Terrorist attack on French satirical magazine

[Ilosar]

Ironically enough, the guys who shot up Charlie Hebdo weren't immigrants, but born and bred Frenchmen.

They were born to immigrants, and from what I've heard, they did not really consider themselves Frenchmen.

And where did you see that? They were definitely religious wackos, but in none of the footage I saw of them talking did they reject their French nationality. Sure there's the drivel about how the French government has failed them and blah de blah, but that's not the same thing.

And that's not really the point anyway. The point is, it's more complicated than evil immigrants hating us because it's what they do. Hell, apparently a good portion of the combatants of ISIS are foreigners, not just from local countries but other Muslim states and even some Westerners (the not-born-from-evil-immigrants kind) as well. That if nothing else should make one realize that immigration isn't a real problem here, it's the spread of a specific ideology. And ideas themselves aren't fought with guns and repression.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Just recently a German Journalist returned from ISIS-controlled territory after he had some interview with a German who joined ISIS.

 

[Sander]

Free practice of religion does not mean free pass.

No one's giving anyone a "free pass." Just pointing out that a lot of these "critiques" are actually little more than veiled bigotry.

And that's not really the point anyway. The point is, it's more complicated than evil immigrants hating us because it's what they do. Hell, apparently a good portion of the combatants of ISIS are foreigners, not just from local countries but other Muslim states and even some Westerners (the not-born-from-evil-immigrants kind) as well. That if nothing else should make one realize that immigration isn't a real problem here, it's the spread of a specific ideology. And ideas themselves aren't fought with guns and repression.

And I wouldn't even say that the spread of a specific ideology is really the problem here, because a lot of this violence is a reaction to structural issues. That is: I don't think removing this ideology (which you can't do anyway) is going to actually stop any of this. If you actually listen to what a lot of these terrorists are saying, it's not about their hatred for 'Western culture' or whatever other construct. They talk about the violence inflicted on Muslims both in and outside of Europe. They talk about discrimination, about 'Western' military action in the Middle East, about the influence of capitalism in what they perceive as their homelands etc. This is not a case of people attacking European targets over culture, but mostly over discrimination and imperialist actions.

It's also worth noting that the "it's about immigrants" framing externalizes all of these problems: there's nothing wrong with what we are doing, it's all their fault. That frame implies we don't have to do anything about a society that systematically discriminates against Muslims and various 'immigrant' groups (read: people of African and Middle-Eastern descent). No, the solution is more discrimination, obviously.

 

[SnapSlav]

If you actually listen to what a lot of these terrorists are saying, it's not about their hatred for 'Western culture' or whatever other construct.

'Cept those times when these groups LITERALLY highlight Western [culture] in their very names, cause then they're kinda talking about hatred of Western culture.

There's a reason alec repeatedly called you oikophobic; you say these critiques are little more than veiled bigotry, well no more so than yours, only your bigotry is a fear of your own culture. He may have repeated it way too many times, but at least, unlike some, he wasn't bullshitting.

 

[Sander]

'Cept those times when these groups LITERALLY highlight Western [culture] in their very names, cause then they're kinda talking about hatred of Western culture.

Ah, you're right, I worded that poorly. I did not mean to say that those terrorists weren't motivated by a rejection of Western culture, but rather that they weren't motivated by a desire to destroy Western culture wholesale. And that specifically in the context of "immigrants" into Europe (read: people of Middle-Eastern or African descent) who "despise Europe," as Nas92 put it.

Boko Haram's attacking "Western education" isn't that different from ISIS' trying to establish an extremist "caliphate," in that both are aimed at creating a nation that rejects Western values. But there's a difference between trying to (violently) create a nation removed from Europe, and waging a war to destroy European culture as a whole. The fact that ISIS and Boko Haram exist is not an attack on Europe, it's a rejection of Western culture in those areas. But a lot of the discourse surrounding this topic pretends that ISIS and al-Qaeda and similar groups are existential threats to Europe or Western culture, while they are by-and-large not actually targeting Western culture as a whole, but fighting for local goals.

Not that I condone those fights, because the ideologies espoused by ISIS, al-Qaeda and Boko Haram are pretty horrendous, but there's a pretty huge difference between fighting a local war for independence, and waging large-scale war on a world-wide culture.

There's a reason alec repeatedly called you oikophobic; you say these critiques are little more than veiled bigotry, well no more so than yours, only your bigotry is a fear of your own culture. He may have repeated it way too many times, but at least, unlike some, he wasn't bullshitting.

You and alec confuse a critical but nuanced viewing of every culture with a fear for or hatred of my own. My refusal to engage in alec's and your black-and-white view of culture has nothing to do with any fear of my own culture, and everything to do with an understanding of shared humanity.

My rejection of Islamophobic critiques comes from my understanding that they are incorrect in the same way that antisemitic critiques of Judaism are incorrect: they are based in racism, a fear or hatred of "the other," a (false) construction of an inherent cultural identity that excludes rather than includes that other group, and a failure to realize that cultures interact, and grow, and evolve and are not at war with each other.

I know why alec repeatedly called me oikophobic. I know why you see me that way. It's because we view the world in a fundamentally different way.

 

[SnapSlav]

You and alec... My refusal to engage in alec's and your black-and-white view of culture... I know why alec repeatedly called me oikophobic. I know why you see me that way. It's because we view the world in a fundamentally different way.

Guilty by association, huh? Who's not thinking critically, now? I make a mention of someone else's accusations, and that automatically means I'm saying the exact same thing? SOMEHOW, through some arbitrary designation you never once expressed nor validated, I automatically possess a simplistic and easily dismissible "black-and-white" perspective?

Yes, you and I do fundamentally view the world in different ways. I view it rationally.

 

[Sander]

No, not guilt by association. Guilt by your agreeing with alec, which you did in your last post. And guilt by your long history of making black-and-white statements, including in this very thread.

Your indignation whenever someone challenges you is fucking hilarious, though. Please keep it up.

 

[UniversalWolf]

Self-congratualatory one-upsmanship is the opiate of the academic leftist.

 

[SnapSlav]

Your indignation whenever someone challenges you is fucking hilarious, though. Please keep it up.

And it's cute that you think you challenge me.

My earlier points about your chronic lying still stands, by the way. Until the day comes where you can be honest and stop trying to spin to get what you want, you'll never challenge me. Like saying that my statements are black-and-white shall never be true no matter how much you keep repeating them. Because reality does not reflect stubbornness. It maintains itself. Saying I've exhibited Islamaphobia in this thread will never be true just because you insist so, when I very painstakingly expressed that matters are far more complex than "it's all down to them being Muslims".

Basically, until you can see a spade for a spade, you'll never put up a challenge for me to be "indignant" about. =)

Also there's that whole thing where I get REALLY excited whenever I'm genuinely challenged that makes your whole statement kinda impossible. XD
There's nothing more thrilling than being able to learn. Someone such as you simply... offers no opportunities.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Death threats from Nazis on Journalists in Germany.

It seems that certain journalists and opposers of the extreme right wing received obituaries by Neonazis. For the last months Neonazis released in the internet threats and obituaries of journalists with their full names in Dresden.

Let us continue to bark at the Islam and how it is attacking our press, freedom and rights.

 

[Sander]

Yep, and after the attacks on Charlie Hebdo, France arrested 54 people for "condoning terrorism" and "making threats to carry out terrorist acts." But free speech is sacrosanct, right?

Meanwhile, Barack Obama mentions that Islam doesn't cause terrorism any more than Christianity caused slavery, and the whole Republican party throws a fit. Ta-Nehisi Coates, as usual, does the thing.

Now, Christianity did not "cause" slavery, anymore than Christianity "caused" the Civil Rights movement. The interest in power is almost always accompanied by the need to sanctify that power. That is what the Muslims terrorists in ISIS are seeking to do today, and that is what Christian enslavers and Christian terrorists did for the lion's share of American history.​

 

[valcik]

The interest in power is almost always accompanied by the need to sanctify that power. That is what the Muslims terrorists in ISIS are seeking to do today, and that is what Christian enslavers and Christian terrorists did for the lion's share of American history.

He's completely right. Anyway, I'd prefer christian terrorist any time, because those guys have had some style and fun! Islamic terrorists are such a bunch of tight-arsed brutes in comparison with this:

Am I politically correct enough, guys? Sorry if not, that's common Slovakian flaw, you know.

 

[Ceratisa]

Yep, and after the attacks on Charlie Hebdo, France arrested 54 people for "condoning terrorism" and "making threats to carry out terrorist acts." But free speech is sacrosanct, right?

Meanwhile, Barack Obama mentions that Islam doesn't cause terrorism any more than Christianity caused slavery, and the whole Republican party throws a fit. Ta-Nehisi Coates, as usual, does the thing.

Now, Christianity did not "cause" slavery, anymore than Christianity "caused" the Civil Rights movement. The interest in power is almost always accompanied by the need to sanctify that power. That is what the Muslims terrorists in ISIS are seeking to do today, and that is what Christian enslavers and Christian terrorists did for the lion's share of American history.​

I'm not sure how, but you have an incredible talent to always bring history in which literally no one is alive today to share the experience of, with today's Islamic terrorism.
Or more accurately you bring U.S. slavery into almost any topic that goes on long enough. I think you have a serious white guilt issue Sander. Luckily I'm not white so I shouldn't be plagued by actions that no one remotely related to me carried out upon people who I never knew.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Actually it was a quote from a spech from Obama considering the Islam and its relation with Christianity. I think this is rather a coinsidence than really Sanders evil plan of "Slavery in every topic", he hasn't written the article afterall. The article also mentions briefly the crussades for example which had their source in christianity.

I don't always agree with Sander, but maybe you should rather talk about the points instead of his habbits.

 

[Sander]

I'm not sure how, but you have an incredible talent to always bring history in which literally no one is alive today to share the experience of, with today's Islamic terrorism.
Or more accurately you bring U.S. slavery into almost any topic that goes on long enough. I think you have a serious white guilt issue Sander. Luckily I'm not white so I shouldn't be plagued by actions that no one remotely related to me carried out upon people who I never knew.

What Crni said. But also, this has nothing to do with "white guilt" and everything to do with the understanding that history affects the present in many ways, and can be used to illuminate the present as well.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Well I would not completely rule out the possibility though of you hard-pressing Obama to mention slavey in his spech as part of your evil ploy.

 

[SnapSlav]

Doesn't sound like Obama said that. For one thing, he's very politically (read: "bullshittingly") adopted the term "ISIL" for ISIS, because it's "more politically correct", so a quote supposedly coming from him yet using the common name sounds fraudulent, at best.

Moral of the story: know your bullshitters.

 

[Sander]

Correct, the bit I quoted above was from a Ta-Nehisi Coates reaction to the conservative reaction to a Barack Obama speech that...talked about Christianity and slavery.

Here's what Obama said:

Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.​

Full transcript is here.

Not sure why ISIL is more politically correct than ISIS, though. It's just a translation thing.

 

[Ilosar]

Not to mention that, if people think ISIS (or ISIL or whatever) is bad bad bad and unique to Islam, get a load of this .

Chinese fanatic thinks he is the little brother of Jesus. You can't make up shit like that. Then he goes on to form a theocratic state encompassing millions in southern China. On top of enacting rather... drastic social policies (admitedly not much worse than staunch Confucianism but still) and setting up a very corrupt regime, he went on to wage war against the ruling dynasty, as well as the truckload of religious and ethnic minorities in the area, and in the end the West got so fed up they send aid to fight the regime. Sounds familiar so far?

Result? After years and years of war and partisans fighting, the Heavenly Kingdom is crushed utterly, the hilariously insane fanatic dies of food poisoning due to a shortage, and about 20 million people die to battles, famine, diseases, displacement, etc. One of the deadliest conflicts in human history, and arguably the religion-influenced war with the highest death toll ever. It's almost 30 times deadlier than the American Civil War, for instance.

But sure, let's drone on and on about how Islam is so the worst religion ever and Christianty is obviously awesome and peaceful and stuff. The truth is, extremism of any kind is dangerous when it is used to justify violence. Religious, political, ethnic, hell even economic (see Mexico) extremism is used every day to justify the worst of atrocities. Thinking one is obviously worse than the other because reasons, is the epitome of burying one's head in the sand.

 

[Ceratisa]

ISIL is more accurate than ISIS which is a misleading direct translation because of the word Syria (But here Syria refers to the greater Syrian region) , but ISIL is more accurate because it refers to Levant rather than Syria, which is the greater region that their organization strives for control of. Lately though they call themselves simply the "Islamic State" but I feel this does a grave injustice to Islam itself to refer to them as such. The problem with the term ISIL is most people don't know what area of the globe "Levant" is referring to. People would have better luck identifying where Rhodesia or Sikkim used to be.


Simply put ISIL is more accurate but confusing.