Akalabeth said:
I don't agree with it, but that's what freedom of speech is. Some people burn their nation's flags. These people are doin whatever.
Cool handle, Ultima fan I assume?
I'm a big crusader for free speech on these forums, and generally agree with you that free speech does not only apply when you agree with what is being said. I went a little too far with my last post in this thread because I'm not feeling well and a bit upset.
That said, I stand by the gist of it. I think this kind of demonstration, over an issue like this, at this time, with those actions, and those signs is more along the lines of attempts to incite violence than any kind of general protest.
What's more I think it kind of demonstrates why "war powers" are needed during a time of conflict, and we can't just operate under peacetime standards. Even as a big "free speech" crusader I have mentioned Martial Law as an exception, like during World War II (which with changing morality and standards, we see people dissing the things we did to win). Simply put this strikes me as being similar to if we hadn't gagged the Nazis and anti-war sentiments during "World War II". The Nazis were a huge, international movement, and DID have a large following in the US. If we had allowed it we probably would have seen plenty of pro-Hitler demonstrations (especially with the fact that we wouldn't have been using our own propaganda). This is to say nothing of those who would have rallied under the banner of continued isolationism even after being attacked.
These kinds of protests also become touchy due to historical reinventionism. Nobody wakes up in the morning deciding "gee I feel really evil today". Everybody thinks they are doing the right thing on some level (with rare exception). The losers of any war are going to think they have been the victims of injustice. Especially if they choose to re-invent the history of why the wars took place, and worse yet convince "peace at any price" elements in the victorious nations of the superiority of their perspective (or to get them to support it that way to avoid further conflict).
To a Muslim it was fully in their right to murder pilgrims going to The Holy Land (which started The Crusades) as well as other religion-based acts over the years that have caused the current problems. To nations that were powerful due to international drug cartels, they were just doing business, and reaping the benefits. Getting politicians addicted and using that to manipulate them, and swaying entire populations? "Hey it's just business, and the fact that we have these drugs and sell them so well entitles us to this". (and to a Muslim might be seen as what god intended). To them there might have been horrible injustices.
To our nations, we didn't like them killing our people especially seeing as we were supposed to share "The Holy Land", and we kind of wanted to not have our societies controlled by drug dealing cartels.
Arguements can be made both ways, like they always can, but in the end... well we know how things ended. The Crusades were not a victory but were sufficient to make a point that burned it's way into the collective Muslim psyche to this day, especially seeing as they were lost due to logistics more than anything. The fact that drugs are illegal in a good number of western nations, and the economies of a lot of the big drug producing nations are in a shambles also says something.
There is a problem however when we forget the validity of "our" own stance, or even begin to say that the other guys were right based on people wanting to alter the facts (to be politically correct, and/or hopefully avoid conflict). Morally judging how things went down at a differant time based on what things are like now is a bad idea. Right now in a position of power, peace, and safety (well relatively) it's easier to make arguements from an armchair than it was at the time.
The bottom line is that things like this shouldn't be happening, especially with a war on. In actuality I think surpressing free speech is a bad thing in peacetime, but this demonstrates why you can't keep peacetime standards during a time of war. Truthfully things like this probably do as much damage (both in rallying the opposition, and undermining "our" efforts int he conflict) as an actual use of force. It sort of demonstrates why at least in the US wartime powers should have been invoked (rather than making "The Patriot Act" which I understand the logic of, but have never been comfortable with), and I figure the UK has it's own equivilent.
This demonstration is a bit differant from a bunch of hippies/hipsters burning a few flags.
Especially when you consider by looking at some of those signs, that despite being citizens Muslims see themselves as being a seperate people. In the US when you have organizations that claim to represent "The Muslim World dealing with America" and the people involved are citizens, I think that is a problem. I'd imagine some of that is at the root of the issue in the UK as well.... and raises some uncomfortable issues about whether or not a mechanism to revoke citizenship should exist, given how these guys are even defining themselves. I mean when you have a subculture claiming a seperate identity from the nation the citizens belong to that's a problem, it never ends well, and turns into things like civil wars when they rally enough.