EPTTerror attack in the French city of Nice - Page 17
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Once again, as this is a sensitive topic and one that can cause a lot of unnecessary things to be said in the heat of the moment, be VERY careful about what you post. Think twice before actually stating something and please be considerate of anyone who may feel involved or affected. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10605 Posts
| ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On July 16 2016 04:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Well the current up-and-coming new leader the left has elected to represent them for one 'Nothing to do with Islam' right there for you If she doesn't represent the vast majority of the left as you insist maybe you should elect someone better to represent you than her 'Tolerant' when so many pewpolls show disproportionately large numbers of muslims being some of the most backwards people in the world on things like gay rights, women's rights, etc, even when they're polled in western countries It's a problem that people like her are ignoring and marginalizing, and then whenever the right wants to talk about it, they become 'closed-minded racists/bigots who are trying to say all muslims are evil'. It's not engaging with the opposition it's just mudslinging and ignoring the problem "Islam is a religion of peace" is a right-wing mock-talking point. On the other hand, noting that the vast majority of terrorist victims are Muslims, that the vast majority of the Muslims live peaceful lives, that the West routinely identifies something as terrorism only when the perpetrator is of some Middle-Eastern ethnicity, that Muslims immigrants in the West are secularizing at normal rates, that only a few decades ago many countries had homegrown Christian or political terrorist organizations, that many countries with a predominantly Muslim population have recently been invaded or bombed by Western countries etc. is something the left will frequently point out whenever wannabe crusaders want to complain about how Islam must be defeated by the Civilized West and how Islam is a Unique Threat to world peace due to its sinister yet nebulous theological tenets. Yes, there clearly has to be something wrong with the world to set off all these terrorist attacks and it seems important to discover what it is, but it's not so simple as saying "Islam, duh". | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10605 Posts
On July 16 2016 06:02 SK.Testie wrote: Draw a cartoon of mohammed and see how many turn up to "protest". In my town? None were seen during that whole ordeal. I don't like the islamic religion/value system. But blaming all muslims is just stupid beyond belief. | ||
|
Cricketer12
United States13960 Posts
On July 16 2016 06:02 SK.Testie wrote: Draw a cartoon of mohammed and see how many turn up to "protest". Let's keep this simple. Don't do it. We don't appreciate it. If someone comes to kill you for doing it, I will stand in between you, because he isn't justified in killing you. I'm being dead fucking serious when I say I will literally put my life on the line for you. I ask that you give me enough respect in turn to not do one specific thing that would be done to spite me and other muslims. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 16 2016 06:03 Grumbels wrote: Yes, there clearly has to be something wrong with the world to set off all these terrorist attacks and it seems important to discover what it is, but it's not so simple as saying "Islam, duh". It's also not so simple as saying "it has nothing to do with Islam". I couldn't even begin to try to untangle the mess through which an individual goes to end up doing something like this, but it certain has roots in political reasons, sure - but also in economic, social and cultural ones. And Islam is a component of their politics, Islam is a part of their economy, Islam is a part of how they socialize, and Islam is part of their culture. Either way the religion itself is not the problem but you can't deny that at the ground level it's what's being used and abused to justify horrible acts. I love Muslims, I recognize that most of the especially those who live in the West are people I can relate to. But FFS it's not all rainbows and unicorns guys. To reduce it to Islam is only slightly more ridiculous than to say Islam has absolutely nothing to do with it. Simplistic world views are rarely correct. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5294 Posts
On July 16 2016 06:10 Cricketer12 wrote: Let's keep this simple. Don't do it. We don't appreciate it. If someone comes to kill you for doing it, I will stand in between you, because he isn't justified in killing you. I'm being dead fucking serious when I say I will literally put my life on the line for you. I ask that you give me enough respect in turn to not do one specific thing that would be done to spite me and other muslims. So you want Testie to do something for you, and in return, you will do something for him that will never happen if he follows what you asked him to do for you. That doesn't sound fair. | ||
|
Cricketer12
United States13960 Posts
On July 16 2016 06:26 oBlade wrote: So you want Testie to do something for you, and in return, you will do something for him that will never happen if he follows what you asked him to do for you. That doesn't sound fair. Beyond trying to enrage muslims why would he want to draw a picture of Muhammad? | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
On July 16 2016 06:10 Cricketer12 wrote: Let's keep this simple. Don't do it. We don't appreciate it. If someone comes to kill you for doing it, I will stand in between you, because he isn't justified in killing you. I'm being dead fucking serious when I say I will literally put my life on the line for you. I ask that you give me enough respect in turn to not do one specific thing that would be done to spite me and other muslims. Everything else was lovely. But right there, right there was the problem. "Don't do it." The problem is "one specific thing" becomes "another specific thing" so very easily. It requires a special status granted to capitulate to the sensitivities of Muslims. It could very well be simple and respectful to not do it. But that's not the only problem, is it? I have a laundry list of problems to go through. There are many die hard Christians who see Jesus mocked in their face regularly. They are stern believers in Jesus. They are ridiculed, spit on, and it's become ok. Granted, they've pushed back with laws they aren't completely innocent. But I'd say it's not exactly the same. They tried to keep their special privileges and failed, and I don't know if they retain any at the moment other than 'privilege'. Which, to be fair is kind of earned considering they built the fucking country in the first place and conquered peoples to get it. Canada in its naiveté has chosen to capitulate. Because, after hearing the story of Mohammed many people disrespect the man. They see him as a pedophile, a warlord, a rapist, not exactly the most peaceful tolerant man. Maybe he had his reasons, maybe he was the man all should aspire to be. But in Italy there was a talk show on the issue and a woman said, "he married a 9 year old girl etc" and the Islamic man was rife with anger at her. The reason is because when you come into a free and open society, you must accept everything that comes with it. Including ridicule of what you hold sacred. I hold things sacred too, but people openly mock them. Muslims are not unique. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On July 16 2016 06:11 Djzapz wrote: It's also not so simple as saying "it has nothing to do with Islam". I couldn't even begin to try to untangle the mess through which an individual goes to end up doing something like this, but it certain has roots in political reasons, sure - but also in economic, social and cultural ones. And Islam is a component of their politics, Islam is a part of their economy, Islam is a part of how they socialize, and Islam is part of their culture. I love Muslims, I recognize that most of the especially those who live in the West are people I can relate to. But FFS it's not all rainbows and unicorns guys. To reduce it to Islam is only slightly more ridiculous than to say Islam has absolutely nothing to do with it. Simplistic world views are rarely correct. Honestly to even talk about "Islam" as if it's something tangible seems very simplistic. There are people who identify as Muslim, that's the main basis of discussion. The violence tells you that there are problems facing those communities, which we know: radicalization, alienation, poverty, discrimination. Why exactly some men want to live out this martyr fantasy by becoming a suicide terrorist I don't know, you don't know either. Of course I have my suspicions, but is it really worth it to talk about it when inevitably the conversation will take some racist path? All these right-wing people that shout the hardest to say: GUYS, WE HAve a problem with Islam and we have to admit this and we have to deal with this, -- they also don't know either, and I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they can discuss this civilly. Of course people are allowed to think, but when you're the subject of people's discussions it's never pleasant. Muslims don't like having to put up with constant conversations about whether they should be all put in concentration camps or not, whether they should be thrown out of the country or not, whether they are irredeemably evil or not. The media is complicit in racism by allowing right-wing extremists to set the tone of these discussions. | ||
|
Cricketer12
United States13960 Posts
On July 16 2016 06:31 SK.Testie wrote: Everything else was lovely. But right there, right there was the problem. "Don't do it." The problem is "one specific thing" becomes "another specific thing" so very easily. It requires a special status granted to capitulate to the sensitivities of Muslims. It could very well be simple and respectful to not do it. But that's not the only problem, is it? I have a laundry list of problems to go through. At the end of the day you as a person are going to do whatever you want. I as another human being would prefer that you don't do certain things. I understand the point you are trying to get at though, and I don't have a perfect answer for you. In regards to the talk show point you mentioned, what I see is a women who knows what the media and internet has told her, and a Muslim who given the opportunity to explain and give context etc instead just got angry. He could have put Islam in a more positive light and instead botched it up, I have no sympathy for that man. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 16 2016 06:35 Grumbels wrote: Honestly to even talk about "Islam" as if it's something tangible seems very simplistic. There are people who identify as Muslim, that's the main basis of discussion. The violence tells you that there are problems facing those communities, which we know: radicalization, alienation, poverty, discrimination. Why exactly some men want to live out this martyr fantasy by becoming a suicide terrorist I don't know, you don't know either. Of course I have my suspicions, but is it really worth it to talk about it when inevitably the conversation will take some racist path? All these right-wing people that shout the hardest to say: GUYS, WE HAve a problem with Islam and we have to admit this and we have to deal with this, -- they also don't know either, and I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they can discuss this civilly. Of course people are allowed to think, but when you're the subject of people's discussions it's never pleasant. Muslims don't like having to put up with constant conversations about whether they should be all put in concentration camps or not, whether they should be thrown out of the country or not, whether they are irredeemably evil or not. The media is complicit in racism by allowing right-wing extremists to set the tone of these discussions. Most of us aren't qualified to try to understand the problem but at the same time it's a scary thing and people wish they understood it better, and more importantly they wish the authorities of their country understood it. Americans see Clinton and Obama actively avoid the topic and it's reasonable that some would find it disconcerting. There's no clear definition of the problem, no clear paths of solution. They have experts on staff who undoubtedly have various working theories about what's driving these people, odds are they have some understanding about how the various factors morph whatever understanding of Islam certain people may have into terrorism. I probably fail at this all the time, I'm biased and I have preconceptions about shit like the next guy, but I'm a person who tries, to the best of my ability, to adopt a rational and reasoned view on things. And often it's hard to get to the nuances of stuff, especially in politics. One of my core beliefs is that in order to solve a complex problem or to start dealing with it, you must understand it. So when I see government people giving out simple explanations, or ignoring a potentially important component of the problem, I find it a bit worrisome. Maybe they've got all this intel in the background and they don't want to rile up the population by explaining complicated stuff and so they just give the short version that the average dumb citizen can understand but meh. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On July 16 2016 06:51 Djzapz wrote: Most of us aren't qualified to try to understand the problem but at the same time it's a scary thing and people wish they understood it better, and more importantly they wish the authorities of their country understood it. Americans see Clinton and Obama actively avoid the topic and it's reasonable that some would find it disconcerting. There's no clear definition of the problem, no clear paths of solution. They have experts on staff who undoubtedly have various working theories about what's driving these people, odds are they have some understanding about how the various factors morph whatever understanding of Islam certain people may have into terrorism. I probably fail at this all the time, I'm biased and I have preconceptions about shit like the next guy, but I'm a person who tries, to the best of my ability, to adopt a rational and reasoned view on things. And often it's hard to get to the nuances of stuff, especially in politics. One of my core beliefs is that in order to solve a complex problem or to start dealing with it, you must understand it. So when I see government people giving out simple explanations, or ignoring a potentially important component of the problem, I find it a bit worrisome. Maybe they've got all this intel in the background and they don't want to rile up the population by explaining complicated stuff and so they just give the short version that the average dumb citizen can understand but meh. I just think it's very important to constantly ask yourself this question: will what I'm saying help put Le Pen / Wilders / Trump into office? Any discussion about Islam should take place in such a way that it doesn't benefit these sort of people, because otherwise it's counterproductive for making the world a better place. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18819 Posts
On July 16 2016 06:11 Djzapz wrote: It's also not so simple as saying "it has nothing to do with Islam". I couldn't even begin to try to untangle the mess through which an individual goes to end up doing something like this, but it certain has roots in political reasons, sure - but also in economic, social and cultural ones. And Islam is a component of their politics, Islam is a part of their economy, Islam is a part of how they socialize, and Islam is part of their culture. I love Muslims, I recognize that most of the especially those who live in the West are people I can relate to. But FFS it's not all rainbows and unicorns guys. To reduce it to Islam is only slightly more ridiculous than to say Islam has absolutely nothing to do with it. Simplistic world views are rarely correct. Simplicity of the viewpoint notwithstanding, I think it makes pretty plain sense to look at things in a functional or outcome-driven sense, particularly when dealing with ideologically charged topics like what nations or people are supposed to do about a particular way of thinking or series of difficult to predict/prevent events. Like has already been said on these forums numerous times, the answer to "how do we lessen or eliminate the threat of terrorist attacks?" is not "focus on the enemy's Islamism and maybe throw in some hawkish pro-war rhetoric." There is a profound sort of discord at play when the self-professed enemy of a particular viewpoint decides that they will respond to an attack in precisely the manner their enemy wishes; that's more or less exactly what is happening when folks get all chest-puffy and self-righteous in the face of those who really don't think Islam is the target descriptor with the most useful accuracy. | ||
|
SiroKO
France721 Posts
What a tragedy. Let there be no bullshit slogan such as "Je suis Nice" this time. Nor lies about the "true nature of Islam". Tragedy after tragedy, we, the French people, are starting to toughen up. We are now getting more worried about our survival as a nation than about all the usual PC bullshits. This is a great sign of vitality emerging out of chaos. Commiseration today, tomorrow retaliation. | ||
|
Cricketer12
United States13960 Posts
On July 16 2016 07:13 SiroKO wrote: I was jogging there last saturday... What a tragedy. Let there be no bullshit slogan such as "Je suis Nice" this time. Nor lies about the "true nature of Islam". Tragedy after tragedy, we, the French people, are starting to toughen up. We are now getting more worried about our survival as a nation than about all the usual PC bullshits. This is a great sign of vitality emerging out of chaos. Commiseration today, tomorrow retaliation. How do you retaliate? It's easy to say that, but what do you do? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 16 2016 07:17 Cricketer12 wrote: How do you retaliate? It's easy to say that, but what do you do? Nothing. You talk a bunch of macho non-sense and then do nothing until the next terrible thing where you talk about bunch of macho non-sense. | ||
|
SiroKO
France721 Posts
On July 16 2016 07:17 Cricketer12 wrote: How do you retaliate? It's easy to say that, but what do you do? It's a state of mind to have. Be ready to persecute, incarcerate, or kill if needed, any individuals fulfilling enough criterias of Islamic radicalization. And accept the minority of innocent casualties. It's only when you truely feel threatened that you can accept injustices for a greater good. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 16 2016 07:04 Grumbels wrote: I just think it's very important to constantly ask yourself this question: will what I'm saying help put Le Pen / Wilders / Trump into office? Any discussion about Islam should take place in such a way that it doesn't benefit these sort of people, because otherwise it's counterproductive for making the world a better place. So we should dive head first into ignorance for political reasons? For all their faults, some conservatives are looking at Trump specifically because of the silver tongue. Trump supporters are in many cases full out crazy, but many are understandably distrustful of Clinton and Obama, and can you blame them entirely? Politically, I'm on the left on a vast majority of issues and I think it's cause for concern. There are people who, right now, may not vote for Hillary if she so much as mentioned Islam as a potential thing to look into as a factor behind terrorist attacks. There are also swing voters in the middle who, not entirely stupid, watch Trump doing Trump things while Clinton doesn't seem to address the problem. I'm not convinced that treating the electorate like they're idiots works for everyone. I think it works with the Republicans, but IMO it shows that Obama and Clinton are contemptuous toward their electorate as well, just like Trump is. On July 16 2016 07:10 farvacola wrote: Simplicity of the viewpoint notwithstanding, I think it makes pretty plain sense to look at things in a functional or outcome-driven sense, particularly when dealing with ideologically charged topics like what nations or people are supposed to do about a particular way of thinking or series of difficult to predict/prevent events. Like has already been said on these forums numerous times, the answer to "how do we lessen or eliminate the threat of terrorist attacks?" is not "focus on the enemy's Islamism and maybe throw in some hawkish pro-war rhetoric." There is a profound sort of discord at play when the self-professed enemy of a particular viewpoint decides that they will respond to an attack in precisely the manner their enemy wishes; that's more or less exactly what is happening when folks get all chest-puffy and self-righteous in the face of those who really don't think Islam is the target descriptor with the most useful accuracy. Islam definitely isn't the target descriptor with the most useful accuracy, far from it. It's weird because I'm drawing similarities between this argument and my position on firearms... Without getting into the details, I happen to think that some gun regulation would be a good thing, even though I believe the main drives behind gun crime in the US are socioeconomical in nature, and it's related to mental health and this other shit. Gun ownership is part of the puzzle. I'd say not the most important one, but you can't understand gun crime in the US without at least looking at the problem of gun ownership. If we look at things in a functional or outcome-driven sense, IMO, we only get part of the picture, and it leads to faulty solutions. But what do I know, maybe it's some sort of strategy and maybe it's sound. | ||
|
Cricketer12
United States13960 Posts
On July 16 2016 07:29 SiroKO wrote: It's a state of mind to have. Be ready to persecute, incarcerate, or kill if needed, any individuals fulfilling enough criterias of Islamic radicalization. And accept the minority of innocent casualties. It's only when you truely feel threatened that you can accept injustices for a greater good. You are really confidently suggesting torture "and accept innocent casualties". Maybe I have too much faith in humanity but that seems messed up. | ||
| ||
