Maybe ? I don't know Swedens media.
Here the French murder does not draw headlines anymore. Google search finds articles from the 17. and 18. and not even that many.
A Beheading In France
- Thread starter Specter Von Baren
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Here the French murder does not draw headlines anymore. Google search finds articles from the 17. and 18. and not even that many.
Yeah, MUSLIMS, not muslim TERRORISTS. Fucking hell. Learn some basic category identification.
Yeah smarty pants, the religion has absolutely nothing to do with it. Please continue to live in your dream world.
Well I'm not going to start treating my muslim work colleagues with massive hostility because of this cock-weasel. Like what the fuck is that going to achieve?
My reply also wasn't in reaction to that. It was in reaction to the complete denial that islam has nothing to do with islamic terrorism when ofcourse this is evidently not the case. There are just irreconcilable differences between islamic beliefs and western values. Terrorists justify their actions based on those beliefs but even with less extremes the rejection of western values is pretty much shared by all muslims. These ideas don't fall out of thin air. That doesn't make individual muslims bad people but the more muslims there are the more these problems become evident. This is also the reason why even with the recent beheading of the French teacher there are hardly, if any, condolences from either the French muslim community or foreign heads of islamic states. Again, because that justification isn't derived from thin air. It is the mere essence of those irreconcilable differences. Most muslims might not commit the crime, they won't openly condemn it either. That ofcourse doesn't make every muslim a terrorist but by the same token it is impossible to claim the religion has nothing to do with it. But ofcourse this isn't the fault of any one individual. So it would make no sense to blame a random muslim.
I think the Islamic broader community in France is probably not bothering offering sympathy because they know it will just look like arse covering rather than genuine condolences. I mean you got the outpourings of grief earlier in the decade but eventually you just stop bothering I guess. People are gonna throw the words back in your face anyway so just keep your head down and go about your day. Joe Average muslim is no more capable of controlling the actions of other people than I am. The religion is highly militant - like you'd expect of a faith that once ruled vast empires and hasn't changed in two thousand years - but people are ultimately responsible for their own actions.
I mean, I'd like for the moderate sections of the community to figure out a way to control or curtail these dickheads before the French dust of their own beheading playbook and begin repaying in kind. But short of mind control or the same mass internment schemes from the previous world war, I'm not sure what I expect them to do.
OK. Is it also unbelievable that people would make excuses for Christians, because the Lord's Resistance Assholes exist? Or make excuses for Buddhists, because of the actions of the extremists in Myanmar?
One person does not somehow share collective responsibility or deserve suspicion because some unrelated moron who happens to share their religion (along with several billion others) did something. That's an utterly irrational, unsustainable standard to apply-- not to mention a standard which would by extension condemn me, you, and almost every other individual on the planet.
It doesn't even make a shred of sense.
Why? What would be so hard for representatives of public muslim organizations/mosques or foreign heads of state to declare that they condemn beheading someone over a cartoon? Or to openly distance themselves from these acts of terrorism? The fact that they don't only proves that, again, islamic beliefs are irreconcilable with western values.
No, it only makes you think it proves that. In my experience silence is an indication of apathy. Most of the might feel for the victim - who is conspicuously unnamed in the article - and their family but are aware that any overtures will be rebuffed and that the words are ultimately empty because there's nothing they can do about it.
1. They do, and nobody pays attention.
2. I haven't seen any Christian church leaders condemning the LRA recently. Christian values are irreconcilable with Western values.
Why must islamic terrorism always be compared to some fringe group or phenomena? Like the wave of islamic terrorism that France suffered in the last five years is even remotely comparable to some Christian organization. You are just being disingenuous here. Also by and large not this beheading or any preceding terrorist attack have been openly condemned by the muslim community.
They know the gesture is appreciated especially politically to ease tensions but by and large the muslim community won't show the courtesy. This wouldn't be the case if it weren't for such a fundamental clash between islamic beliefs and western values.
Because the terrorists are a fringe group within the community. They have an outsized impact in comparison to the relative size of their group.
The comparison is valid. Even if the relative proportions within the groups weren't comparable, that argument is a non-starter anyway: why is that relevant? This isn't a numbers game. Hundreds of millions of people cannot reasonably be characterised by the actions of a small minority who happen to share a demographic with them, because that's patently prejudicial nonsense.
This is just balls, as a cursory search will show.
Because, relatively speaking, it is a fringe group or phenomena.
There's a really fundamental misunderstanding here of what Islam and Islamism actually are.
When I was a kid, noone knew or cared about Islamic terrorism. The mujahideen in Afghanistan were those cool guys who helped Rambo fight the Soviets in Rambo III (which was itself propaganda covering up the fact that western intelligence agencies armed the mujahideen in Afghanistan, just like they armed Saddam Hussain). If you had to name a terrorist organisation, you'd probably name the IRA, but noone knew what the hell an Al Qaeda was.
This supposedly timeless and inherent relationship between Islam and terrorist violence is less than two decades old (although the ideological roots go back to around the late 19th century).
Islam is a legalistic religion, like Judaism. The traditional sources of authority in Islam are legal scholars, theologians and philosophers (who collectively form the Ulema). The theoretical head of the Islamic religion is the Caliph, but there are only four Caliphs in history whose authority is recognized by (nearly) all Muslims. For the vast majority of Islamic history the authority of the caliphate has been nominal, often with multiple claimants. For this reason, there is no single interpretation of Islam that is deemed universally valid, and for this reason "fundamentalism" is an alien concept to traditional Islam. That's why the Ulema are so important, because the act of interpreting and forming legal judgements based on Islamic tradition is a complex task requiring expertise. Ijtihad, the excercise of individual reason to interpret religious texts, is an important part of Islamic tradition.
All of the Sunni terrorist organizations in the world today are wahhabists. Wahhabism is a general term for an extremely puritanical reformist Islam. Wahhabism arose independently in many countries, largely inspired by contact with the West and in particular with reformed Christianity). Wahhabists view the Islamic tradition as corrupted by superstition and spiritual weakness, and seek to return to what they see as an original "pure" Islam expressed through the Quran (and to a much lesser extent the hadith). To this end, they reject most sources of traditional Islamic authority unless it aligns with their fundamentalist reading of these sources. They believe that the adoption of this purified Islam will lead to a spiritual rejuvenation of Islamic society, possibly including the restoration of the Caliphate, the end of Western dominance over the Islamic world, and the destruction of schismatic traditions.
We tend to think of fundamentalism as ancient and reactionary, but in reality fundamentalism (regardless of religious tradition) is a highly rationalized form of religion that only appears in the modern world. Today, most religious traditions have some form of fundamentalism, but those fundamentalist traditions only came about quite recently.
The fact that there are no truly secular democracies in the Islamic world is not due to the influence of Islamism, it's primarily due to the Western political hegemony over the middle east. Western intelligence agencies have largely supported reliable autocratic governments rather than unpredictable democratic governments, because autocratic governments can be trusted to act in Western interests. Secular nationalist dictators like Saddam Hussein were, at one point, seen as reliable Western allies and supported and armed by Western governments. Many middle eastern governments also have a problem with rentierism, which is when a large proportion of the state's revenue is derived from foreign companies and interests (usually the fossil fuel industry and Western governments) rather than from taxation of its own citizens. This means the state is essentially not required to be accountable to its citizens, which tends to result in autocracy.
There is no great appetite for liberalism in the Islamic world, because it's incredibly naïve for anyone in the Islamic world to believe that a liberal government will actually protect their interests over those of its Western backers. Islamism, on the other hand, has a proven track record of standing up for the interests of Muslims over those of Western governments. The primary driver of the current surge in global Islamism isn't the inherent violence of Islam, it's the geopolitical situation, and in particular the ongoing perception (which is largely accurate) of Western interference in the Islamic world.
The fuel you put in your car has to come from somewhere.
And?
No, I've explained that violence has reasons, and the reasons that drive one person to violence are much the same as another. However, this does not necessarily relate to scale, because different communities have different circumstances, thus the individuals within them different exposure to things that induce violence.
You need to keep a better track of the arguments already stated. I've covered this already.
I wouldn't go that far. You can't (or shouldn't) brush an entire group of people for the actions of a minority. I wouldn't call every Islamic country a hellhole either - certainly I'v been to Qatar, and while it's got a shady human rights record, it certainly isn't a "hellhole."
Um, Islam isn't 2000 years old.
(Yes, nitpicking.)
You might have to ask the people in Congo and Myanmar themselves.
I do know that "apologizing on behalf of the group" isn't a concept that's limited to Islam - I've seen similar strains of thought in US-based articles in regards to Evangelicals' support for Trump. But I actually agree that apologizing on behalf of the group isn't something that's technically required, but it's a paradigm that exists, and not just in religion.
There's been some condemnation. The heads of state though are busy kowtowing to China. It's why there's not been a peep from Turkey over the Ughyrs, but in response to Macron, have banned French imports.
Okay, I get that, but:
-There's an argument to be made that Western values are an outgrowth of Christian values. I don't know if I fully agree, but Christianity and Islam aren't equivalent in this regard.
-The scale of Christian and Islamic terrorism isn't equivalent. Again, if we look at all terrorist attacks in the world, the figure is something like over 90% being Islamic. So while I agree that there shouldn't be a need to apologize on behalf of others, Christianity and Islam aren't equivalent in the world right now in regards to the levels of violence that come from them.
That isn't an indefensible claim, but the Ottoman Empire ruled the Middle east for centuries. What democratic tradition did it cultivate?
Also, the situation in the Middle East right now isn't a question of "hegemony." I mean, it's played a role, certainly (see Iraq), but Iran and Saudi Arabia have been waging a cold war for ages. And part of it has to do with the religious divide (one's Sunni, one's Shia - I forget which is which).
Wait, are we talking about liberalism or neo-liberalism? Because one's about ideology, one's about economics, and I don't think the former can really be said to have "backers."
If we broadly agree that liberalism (the ideology) is based on individual rights, equality before the law regardless of status, freedom of religion, etc., then it's easy to see why there isn't an apetite for it in the Islamic world. And this isn't really just an Islamic thing since liberalism's come under fire from all directions, including the places it originated from. But at the end of the day, liberal government and faith-based government can't really work together.
France urges Arab nations to prevent boycotts over Macron's cartoons defence
President Macron's comments about "Islamist separatism" have angered some in the Muslim world.
www.bbc.com
Boycott's spreading.
I can argue that there was a democratic tradition in Europe (Poland, Hungary, Netherlands, German city-states and bishoprics) during that time up to the Napoleonic era. Poland had a larger voting franchise than the UK in the 18th and 17th century, Hungary was in a similar situation as the UK. Turks had no voting apparatus whatsoever. This is just a sidenote, though.
The Turks hadn't directly governed most of the territory they controlled, it was parceled out to Turkish nobles. Therefore local elites rarely participated in the governance of their own provinces. Excluding Egypt which became nominally independent in the early 1800s, Arabs did not govern themselves under the Turks. There had been numerous local revolts against Turkish rule due to it, mt. lebanon is a prime example. There was no tradition among the locals for self-governance, and therefore no accumulated experience or set institutions. That is also why they required an outsider to unite them (UK arab revolt) and why they couldn't mount a united offensive against the europeans (divide and conquer).
The shah of Iran was forced to abdicate to his son because he was too "autonomous" for the british.
The middle east was not the beacon of civilization until the 19th century. It was a backwater region of the Turkish empire which contributed little in terms of taxes and troops compared to egypt and the balkans.