait for them to reach Canada? Because if it's the latter then you are just filtering the poor and the rich and we all know that richer people are happier and less prone to extremism compared to poorer people. Not exactly a noble way. In our local case- sponsorship, by definition, means they do not have the means to get over here on their own- we raise half and the government matches. That's how MCC brought my people over in the first place (well, I don't know about the government matching part- I suspect that's a modern thing) and how we're locally getting this particular refugee family over this time. Some basic screening will happen, and chances are they will provide them with temporary residence in Canada and put them in Camps here, on Forces bases. Then they will complete security screening and send back people they really can't trust and find some information which makes them ineligible for entry. Most of the 25,000 they want to bring before the end of the year will stay and will be given affordable housing across the country and some support in getting their lives started here. That's one of the things I'm confused about on this whole issue. Are they refugees who will live here temporarily, or permanent immigrants given a priority because of an extreme situation? Initially temporary. Upon completion of screening, permanent residents.
Why permanent?
|
On November 15 2015 08:06 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 05:53 ZeromuS wrote:On November 15 2015 04:57 Roe wrote:On November 15 2015 04:43 ZeromuS wrote:On November 15 2015 04:14 Falling wrote:On November 15 2015 04:07 BlitzerSC wrote:On November 15 2015 04:03 Falling wrote:On November 15 2015 04:00 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 03:58 Falling wrote:On November 15 2015 03:49 Saumure wrote:
[quote]
So our duty is to welcome the world's deserters? Gaaaah. I find this attitude so frustrating. I get the anger in the wake of the violent attack. But I'm so grateful that Canada welcomed my Mennonite ancestors who 'deserted' communist Russia, as the ones who stayed behind were hauled off to the gulags. And there was significant suspicion in Canada that Ukrainian immigrants might be communist infiltrators, but the fear of those who fled was misplaced. We survived and integrated. It's ironic considering how harsh are Canadas conditions of emmigration Oh Canada was very, very harsh in their immigration policy. East Europe immigrants were middle of the totem pole- lower in desirability than the Brits, and Germans, but higher than Africans, Jews, and Asians. The fact that we were given a chance, makes we want to see my own country give the Syrians refugees the same chance- my uncle is helping coordinate our community sponsor a family. Does Canada come to Europe to pick up Syrians refugees or does it just wait for them to reach Canada? Because if it's the latter then you are just filtering the poor and the rich and we all know that richer people are happier and less prone to extremism compared to poorer people. Not exactly a noble way. In our local case- sponsorship, by definition, means they do not have the means to get over here on their own- we raise half and the government matches. That's how MCC brought my people over in the first place (well, I don't know about the government matching part- I suspect that's a modern thing) and how we're locally getting this particular refugee family over this time. Some basic screening will happen, and chances are they will provide them with temporary residence in Canada and put them in Camps here, on Forces bases. Then they will complete security screening and send back people they really can't trust and find some information which makes them ineligible for entry. Most of the 25,000 they want to bring before the end of the year will stay and will be given affordable housing across the country and some support in getting their lives started here. That's one of the things I'm confused about on this whole issue. Are they refugees who will live here temporarily, or permanent immigrants given a priority because of an extreme situation? Initially temporary. Upon completion of screening, permanent residents. Why permanent?
Basically always the same story:
Immigration: The Reserve Army of Capital
By Alain de Benoist
In 1973, shortly before his death, the French President Georges Pompidou admitted to have opened the floodgates of immigration, at a request of a number of big businessmen, such as Francis Bouygues, who was eager to take advantage of docile and cheap labor devoid of class consciousness and of any tradition of social struggle.
|
On November 15 2015 07:45 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 07:24 Nebuchad wrote:On November 15 2015 07:12 Squat wrote:On November 15 2015 05:03 Nebuchad wrote:On November 15 2015 04:51 Djzapz wrote:On November 15 2015 04:43 yamato77 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:28 Djzapz wrote:On November 15 2015 04:19 yamato77 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:05 Djzapz wrote:On November 15 2015 03:36 Rebs wrote:
[quote]
Your wrong and I will tell you why, you dont present someone with the idea that a religion needs reform or some sort of evolution by telling them that their are "bad parts" in it. As an outsider with little to no knowledge of religion in general (except perhaps any faith you might have grown up with) let alone Islam I can assure you that when you tell someone that ISIS did this and therefore it is a bad part of your religion you need to reform them you arent making a very good case.
Its like me telling white people that White supremacists and right wing nutjobs are the bad part of white people and we should call them terrorists and talk about it. After all they have killed more north americans than ISIS has. ISIS mostly kills Muslims.
Then again, I dont know about the subject so it would be stupid coming from me so even if thats true I wont sit here without the requisite information do some googling, or in Angry Mags case, google anti muslim websites.
This thread is not debating the merits and demerits of religion in general or Islam in particular, but obviously its easy to shit or religion and then listen to people argue back at you about how all bad Muslims are sponsored by or created by western powers in cahoots with the Saudi's.
Its the same discussion the same narrative and the same back and forth. This is not the place for it. This is for people to talk about the events of last evening whether it be on condemnation, support or updates.
Thank you for your frustration. Let's take your example with White Supremacists, which we openly an legitimately hate. We can discuss the sources of their bullshit without being accused of anything. What does the WN stem from, what the problem is, what social issues we can try to tackle with which approaches and policies. Does the White Supremacist idea come from Christianity? Undoubtedly partially, you'll find that they're defending white christian values, family values and would probably try to spin it as a positive thing with those terms. Can we argue that some of those ills stem from an interpretation of Christianity and other such things? There are probably grounds for that. The same can be said about Islam. The religion itself might be fine, but in many cases it comes with an ideology that I find to be reprehensible. In both cases, you have to tiptoe around the debate, because people are so outrageously ticklish when it comes to religion that the overarching ideology and its effects can't be discussed thoroughly without everyone being extremely cautious. "Now is not the time to talk about this. You're racist. You're bigoted." This debate is off limits because we've decided that. People are arguing that Islam has NOTHING to do with anything because most Muslims are good people. And I think that if we want to open the debate, we have to first weed out the people who are only interested in hate, first - and then the people who have a political incentive to try to derail the debate by putting blinders on and just arguing that there is no link at all between Islam and these actions. From my perspective, this entire ordeal is one that needs to be tackled by smart people (unlike myself) who are willing to have the debate. Unfortunately, most of what comes out is the people who want violence on one hand, and the people who are so fed up with the people who want violence that they assume anybody who wants to discuss it has an ill intent. I don't think it's healthy. There is no other social debate in the world where you have a strong correlation where you have a correlation between a specific part Islam and terrorism, and the issue is so politically loaded that nobody can even talk about it. To put it in exceptionally stupid terms, we have this issue here which is toxic, and the simple fact of pointing at it causes people to act as if it doesn't exist, because it's so fucking toxic that poking at it causes shit to happen. So what of those of us who want to talk about this??? I think it's important. To me it seems like there's this extremely discussion that needs to be had but IT'S HARD and everyone's avoiding it. ISIS may be a religious organization, but the religion of Islam is not the root cause of their violence. They use the parts of their religion they cherry-pick for personal gain by indoctrinating young, impressionable Middle-Eastern boys and men to fight for them. These same boys and men who have seen their fathers die fighting westerners perpetuating the instability and violence in their region for over a century. It's quite easy to turn orphaned, war-torn populations into mindless soldiers for jihad, especially when there is such a powerful reinforcement of this ideology in the form of religion. Belief is not the problem. There are peaceful Muslims across the globe that don't use their religion as a tool for hate and destruction. Unfortunately, as with any system of belief, Islam is being used by radicals to create an "us" and "them" worldview that demands these sort of extreme terrorist attacks against the people they blame for their woes. This is not unique to Islam. Islam is being used. Do not blame religion, blame the ones who would warp it into a twisted set of rules that rewards one for killing those that don't fit into its rigid structure. There is no discussion to be had here because framing the discussion around Islam is the issue is simply ignorant. The discussion does not need to be framed around Islam, it needs to understand that it is one important concept. The people who are indoctrinated to ISIS often (not always) have some prior understanding of Islam which allows them to integrate ISIS's crazy stuff to their own beliefs. Much like Christianity can be used to be homophobic, it's a platform on which bad shit can be added. Is this not possible to discuss? Perhaps a lot of Christians are fine with homosexuality, and yet that doesn't mean one cannot point at the correlation and say "there is something here". Something about Christianity preemptively supports the negative vision of homosexuality, right? Which takes absolutely nothing away from Christians who do NOT adhere to this vision, but there is a correlation (which does not imply causation) which NEEDS to be explored if we want to understand this phenomenon, right? And so belief and ideology are a problem, they are at the very least something to explore and something to try to understand! To say "blame the individuals" seems to make sense until you understand that these phenomenons are not simple freak cases, they're part of a larger context which, of course, is not all religious - it's social and cultural and it has roots in poverty and oppression. It's all these things. It's religion too. It's belief, too. It doesn't take anything away from Muslims who don't adhere to this, but to just say we should ignore part of it because it's uncomfortable is absolutely absurd, in my opinion. I mean to point at another example, the Christian man who went to Africa to talk about how horrible homosexuality is which eventually led to Uganda adopting horrible anti-homosexuality laws, he had a religious baggage. It doesn't mean Christianity is all bad, it means that it plays a role in how this is articulated. There's even a clip that John Oliver showed in one of his shows, where a Ugandan woman says "at first it wasn't Adam and Eve, it was Adam and Steve". Does Christianity really have NOTHING to do with this hatred of homosexuals? Even if it did not, it would be insane to say it cannot be discussed, it cannot be studied. It would be absurd to say the issue is too contentious to be looked at. Why silence thought? And once again this shouldn't be viewed as an affront to Christianity. The problem is it's offensive because it seems like a way in which Christianity could be attacked, but I have no interest in that. It's just clearly a factor. And so while I understand the defense and the complete denial that it could even possibly be a factor, I disagree. It's an argumentative strategy that I can understand, but it closes off important topics that need to be discussed and are not irrelevant. That's presupposing a causal relationship, which is simply not the case. I'd argue that bigotry against homosexuals in the U.S. was inbuilt by the hetero-normative societal structure that obviously included Christian values, but was not caused by Christianity itself. Alas, this is a stupid digression and has nothing to do with the attacks on Paris any longer. Debating the merits of religion is a poor way to understand what happened in Paris, and why groups like ISIS perpetuate violence. I'd say anyone who wants to understand ISIS better should take a closer look at 20th century Middle-Eastern history, particularly the history of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Understanding the cycles that have created groups like the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS is important. Russia, the U.S. and Europe all played a role in the instability of the region that has led to its current state. To consider the possibility of a relation does not presuppose a causal relationship. You said it yourself, "hetero-normative societal structure that obviously included Christian values". To understand this phenomenon (which I don't), people have to consider Christian values and its influences, its dynamics - which, like I said, takes nothing away from Christians. But the ideology is there. If you want to understand the ideology, you need to consider this factor as part of the explanation. Or at the VERY LEAST, a potential part of the explanation that needs to be vetted before it's dismissed. This is just an example to point out that Islam extremism cannot be understood if we're constantly told that it has nothing to do with Islam. You can't just take a sensitive component of a problem and just say "we have no clear causal link right now (having not looked at it closely), so we'll just not look at it at all, ever". The thing is, in the picture that you describe, the role of islam is the role of any ideology. There is a certain notion going on, that notion needs help channeling, an ideology happens to be in the vicinity and so that ideology is used. That's always been how these things work. So does islam play a role in that sense? Yeah, of course. But is that role relevant? I don't see how you can make that case without going for specific criticism of islam as opposed to other ideologies, like others in the thread have been doing. Unless you want to make a case against ideologies in general, in which case I would agree with you, but not think this is the best time to make it. Out of curiosity, when would be the right time to have that debate? Because according to the self-flagellating crowd who seem incapable of believing that things can go wrong without western imperialism, that time is never. The amount of mental gyrations on display in this thread speaks volumes about how eager people are to assume the mantle of responsibility for everything bad happening in the middle east, conveniently ignoring the fact that thousands of European-born citizens, who have never had a hair touched by any western occupation force, have made a mass exodus to some of the most war-torn and desolate places in the world, all to enroll with the most brutal and doctrinaire group of religious fanatics in modern history. Everything matters. History matters. Geopolitics matter. Socioeconimics matter. Lack of national identity and long-standing tribal feuds matter. Lack of opportunity, failed states and crumbling societies matter. And yes, sincerely held beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality and the ancillary ideology matter. Taking any of these factors off the table or simply waving them away with the peremptory hand of the effete neo-liberal too mired in white guilt for real objectivity is not a recipe for honest discussion. It's simply lazy and disingenuous. And the real irony here is that the people who are most likely to suffer from this obscurantism are regular, peaceful muslims,who only want to go about their lives. The refusal to engage directly with the deeply problematic aspects of Islam is the cause of an immense amount of both confusion and conflation, linking every expression of the faith to the suicidal mania that jihadists so fervently embrace. No one has any trouble believing that the homophobia of some local judge in Arizona is rooted partly in Christianity, yet no one is tempted to indict all Christians because of it. There is no reason we cannot have a similarly broad view of Islam. So we agree. Everything matters. Why are you telling this to me, and not to the countless people in this thread who would like to focus on religion, and are doing just that? Why is it that everything is so clear when it comes to christianity and islam to you, but when someone correctly describes how ideologies work, it must automatically mean that he's an apologist who says the ideology doesn't matter at all? Why is it that everything is so clear when it comes to christianity and islam to you, but when someone correctly says there are other factors at play, he just wants to "self-flagellate" and blame the west for everything? Please, be consistent. First, I should probably take a step back and acknowledge that many people place undue focus on religion as a factor. Point taken. However, when you say that the versions of the anatomy of an ideology presented in this thread are correct, I have to disagree. The problem with this view of ideologies is that the possibility for destructive behaviour is directly linked to the tenets, and therefore subject to whatever doctrine is in play. Take Mao or Stalin, who murdered millions in the name of their vision of how humanity ought to live, actions directly attributable to what they believed to be true about the larger reality. Yet they never threw homosexals off of rooftops, or whipped women who did not cover their hair. There is nothing in the doctrine of communism that mandates that kind of behaviour, yet it is not too difficult to find in any one of the holy books revered by most people on this planet. Belief guides behaviour. This idea that ideologies simply serve as vehicles or frameworks for deeper values is just manifestly false. Ideology moulds people just as people mould the ideology. There seems to be a rather virulent meme going around these days that suggests no one ever really does anything on the basis of these ideas, that somehow the ideological committments are stored on an external hard drive and don't interact with worldly actions in any way. You do not appear to be one of them, so don't take it personally. I was arguing against this intellectual malaise that strikes me as almost entirely self-imposed, not pointing fingers. If it came off that way, I apologise for that.
And there in lies the problem, the fact that you accept of quotes without context that scripture being employed is meant to extol the ideology.
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html
Tthese ideologies did not exist where I was brought up. They were imported and forced onto the poverty stricken, the marginalized and the disenfranchised. Yes after a certain point your right, in that once its weaved into the fabric of a peoples identity then they become mutually reinforcing. They are quite mainstream now
No religion has a single binding overwhelming set of jurisprudence and rules that governs every ones actions. That is why you have sects for example. But because a specific subsection decides to behave a certain way they are in fact imposing their ideology because its a very fresh ideology in the context of the religions history.
There is a historical context to the lines that are quoted by ISIS or whatever for doing things that are unsavory. Most of them are instructions to address issues for a very specific time, place or incident often unsavory but understandable if not endorsable.
They are not "core" tenets.However easy it might be to assume because if you pick a a few lines out of a book that has over 6000 verses as "supposedly" core tenets. They are not and when you do that, and say "accept responsibility for your religion and lets talk about we can fix it" you are automatically forcing people to put up walls and fire back.
If you like you really want to have this discussion then also educate yourself a bit on both sides instead of saying. Well we cant have a discussion if one part of the discussion doesnt do the requisite research and instead some half assed googling that lets you find exactly what you are looking for, because the internet is quite good at that (im not saying you do it but that seems to be the standard justification.)
Fundamentally I disagree that any ideology has to be based on "tenets". Religions are complex bodies of divine understanding, jurisprudence and faith based judgements. Suggesting that the corruption and misuse of scripture is based on tenets means you obviously havent studied religions that well. + Show Spoiler +(although to be fair after 6 years of majoring in this shit i still cant find an excuse for the old testament mostly because context is lacking or that it just makes no sense, but no ones killing anyone over that so thats ok. Oh wait...)
Here are some quick tips.
|
Canada11431 Posts
Always the same story. You know of absolute thinking? The motivations of some are not the only possible motivations, nor necessarily representative of the majority.
|
On November 15 2015 09:13 Falling wrote: You know of absolute thinking? The motivations of some are not the only possible motivations, nor necessarily representative of the majority.
The majority do not have a say in any kind of political choice made outside of electing someone. Big business does have a voice though and that voice does get heard quite often and is often ($$$$$$) very convincing
|
On November 15 2015 09:06 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 07:45 Squat wrote:On November 15 2015 07:24 Nebuchad wrote:On November 15 2015 07:12 Squat wrote:On November 15 2015 05:03 Nebuchad wrote:On November 15 2015 04:51 Djzapz wrote:On November 15 2015 04:43 yamato77 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:28 Djzapz wrote:On November 15 2015 04:19 yamato77 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:05 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
Let's take your example with White Supremacists, which we openly an legitimately hate. We can discuss the sources of their bullshit without being accused of anything. What does the WN stem from, what the problem is, what social issues we can try to tackle with which approaches and policies. Does the White Supremacist idea come from Christianity? Undoubtedly partially, you'll find that they're defending white christian values, family values and would probably try to spin it as a positive thing with those terms.
Can we argue that some of those ills stem from an interpretation of Christianity and other such things? There are probably grounds for that. The same can be said about Islam. The religion itself might be fine, but in many cases it comes with an ideology that I find to be reprehensible.
In both cases, you have to tiptoe around the debate, because people are so outrageously ticklish when it comes to religion that the overarching ideology and its effects can't be discussed thoroughly without everyone being extremely cautious.
"Now is not the time to talk about this. You're racist. You're bigoted." This debate is off limits because we've decided that. People are arguing that Islam has NOTHING to do with anything because most Muslims are good people. And I think that if we want to open the debate, we have to first weed out the people who are only interested in hate, first - and then the people who have a political incentive to try to derail the debate by putting blinders on and just arguing that there is no link at all between Islam and these actions.
From my perspective, this entire ordeal is one that needs to be tackled by smart people (unlike myself) who are willing to have the debate. Unfortunately, most of what comes out is the people who want violence on one hand, and the people who are so fed up with the people who want violence that they assume anybody who wants to discuss it has an ill intent. I don't think it's healthy. There is no other social debate in the world where you have a strong correlation where you have a correlation between a specific part Islam and terrorism, and the issue is so politically loaded that nobody can even talk about it.
To put it in exceptionally stupid terms, we have this issue here which is toxic, and the simple fact of pointing at it causes people to act as if it doesn't exist, because it's so fucking toxic that poking at it causes shit to happen. So what of those of us who want to talk about this??? I think it's important. To me it seems like there's this extremely discussion that needs to be had but IT'S HARD and everyone's avoiding it. ISIS may be a religious organization, but the religion of Islam is not the root cause of their violence. They use the parts of their religion they cherry-pick for personal gain by indoctrinating young, impressionable Middle-Eastern boys and men to fight for them. These same boys and men who have seen their fathers die fighting westerners perpetuating the instability and violence in their region for over a century. It's quite easy to turn orphaned, war-torn populations into mindless soldiers for jihad, especially when there is such a powerful reinforcement of this ideology in the form of religion. Belief is not the problem. There are peaceful Muslims across the globe that don't use their religion as a tool for hate and destruction. Unfortunately, as with any system of belief, Islam is being used by radicals to create an "us" and "them" worldview that demands these sort of extreme terrorist attacks against the people they blame for their woes. This is not unique to Islam. Islam is being used. Do not blame religion, blame the ones who would warp it into a twisted set of rules that rewards one for killing those that don't fit into its rigid structure. There is no discussion to be had here because framing the discussion around Islam is the issue is simply ignorant. The discussion does not need to be framed around Islam, it needs to understand that it is one important concept. The people who are indoctrinated to ISIS often (not always) have some prior understanding of Islam which allows them to integrate ISIS's crazy stuff to their own beliefs. Much like Christianity can be used to be homophobic, it's a platform on which bad shit can be added. Is this not possible to discuss? Perhaps a lot of Christians are fine with homosexuality, and yet that doesn't mean one cannot point at the correlation and say "there is something here". Something about Christianity preemptively supports the negative vision of homosexuality, right? Which takes absolutely nothing away from Christians who do NOT adhere to this vision, but there is a correlation (which does not imply causation) which NEEDS to be explored if we want to understand this phenomenon, right? And so belief and ideology are a problem, they are at the very least something to explore and something to try to understand! To say "blame the individuals" seems to make sense until you understand that these phenomenons are not simple freak cases, they're part of a larger context which, of course, is not all religious - it's social and cultural and it has roots in poverty and oppression. It's all these things. It's religion too. It's belief, too. It doesn't take anything away from Muslims who don't adhere to this, but to just say we should ignore part of it because it's uncomfortable is absolutely absurd, in my opinion. I mean to point at another example, the Christian man who went to Africa to talk about how horrible homosexuality is which eventually led to Uganda adopting horrible anti-homosexuality laws, he had a religious baggage. It doesn't mean Christianity is all bad, it means that it plays a role in how this is articulated. There's even a clip that John Oliver showed in one of his shows, where a Ugandan woman says "at first it wasn't Adam and Eve, it was Adam and Steve". Does Christianity really have NOTHING to do with this hatred of homosexuals? Even if it did not, it would be insane to say it cannot be discussed, it cannot be studied. It would be absurd to say the issue is too contentious to be looked at. Why silence thought? And once again this shouldn't be viewed as an affront to Christianity. The problem is it's offensive because it seems like a way in which Christianity could be attacked, but I have no interest in that. It's just clearly a factor. And so while I understand the defense and the complete denial that it could even possibly be a factor, I disagree. It's an argumentative strategy that I can understand, but it closes off important topics that need to be discussed and are not irrelevant. That's presupposing a causal relationship, which is simply not the case. I'd argue that bigotry against homosexuals in the U.S. was inbuilt by the hetero-normative societal structure that obviously included Christian values, but was not caused by Christianity itself. Alas, this is a stupid digression and has nothing to do with the attacks on Paris any longer. Debating the merits of religion is a poor way to understand what happened in Paris, and why groups like ISIS perpetuate violence. I'd say anyone who wants to understand ISIS better should take a closer look at 20th century Middle-Eastern history, particularly the history of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Understanding the cycles that have created groups like the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS is important. Russia, the U.S. and Europe all played a role in the instability of the region that has led to its current state. To consider the possibility of a relation does not presuppose a causal relationship. You said it yourself, "hetero-normative societal structure that obviously included Christian values". To understand this phenomenon (which I don't), people have to consider Christian values and its influences, its dynamics - which, like I said, takes nothing away from Christians. But the ideology is there. If you want to understand the ideology, you need to consider this factor as part of the explanation. Or at the VERY LEAST, a potential part of the explanation that needs to be vetted before it's dismissed. This is just an example to point out that Islam extremism cannot be understood if we're constantly told that it has nothing to do with Islam. You can't just take a sensitive component of a problem and just say "we have no clear causal link right now (having not looked at it closely), so we'll just not look at it at all, ever". The thing is, in the picture that you describe, the role of islam is the role of any ideology. There is a certain notion going on, that notion needs help channeling, an ideology happens to be in the vicinity and so that ideology is used. That's always been how these things work. So does islam play a role in that sense? Yeah, of course. But is that role relevant? I don't see how you can make that case without going for specific criticism of islam as opposed to other ideologies, like others in the thread have been doing. Unless you want to make a case against ideologies in general, in which case I would agree with you, but not think this is the best time to make it. Out of curiosity, when would be the right time to have that debate? Because according to the self-flagellating crowd who seem incapable of believing that things can go wrong without western imperialism, that time is never. The amount of mental gyrations on display in this thread speaks volumes about how eager people are to assume the mantle of responsibility for everything bad happening in the middle east, conveniently ignoring the fact that thousands of European-born citizens, who have never had a hair touched by any western occupation force, have made a mass exodus to some of the most war-torn and desolate places in the world, all to enroll with the most brutal and doctrinaire group of religious fanatics in modern history. Everything matters. History matters. Geopolitics matter. Socioeconimics matter. Lack of national identity and long-standing tribal feuds matter. Lack of opportunity, failed states and crumbling societies matter. And yes, sincerely held beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality and the ancillary ideology matter. Taking any of these factors off the table or simply waving them away with the peremptory hand of the effete neo-liberal too mired in white guilt for real objectivity is not a recipe for honest discussion. It's simply lazy and disingenuous. And the real irony here is that the people who are most likely to suffer from this obscurantism are regular, peaceful muslims,who only want to go about their lives. The refusal to engage directly with the deeply problematic aspects of Islam is the cause of an immense amount of both confusion and conflation, linking every expression of the faith to the suicidal mania that jihadists so fervently embrace. No one has any trouble believing that the homophobia of some local judge in Arizona is rooted partly in Christianity, yet no one is tempted to indict all Christians because of it. There is no reason we cannot have a similarly broad view of Islam. So we agree. Everything matters. Why are you telling this to me, and not to the countless people in this thread who would like to focus on religion, and are doing just that? Why is it that everything is so clear when it comes to christianity and islam to you, but when someone correctly describes how ideologies work, it must automatically mean that he's an apologist who says the ideology doesn't matter at all? Why is it that everything is so clear when it comes to christianity and islam to you, but when someone correctly says there are other factors at play, he just wants to "self-flagellate" and blame the west for everything? Please, be consistent. First, I should probably take a step back and acknowledge that many people place undue focus on religion as a factor. Point taken. However, when you say that the versions of the anatomy of an ideology presented in this thread are correct, I have to disagree. The problem with this view of ideologies is that the possibility for destructive behaviour is directly linked to the tenets, and therefore subject to whatever doctrine is in play. Take Mao or Stalin, who murdered millions in the name of their vision of how humanity ought to live, actions directly attributable to what they believed to be true about the larger reality. Yet they never threw homosexals off of rooftops, or whipped women who did not cover their hair. There is nothing in the doctrine of communism that mandates that kind of behaviour, yet it is not too difficult to find in any one of the holy books revered by most people on this planet. Belief guides behaviour. This idea that ideologies simply serve as vehicles or frameworks for deeper values is just manifestly false. Ideology moulds people just as people mould the ideology. There seems to be a rather virulent meme going around these days that suggests no one ever really does anything on the basis of these ideas, that somehow the ideological committments are stored on an external hard drive and don't interact with worldly actions in any way. You do not appear to be one of them, so don't take it personally. I was arguing against this intellectual malaise that strikes me as almost entirely self-imposed, not pointing fingers. If it came off that way, I apologise for that. And there in lies the problem, the fact that you accept of quotes without context that scripture being employed is meant to extol the ideology. + Show Spoiler +http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html Tthese ideologies did not exist where I was brought up. They were imported and forced onto the poverty stricken, the marginalized and the disenfranchised. Yes after a certain point your right, in that once its weaved into the fabric of a peoples identity then they become mutually reinforcing. They are quite mainstream now No religion has a single binding overwhelming set of jurisprudence and rules that governs every ones actions. That is why you have sects for example. But because a specific subsection decides to behave a certain way they are in fact imposing their ideology because its a very fresh ideology in the context of the religions history. There is a historical context to the lines that are quoted by ISIS or whatever for doing things that are unsavory. Most of them are instructions to address issues for a very specific time, place or incident often unsavory but understandable if not endorsable. They are not "core" tenets.However easy it might be to assume because if you pick a a few lines out of a book that has over 6000 verses as "supposedly" core tenets. They are not and when you do that, and say "accept responsibility for your religion and lets talk about we can fix it" you are automatically forcing people to put up walls and fire back. If you like you really want to have this discussion then also educate yourself a bit on both sides instead of saying. Well we cant have a discussion if one part of the discussion doesnt do the requisite research and not some half assed googling that lets you find exactly what you are looking for, because the internet is quite good at that (im not saying you do it but that seems to be the standard justification.) Here are some quick tips.
Your first sentence is strange, not sure what it means.
For whatever it's worth, I have read the Koran cover to cover and much of the Hadith. My best friend's father was a mulla for eleven years in Teheran before they moved to Sweden, and he taught me a great deal about the practical application of specific doctrines. I am also very familiar with the concept and tenets of Wahabism. I don't blame you for reflexively assuming I lacked any in-depth knowledge, since many who speak on this subject clearly do.
My point was not that the core tenets of Islam are best expressed in the behaviour of ISIS, which I am perfectly aware is not the case. But it does manifest some version or interpretation of Islam, or sub-sect if you prefer; one that can only be discredited by attacking its roots, which in turn is an impossible task if the efforts are constantly disrupted by well-meaning yet confused cries of bigotry. Ultimately, I was talking more about the general reluctance to attribute any maladaptive behaviour whatsoever to ideology, to any degree.
A few quick questions: Why is IS doing this? What are they hoping to accomplish? What is their ultimate goal? How are they specifically distorting the core teachings of Islam? What is the main motivating force that drives college educated, middle class parents in their late twenties or older in western Europe to go to Syria and likely end up dead in a ditch somewhere?
I'm not being facetious here, I am genuinely interested in your response.
|
On November 14 2015 13:07 Agathon wrote:
Even if I'm french, when I'm watching all the blue white and red flag across the world I can't help thinking about the 50 lebanese who died yesterday and who someway somehow seem not to diserve their flag on a tower.
Or the 200 people who died coming back from Charm el Cheikh in Egypt few days ago.
I'm french, I love France, but come on. No life worth more than another. UN's flag maybe?
Thank you, i am french, and i find this quite disgusting.
This a summery of all the problem. Most people, Europe and USA dont realize the shit there is outside, but when it come inside, its "the end of the world".
|
On November 15 2015 02:40 RuiBarbO wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 02:24 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:On November 15 2015 02:12 Plansix wrote:On November 15 2015 01:45 Cricketer12 wrote:On November 15 2015 00:22 Jibba wrote:
I know this is the thread for Paris but I think people should also know that ISIS set off two bombs in Beirut yesterday, killing 40+ and wounding 200+.
I don't think that should go ignored by westerners (even though I'm sure it will be.) Both countries need support. Why would it be known by westerners, the vast majority if murders arent even caused by terrorists who claim to be Muslim, but the media paints the picture it wants to paint, and right now that picture is that Islam needs to go. ISIS could not be more "unIslamic". Everything they do and dont do goes against Islamic teachings. For further evidence of this, people should look up accounts of Muslims capture by ISIS and the number of Muslims killed by ISIS. Its not about being Muslim for ISIS, it about controlling people through violence. So you say ISIS are not true muslims, while ISIS say that the muslims they kill are not true muslims. where does that leave us? the fact is that there is no 'true islam'. islam is what muslims do. when a person who identifies as muslim commits violence explicitly in the name of islam, we have no choice but to take their word for it. What it means to practice Islam is clearly contested (see: Sunni vs. Shiite vs. Kurds). So in that sense, you're right (unless you were being sarcastic?), there's no one unified "Islam" we can point to as definitely the "true" Islam. But doesn't that mean that someone who commits violence explicitly in the name of Islam must be somewhat confused? Clearly, they think they're following "true" Islam. But why should we take their word for it? I'd be inclined, based on the first part of what you said, to do exactly the opposite.
the point is that there is no such thing as 'true islam', just as there is no 'true christianity' or any other superstitious nonsense that purports to be true. the important thing is that some people actually believe it exists.
|
It's funny how Facebook, Youtube, etc wear a French flag but no one wore one when that Russian plane was taken down. Not that I'm fan of Russia but double standards..
|
On November 15 2015 10:36 darkness wrote:
It's funny how Facebook, Youtube, etc wear a French flag but no one wore one when that Russian plane was taken down. Not that I'm fan of Russia but double standards..
Russian plane was not even confirmed to be a terror attack. If it had been a French plane there would have been no flags either.
But of course it is true, not all terror attacks receive the same attention. A terror attack in the west will get more attention in the west.
|
On November 15 2015 11:04 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 10:36 darkness wrote:
It's funny how Facebook, Youtube, etc wear a French flag but no one wore one when that Russian plane was taken down. Not that I'm fan of Russia but double standards.. Russian plane was not even confirmed to be a terror attack. If it had been a French plane there would have been no flags either. But of course it is true, not all terror attacks receive the same attention. A terror attack in the west will get more attention in the west.
Let's not forget the Beirut attack, either.
|
There is definitely a skew in the news/media when the West is attacked as opposed to whenever the Middle East gets attacked. I personally only heard about Beirut while I was reading the updates from the French bombings, but just because one happens in a different part of the world does not make it any less abominable.
|
On November 15 2015 09:31 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 09:06 Rebs wrote:On November 15 2015 07:45 Squat wrote:On November 15 2015 07:24 Nebuchad wrote:On November 15 2015 07:12 Squat wrote:On November 15 2015 05:03 Nebuchad wrote:On November 15 2015 04:51 Djzapz wrote:On November 15 2015 04:43 yamato77 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:28 Djzapz wrote:On November 15 2015 04:19 yamato77 wrote:
[quote]
ISIS may be a religious organization, but the religion of Islam is not the root cause of their violence. They use the parts of their religion they cherry-pick for personal gain by indoctrinating young, impressionable Middle-Eastern boys and men to fight for them. These same boys and men who have seen their fathers die fighting westerners perpetuating the instability and violence in their region for over a century. It's quite easy to turn orphaned, war-torn populations into mindless soldiers for jihad, especially when there is such a powerful reinforcement of this ideology in the form of religion.
Belief is not the problem. There are peaceful Muslims across the globe that don't use their religion as a tool for hate and destruction. Unfortunately, as with any system of belief, Islam is being used by radicals to create an "us" and "them" worldview that demands these sort of extreme terrorist attacks against the people they blame for their woes. This is not unique to Islam. Islam is being used. Do not blame religion, blame the ones who would warp it into a twisted set of rules that rewards one for killing those that don't fit into its rigid structure.
There is no discussion to be had here because framing the discussion around Islam is the issue is simply ignorant. The discussion does not need to be framed around Islam, it needs to understand that it is one important concept. The people who are indoctrinated to ISIS often (not always) have some prior understanding of Islam which allows them to integrate ISIS's crazy stuff to their own beliefs. Much like Christianity can be used to be homophobic, it's a platform on which bad shit can be added. Is this not possible to discuss? Perhaps a lot of Christians are fine with homosexuality, and yet that doesn't mean one cannot point at the correlation and say "there is something here". Something about Christianity preemptively supports the negative vision of homosexuality, right? Which takes absolutely nothing away from Christians who do NOT adhere to this vision, but there is a correlation (which does not imply causation) which NEEDS to be explored if we want to understand this phenomenon, right? And so belief and ideology are a problem, they are at the very least something to explore and something to try to understand! To say "blame the individuals" seems to make sense until you understand that these phenomenons are not simple freak cases, they're part of a larger context which, of course, is not all religious - it's social and cultural and it has roots in poverty and oppression. It's all these things. It's religion too. It's belief, too. It doesn't take anything away from Muslims who don't adhere to this, but to just say we should ignore part of it because it's uncomfortable is absolutely absurd, in my opinion. I mean to point at another example, the Christian man who went to Africa to talk about how horrible homosexuality is which eventually led to Uganda adopting horrible anti-homosexuality laws, he had a religious baggage. It doesn't mean Christianity is all bad, it means that it plays a role in how this is articulated. There's even a clip that John Oliver showed in one of his shows, where a Ugandan woman says "at first it wasn't Adam and Eve, it was Adam and Steve". Does Christianity really have NOTHING to do with this hatred of homosexuals? Even if it did not, it would be insane to say it cannot be discussed, it cannot be studied. It would be absurd to say the issue is too contentious to be looked at. Why silence thought? And once again this shouldn't be viewed as an affront to Christianity. The problem is it's offensive because it seems like a way in which Christianity could be attacked, but I have no interest in that. It's just clearly a factor. And so while I understand the defense and the complete denial that it could even possibly be a factor, I disagree. It's an argumentative strategy that I can understand, but it closes off important topics that need to be discussed and are not irrelevant. That's presupposing a causal relationship, which is simply not the case. I'd argue that bigotry against homosexuals in the U.S. was inbuilt by the hetero-normative societal structure that obviously included Christian values, but was not caused by Christianity itself. Alas, this is a stupid digression and has nothing to do with the attacks on Paris any longer. Debating the merits of religion is a poor way to understand what happened in Paris, and why groups like ISIS perpetuate violence. I'd say anyone who wants to understand ISIS better should take a closer look at 20th century Middle-Eastern history, particularly the history of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Understanding the cycles that have created groups like the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS is important. Russia, the U.S. and Europe all played a role in the instability of the region that has led to its current state. To consider the possibility of a relation does not presuppose a causal relationship. You said it yourself, "hetero-normative societal structure that obviously included Christian values". To understand this phenomenon (which I don't), people have to consider Christian values and its influences, its dynamics - which, like I said, takes nothing away from Christians. But the ideology is there. If you want to understand the ideology, you need to consider this factor as part of the explanation. Or at the VERY LEAST, a potential part of the explanation that needs to be vetted before it's dismissed. This is just an example to point out that Islam extremism cannot be understood if we're constantly told that it has nothing to do with Islam. You can't just take a sensitive component of a problem and just say "we have no clear causal link right now (having not looked at it closely), so we'll just not look at it at all, ever". The thing is, in the picture that you describe, the role of islam is the role of any ideology. There is a certain notion going on, that notion needs help channeling, an ideology happens to be in the vicinity and so that ideology is used. That's always been how these things work. So does islam play a role in that sense? Yeah, of course. But is that role relevant? I don't see how you can make that case without going for specific criticism of islam as opposed to other ideologies, like others in the thread have been doing. Unless you want to make a case against ideologies in general, in which case I would agree with you, but not think this is the best time to make it. Out of curiosity, when would be the right time to have that debate? Because according to the self-flagellating crowd who seem incapable of believing that things can go wrong without western imperialism, that time is never. The amount of mental gyrations on display in this thread speaks volumes about how eager people are to assume the mantle of responsibility for everything bad happening in the middle east, conveniently ignoring the fact that thousands of European-born citizens, who have never had a hair touched by any western occupation force, have made a mass exodus to some of the most war-torn and desolate places in the world, all to enroll with the most brutal and doctrinaire group of religious fanatics in modern history. Everything matters. History matters. Geopolitics matter. Socioeconimics matter. Lack of national identity and long-standing tribal feuds matter. Lack of opportunity, failed states and crumbling societies matter. And yes, sincerely held beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality and the ancillary ideology matter. Taking any of these factors off the table or simply waving them away with the peremptory hand of the effete neo-liberal too mired in white guilt for real objectivity is not a recipe for honest discussion. It's simply lazy and disingenuous. And the real irony here is that the people who are most likely to suffer from this obscurantism are regular, peaceful muslims,who only want to go about their lives. The refusal to engage directly with the deeply problematic aspects of Islam is the cause of an immense amount of both confusion and conflation, linking every expression of the faith to the suicidal mania that jihadists so fervently embrace. No one has any trouble believing that the homophobia of some local judge in Arizona is rooted partly in Christianity, yet no one is tempted to indict all Christians because of it. There is no reason we cannot have a similarly broad view of Islam. So we agree. Everything matters. Why are you telling this to me, and not to the countless people in this thread who would like to focus on religion, and are doing just that? Why is it that everything is so clear when it comes to christianity and islam to you, but when someone correctly describes how ideologies work, it must automatically mean that he's an apologist who says the ideology doesn't matter at all? Why is it that everything is so clear when it comes to christianity and islam to you, but when someone correctly says there are other factors at play, he just wants to "self-flagellate" and blame the west for everything? Please, be consistent. First, I should probably take a step back and acknowledge that many people place undue focus on religion as a factor. Point taken. However, when you say that the versions of the anatomy of an ideology presented in this thread are correct, I have to disagree. The problem with this view of ideologies is that the possibility for destructive behaviour is directly linked to the tenets, and therefore subject to whatever doctrine is in play. Take Mao or Stalin, who murdered millions in the name of their vision of how humanity ought to live, actions directly attributable to what they believed to be true about the larger reality. Yet they never threw homosexals off of rooftops, or whipped women who did not cover their hair. There is nothing in the doctrine of communism that mandates that kind of behaviour, yet it is not too difficult to find in any one of the holy books revered by most people on this planet. Belief guides behaviour. This idea that ideologies simply serve as vehicles or frameworks for deeper values is just manifestly false. Ideology moulds people just as people mould the ideology. There seems to be a rather virulent meme going around these days that suggests no one ever really does anything on the basis of these ideas, that somehow the ideological committments are stored on an external hard drive and don't interact with worldly actions in any way. You do not appear to be one of them, so don't take it personally. I was arguing against this intellectual malaise that strikes me as almost entirely self-imposed, not pointing fingers. If it came off that way, I apologise for that. And there in lies the problem, the fact that you accept of quotes without context that scripture being employed is meant to extol the ideology. + Show Spoiler +http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html Tthese ideologies did not exist where I was brought up. They were imported and forced onto the poverty stricken, the marginalized and the disenfranchised. Yes after a certain point your right, in that once its weaved into the fabric of a peoples identity then they become mutually reinforcing. They are quite mainstream now No religion has a single binding overwhelming set of jurisprudence and rules that governs every ones actions. That is why you have sects for example. But because a specific subsection decides to behave a certain way they are in fact imposing their ideology because its a very fresh ideology in the context of the religions history. There is a historical context to the lines that are quoted by ISIS or whatever for doing things that are unsavory. Most of them are instructions to address issues for a very specific time, place or incident often unsavory but understandable if not endorsable. They are not "core" tenets.However easy it might be to assume because if you pick a a few lines out of a book that has over 6000 verses as "supposedly" core tenets. They are not and when you do that, and say "accept responsibility for your religion and lets talk about we can fix it" you are automatically forcing people to put up walls and fire back. If you like you really want to have this discussion then also educate yourself a bit on both sides instead of saying. Well we cant have a discussion if one part of the discussion doesnt do the requisite research and not some half assed googling that lets you find exactly what you are looking for, because the internet is quite good at that (im not saying you do it but that seems to be the standard justification.) Here are some quick tips. Your first sentence is strange, not sure what it means. For whatever it's worth, I have read the Koran cover to cover and much of the Hadith. My best friend's father was a mulla for eleven years in Teheran before they moved to Sweden, and he taught me a great deal about the practical application of specific doctrines. I am also very familiar with the concept and tenets of Wahabism. I don't blame you for reflexively assuming I lacked any in-depth knowledge, since many who speak on this subject clearly do. My point was not that the core tenets of Islam are best expressed in the behaviour of ISIS, which I am perfectly aware is not the case. But it does manifest some version or interpretation of Islam, or sub-sect if you prefer; one that can only be discredited by attacking its roots, which in turn is an impossible task if the efforts are constantly disrupted by well-meaning yet confused cries of bigotry. Ultimately, I was talking more about the general reluctance to attribute any maladaptive behaviour whatsoever to ideology, to any degree. A few quick questions: Why is IS doing this? What are they hoping to accomplish? What is their ultimate goal? How are they specifically distorting the core teachings of Islam? What is the main motivating force that drives college educated, middle class parents in their late twenties or older in western Europe to go to Syria and likely end up dead in a ditch somewhere? I'm not being facetious here, I am genuinely interested in your response.
You cant really attack an ideology that is fundamentally corrupt because you fall into a gutter game that doesnt have a solution. Most ideoligies are based on faith, or atleast should be. Extremist ideologies are based on conviction. Conviction does not question it just does. Faith by its very nature exists because there is doubt and hence interpretations are fluid and honesty thats how the state of religion should be. + Show Spoiler +Just so you know I do a grand total of zero conventionally islamic things. I drink, I love pepperoni and smoke weed everyday. I dont follow the core tenets of any of the interpretations. I am not a huge fan of ritual practice either. But I do consider myself a person of faith, I just make faith based exceptions to what my understanding of religion affords me and find myself better of for it.
+ Show Spoiler [with respect to ISIS ] +Honestly my solution is not attacking ideology but as morbid as it sounds is to frankly wipe them out. Its not really a solution as much as an exasperation and frustration and although I havent lived in Pakistan for the last 10 years or so. I visit often and they have tried everything, after a certain point even Frankenstein decided he just had to kill his monster that was the only way, and its the same for us. Everything else they try is a disaster.Its easy to sit here and say that sitting in relative safety which is why I avoid saying it but thats really it.
IS is doing this for power and control why else do people do bad things ? Realistically the people at the top are doing exactly what they profess, they are going to at the very least try and land grab as much of the middle east that they can. it doesnt matter if there isnt a realistic goal at the end of the day a life of loot and plunder with the kind of power trips it affords is something these people have warped into.
As for how they are distorting teachings. I gave you a link read it.
I cant speak to the specifics but again its mostly people who are disavowed, disenfranchised or looking for some kind of meaning.
Twisted messages while twisted can still be appealing depending on circumstance. And its not like the people they are fighting against dont have their own fair share of blood on their hands. Its an easy argument to make if you have killed as many people as the West has. There are some people attracted to that, not all people.
+ Show Spoiler [On Hadith] + most Hadith are bullshit even the ones that offer genuinely good advice. Its similar to how politicians in the US quote founding fathers like their quotes are a dime a dozen. There hardly 7 or 8 Muttawatir Hadith iirc (i'll give you credit for knowing what Muttawatir is. At the very least everything else is a chinese whisper a millenium in the making.
|
|
|
On November 15 2015 10:36 darkness wrote:
It's funny how Facebook, Youtube, etc wear a French flag but no one wore one when that Russian plane was taken down. Not that I'm fan of Russia but double standards..
EXACTLY.
|
Just a month ago 100 people were killed in the capital of my country by the same goatfuckers. Result? Two pages worth of a thread. It is already over 50 pages here. Is it because this time white Western people died and 'brown' people dont deserve the same compassion and attention? Just saying. I am not trying to belittle what happened but it is what it is and it is really sad.
Oh and the day before 45 died in Beirut. Has anyone even heard about it?
|
On November 15 2015 16:19 Bleak wrote:
Just a month ago 100 people were killed in the capital of my country by the same goatfuckers. Result? Two pages worth of a thread. It is already over 50 pages here. Is it because this time white Western people died and 'brown' people dont deserve the same compassion and attention? Just saying. I am not trying to belittle what happened but it is what it is and it is really sad.
Oh and the day before 45 died in Beirut. Has anyone even heard about it?
I mean I'm not sure what's so weird about this. When things are closer to us, they touch us more. I'm sure you were more touched by the Ankara attacks than by the Beyrut attacks. When one person dies in your family, it touches you more than when your neighbor dies. It doesn't make you a bad person or a hypocrit. It makes you a subjective entity.
Now if turkish media did more on the Paris attack than on the Ankara attack, that would be weird. But I expect that isn't the case.
|
On November 15 2015 16:19 Bleak wrote:
Just a month ago 100 people were killed in the capital of my country by the same goatfuckers. Result? Two pages worth of a thread. It is already over 50 pages here. Is it because this time white Western people died and 'brown' people dont deserve the same compassion and attention? Just saying. I am not trying to belittle what happened but it is what it is and it is really sad.
Oh and the day before 45 died in Beirut. Has anyone even heard about it?
people care more for people they can relate to and you can relate better to people who you share a history and similar values. its very similar to why you care more for your family and friends than for random people on the streets.
is it hypocritical? yes. is it understandable and universally true? also yes.
|
On November 15 2015 16:19 Bleak wrote:
Just a month ago 100 people were killed in the capital of my country by the same goatfuckers. Result? Two pages worth of a thread. It is already over 50 pages here. Is it because this time white Western people died and 'brown' people dont deserve the same compassion and attention? Just saying. I am not trying to belittle what happened but it is what it is and it is really sad.
Oh and the day before 45 died in Beirut. Has anyone even heard about it?
In a way it is a double standard, though I argue it's not about a double standard of who's life is more important.
I believe it's a double standard that is based around acclimatization. For years there has been these kinds of attack in the Middle East. That doesn't by any means make them less tragic. However, that does make people expect them more than an attack in the West and therefor overlook or have a less dramatic reaction. It's become so normal to have that kind of violence in the Middle East that people forget about it when they shouldn't.
It's an out of sight, out of mind issue, especially when a lot of people (including the Middle East) don't think the West should be involved at all. A lot of people just ignore the new because they don't want to be involved in the first place.
In the end, the violence is caused by the same thing on both sides. The ones committing the violence indiscriminately attack anyone that looks like the people who attack them. A person is attacked by a white person, the victims then blame all white people. A person is attacked by brown person, they then blame all brown people. A person is attack by an Arabic, they blame all Arabic people. A person had a bad time at McDonalds, they fucking hate everything about McDonalds. The mass majority of the Human race can't think objectively. That is the problem.
|
On November 15 2015 10:36 darkness wrote:
It's funny how Facebook, Youtube, etc wear a French flag but no one wore one when that Russian plane was taken down. Not that I'm fan of Russia but double standards..
Charlie Hebdo openly mocked the victims of the Sinai plane crash and nobody in France said shit.
There was also a cartoon with parts of the plane falling down on a terrorist with the caption 'Russian bombing campaign intensifies'
edit:
Something tells me these scumbags won't make fun of the 129 people that died in Paris.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
