Terrorist attack on French satirical magazine

[alec]

It's also a very simplistic view of how religion tends to work. People have brains. They use them to engage with the message they're being told, and religious beliefs (like any other belief) tend to form over a person's entire lifetime -- incorporating beliefs throughout their life.

That's a very simplistic view of how religion tends to work, Sander. Eyes fixed on the present and eurocentric as always. Religion and any other ideology that encompasses most or every aspect of life can completely numb the brains and will do so if given a chance. As I've told you before, because it seemed so fitting in regard to most of your posts: it's not because people have brains that they'll use them. History is full of gruesome examples. You've read a couple of books in your life, you should know about these things.

North-Korea is a fine example of how people with brains aren't capable of using them to engage with the message they're being told. Communist regimes generally are. Nazi Germany. Saudi-Arabia. Iran. Yemen. Do I need to go on stating the obvious? Brains are powerless if someone shoves a gun in your face and tells you to get your act together. It doesn't even have to be a gun, does it? Peer pressure is sometimes all it takes.

Islam has more in common with these ideologies than it has in common with other religions. It is spoonfed to children at an age that they are completely unable to be critical and throughout a muslim's life the lie, because that's what it is, is only confirmed by other people. Imagine your parents telling you that Santa Claus is real and then never telling you it's just a story, something that's been made up to deliver a message, explain a moral. Imagine that people, your teachers, your friends, your family tell you to shut up when you tell them that scientists have found no evidence that Santa Claus ever existed. Imagine one of them ratting you out to the proper authorities because you have doubts about this whole Santa thing. Imagine getting stoned for questioning Santa's existence. Imagine losing your head because you want to stop believing in Santa. 'Cause that's islam for you. And all of them will tell you that their Santa is the best Santa because he is the last Santa and there can never be another Santa or, Santa forbid it, a Grinch ready to unveil the whole masquerade.

At its very core islam is smothering its followers, no matter how you look at it. And now it's starting to smother us. You call them fundamentalists, I call them muslims who are a tad impatient and can't wait to have a stab at us. It's a bit premature to win the batlle so soon, though, but it'll do for the moment. A religious offering to Allah from time to time. For all that islamophobic behaviour of ours. It'll further divide an already divided West. It'll shape our future and affect our lives.

The multicultural project is shaping up nicely.

Also: bravo for dragging Anders Breivik into this discussion! It is indeed another fine example of how muslim terrorists ... Oh wait, no, it's not. In fact, it has nothing to do with muslim terrorism at all! It's about a psycho with guns who forgot to take his medication. It's not even about freedom of speech. So why not drag in the Columbine shooting as well, shall we? Or not just my my obviously sarcastic opinion about the Anders Breivik massacre, but also my stance on Tagaziel internet-begging to raise money to pay for his dog's massages? Selective, oikophobic, eurocentric, confusing religion with race, confusing scepticism with fear ... why the list of atrocities you've committed against logic is as impressive as it can be. Good job.

 

[Atomkilla]

he's exagerating. It depends on the area. The Balkan is a messed up place. In Serbia muslims don't have it easy. No minority actually. The autorities had no issue to shoot at homosexuals in the past for example. At least from what I remember, but I dont know, I have not been to Serbia for 15 years. And I have no interest to ever visit this shithole again.

Things are different in Croatia and the Kosovo I guess at least in areas where the muslims might be the majority.

But at least if we talk about the European Union what you say is definitely true.

Exaggerating? Depends how you wrap your mind around it.
Indeed, in some areas (such as the ones I've mentioned) things are far from peachy, in other areas there is not that much intolerance, but I'm far from exaggerating. Most of the time it's offenses based on nationalistic/religious/ethnic/etc. basis, and news about such crimes and assaults rarely exit the borders of local news simply because nobody outside is interested in those - even people within the country are not that interested, since it is pretty much a common occurrence in the decades past, especially in Kosovo or in what is now considered borderline south of Serbia (I'm not intending to get into debate about status of Kosovo here, just mentioning).
Have things stabilized a bit in the past 10 years? There has been improvement, yes, but far from stability. Islamist radicalism, for example, exists in several areas, there was a pro-radical gathering this summer in the most Muslim-populated area of Serbia, which has caused a considerable backlash from Serbian nationalists (unfortunately, I cannot find a proper article in English). I do not support nationalists here, far from it, but such a move has definitely provoked an unnecessary string of tension, especially considering the global political "climate" with ISIS - provocation is something nobody wants at this point...but it happens. Not on everyday basis, but it does.
A recent incident on a football match between Albania and Serbia in Belgrade which included a Great Albania flag attached to a drone which was flown above the football field caused an international controversy which sparked a wave of anti-Muslim/Albanian assaults throughout Serbia (in the mind of a regular joe around here, Albanian=Muslim). Those who committed the assaults were and should be duly punished, but it was in response to a provocation which was, as it appears, directed by the people who are in the Albania's ruling positions.
A provocation like this, although based on nationalistic ideals, always carries a religious and ethnic subcontext which must not be forgotten...so there you go, more violence and offenses from both sides. Nobody needs that (rather, nobody should need that) but there it is.

That being said, Crni does have a point, Balkans is a very fucked up place. It's a minority vs majority conflict everywhere, and therefore, depending on the location, who is in majority and who is in minority, it's not easy discerning between who is to blame and who is the victim, but every "side" has it bad. I'm not pointing my finger here, saying that Muslims should take all the blame, far from that.
All I want to say is that people keep forgetting that relations between certain groups of people in the recent past (in various parts of the Europe, I'm not talking about Balkans only) were far from amicable, and that some old wounds can easily be opened. I hope that won't happen, but the overall global tightening of relations between religious communities thanks to ISIS and whatnot certainly doesn't help. We must not forget that many people remember the conflicts of the past and have their own opinions already formed, along with plenty of prejudices spread.



But I don't want to get into that topic anymore. I have little factual material at hand, and I'm too lazy to actually dig anything up. Consider the tl;dr to be that tension is present which sometimes erupts into a real conflict. Conflicts which are not on par with those in the past, but still present. The global tightening of relations does not help this.





...



On a slightly different note, here is an interesting article about what happened in France:

http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/sharpening-contradictions-satirists.html


(It might have been mentioned before, I was mostly skimming through posts.)

 

[Akratus]

 

[Ceratisa]

but also my stance on Tagaziel internet-begging to raise money to pay for his dog's massages? Selective, oikophobic, eurocentric, confusing religion with race, confusing scepticism with fear ... why the list of atrocities you've committed against logic is as impressive as it can be. Good job.

Wait what?

 

[Akratus]

It's an order thing.

 

[Crni Vuk]

It's an [strike]order[/strike] Alec thing.

kinda almost the same. Almost.

...

Well I can only use my own experience afterall and like I said I havn't been to the balkan in like 15 years or so.

But what I remember from my time in Serbia. Most people are reactionists and xenophobic. But no clue, maybe the moslems have outbred the Serbians in the last 15 years *shrugs*

 

[Sander]

@Atomkilla: Thanks for the explanation. And thanks for the link -- that was really interesting.

Also: bravo for dragging Anders Breivik into this discussion! It is indeed another fine example of how muslim terrorists ... Oh wait, no, it's not. In fact, it has nothing to do with muslim terrorism at all! It's about a psycho with guns who forgot to take his medication.

Yeah that attitude about sums up all that's wrong with your opinion on the matter. The fact that you can't even see how you frame two terrorist attacks in completely different terms depending on who the perpetrator is, well, that should surprise no one. But it's disturbing nonetheless.

 

[Ilosar]

http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/sharpening-contradictions-satirists.html


(It might have been mentioned before, I was mostly skimming through posts.)

That article is spot on. There's more going on here than evil muslims attacking good europeans because they hate their freedom or whatever other bury-my-head-in-self-righteous-sand excuse du jour is thrown around. It's a complex game of power and influence that is being played, and by targeting Charlie Hebdo, who has often caricatured Muslims (among others) they can easily claim that there was a rationale of answering blasphemy with violence, which is more likely to inspire sympathy with more extreme Muslims than, say, gunning down a school of kids.

 

[Ceratisa]

@Atomkilla: Thanks for the explanation. And thanks for the link -- that was really interesting.

Also: bravo for dragging Anders Breivik into this discussion! It is indeed another fine example of how muslim terrorists ... Oh wait, no, it's not. In fact, it has nothing to do with muslim terrorism at all! It's about a psycho with guns who forgot to take his medication.

Yeah that attitude about sums up all that's wrong with your opinion on the matter. The fact that you can't even see how you frame two terrorist attacks in completely different terms depending on who the perpetrator is, well, that should surprise no one. But it's disturbing nonetheless.

What's wrong with making a differentiation? Some attacks are far easier to understand (or prevent) despite the fact that any are disturbing.

can we please leave GamerFuck out of this? It has absolutely nothing to do with with this Islam thing. It is not Sanders fault that you can't spot the difference between unwarranted islamophobia and the criticism with GamerGate.

But the logic Sander's applies is completely different isn't it? GG is bad because some elements of it are radical, Islam isn't bad but because some elements of it are radical.

 

[Crni Vuk]

gotcha!

So when I drive my car into a crowd saying For Jesus! - I am a lunatic?

But when I detonate a bomb around my body saying Allahu Akbar - I am a terrorist?

 

[Ceratisa]

So when I drive my car into a crowd saying For Jesus! - I am lunatic?

But when I detonate a bomb around my body saying Allahu Akbar - I am a terrorist?

You are both things on both accounts. But one happens far more often, I will never deny radical Christians exist, but the number one killer of Muslims is other Muslims.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Not in Germany at least. Far more murders and violent acts are commited by right wing nut jobs than islamists and/or radical muslims. Yet it is for some reason the muslims that people fear ... for what ever reason.

But I can't speak for France.

To be really honest, my biggest fear is that right wing politicans and views will take eventually over and not just in Germany but also in the European Union. I have far more fear from those fuckers than the few moslems in Europe. if only for the simple reason that those Right Wing idiots have already established their own parties with quite some support in the population, at least in some areas, in Germany the east is full of neo Nazis and fascists. And it seems France has its fare share of radical right wing parties as well. And it seems they gain slowly but steadily also some influence into politics.

But yes! lets continue to worry about the Islam that has apparently no saying in our politics or law making.

 

[Akratus]

gotcha!

So when I drive my car into a crowd saying For Jesus! - I am a lunatic?

But when I detonate a bomb around my body saying Allahu Akbar - I am a terrorist?

Don't put that on us, put that on the american government/media's propagandization of the word "terrorist".

 

[Ceratisa]

I was talking worldwide terrorism.
As far as the usage of the word terrorism, the White House defined the Ft. Hood massacre as "workplace violence" didn't they? Despite him yelling his radical ideologies as he shot people.
People use the word terrorism when it fits their agenda, normal citizens, the media, and the government all do.

 

[Akratus]

Again, that's their problem. Not ours. I too have a problem with the often racist and liberal use of the word Terrorism.

 

[Ceratisa]

Not in Germany at least. Far more murders and violent acts are commited by right wing nut jobs than islamists and/or radical muslims. Yet it is for some reason the muslims that people fear ... for what ever reason.

But I can't speak for France.

To be really honest, my biggest fear is that right wing politicans and views will take eventually over and not just in Germany but also in the European Union. I have far more fear from those fuckers than the few moslems in Europe. if only for the simple reason that those Right Wing idiots have already established their own parties with quite some support in the population, at least in some areas, in Germany the east is full of neo Nazis and fascists. And it seems France has its fare share of radical right wing parties as well. And it seems they gain slowly but steadily also some influence into politics.

But yes! lets continue to worry about the Islam that has apparently no saying in our politics or law making.

Right wing parties often grow in response to how people feel about the left wing, Unless Germany is so far left wing, that the pendulum will swing all the way back right, it isn't really something to fear.
I'm not sure why you are calling Nazi's who centralized their government and granted it more power, "right wing." Are they the other way around in Germany?

 

[Sander]

This thread is not about GamerGate. If you want to discuss that, go to the Censorship thread.

What's wrong with making a differentiation? Some attacks are far easier to understand (or prevent) despite the fact that any are disturbing.

Breivik and Muslim terrorists both represent an ideology. In Breivik's case, the most extreme form of anti-Islamic, Christian, conservative, right-wing European ideology. In Muslim terrorists' case, the most extreme form of violent, fundamentalist Islam.

When we talk of Muslim terrorists many people, like alec, immediately connect it ideology and start blaming large groups for this phenomenon. But when alec (and many others) talk of Breivik, they talk about him being insane, or a psychopath, or his personal issues and don't connect it to the extreme right-wing ideology he represented -- even though fascist, anti-Islamic violence has certainly been on the rise over the past decade. I've seen politicians express sympathy for Breivik's views (but not his means) with nary a peep from anyone to protest it. When a Muslim expresses sympathy for a terrorist's views but not his means, it's suddenly proof that Islam is poisonous.

This double standard is just further evidence of the fact that we're moving away from treating Muslims as human beings, individuals just like everyone else. We judge that group of 1.6 billion people by the actions of a few extremists, and the actions of those extremists are frequently taken to imply something about the faith as a whole.

I'm not sure why you are calling Nazi's who centralized their government and granted it more power, "right wing." Are they the other way around in Germany?

Because right-wing/left-wing is not defined by the size or influence of the state. That's a specifically libertarian, rhetorical trick no one uses outside of libertarianism.

 

[Crni Vuk]

@Ceratisa, because the right wing has its own law offices in Germany dedicated to defend neo nazis in curt.

Because our Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution could not realize that from 2001 to 2011 the same trio of neo-nazis killed 9 people. They have been either incompetent or someone supported the group.

Because from 1990 more than 180 people have been killed by neo-nazis. But for some reason one Salafi stabbing a police officer is the downfall of the German culture.

Because right wing views and opinions slowly reach the middle class, and from my own experience this I am not against immigrants but (insert your racist comment here)! mentality has grown a lot in the last few years. For what ever reason.

Because some towns/areas in Germany are LITERALY controlled by Neo-Nazi groups. 20% of the Germans are hostile to foreigners, 40% of the east German population.

Sorry that I see a far bigger danger from the right wing in Germany and Europe than from those 2.4-2.5 % of Musilims in Germany of which probably not even 0.1% are fundamentalists or extremists.

 

[Ceratisa]

Really Sander? Cause historians use the left and ride sides of the political spectrum to give what they are recording context. Fascism is a unique issue which took many elements from the left side of the spectrum while situating itself in general more to the right. As far as social and government issues go, they favored more government control. But also contained extreme nationalistic tendencies which is more typical of a political system on the right.

because the right wing has its own law offices in Germany dedicating to defend neo nazis in curt.

Because our Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution could not realize that from 2001 to 2011 the same trio of neo-nazis killed 9 people. They have been either incompetent or someone supported the group.

Because from 1990 more than 180 people have been killed by neo-nazis. But for some reason one Salafi stabbing a police officer is the downfall of the German culture.

Because right wing views and opinions slowly reach the middle class, and from my own experience this I am not against immigrants but (insert your racist comment here)! mentality has grown a lot in the last few years. For what ever reason.

I heard on NPR that Germany was taking in over 200,000 immigrants from the Middle-East a year. I'm not saying it shouldn't, but isn't that probably the reason? Even with the rugged Germany economy, it can't really support that kind of immigration in any sustained fashion, can it?

 

[Sander]

Really Sander? Cause historians use the left and ride sides of the political spectrum to give what they are recording context. Fascism is a unique issue which took many elements from the left side of the spectrum while situating itself in general more to the right. As far as social and government issues go, they favored more government control. But also contained extreme nationalistic tendencies which is more typical of a political system on the right.

Historians don't use "left-wing/right-wing" like that, they tend to define exactly what they mean when writing research -- and they never define it by "size of government" as American libertarians like to do. Moreover, you are wrong, and if you try explaining this to actual historians (like me) they will laugh in your face. See, for instance, this bit on /r/badhistory -- yes those are largely historical scholars commenting.

It's a neat rhetorical trick meant to distance libertarianism from Nazism while implicating statists/liberals/Democrats/whatever, but there's no analytic truth to it.

Of course, a right-/left dichotomy is much too simplistic and carries with it so many assumptions that color the debate that it's largely useless. If we want to talk about Nazism is exactly, we don't need to talk about where on some imagined spectrum it is. We can just define it by its characteristics.

I heard on NPR that Germany was taking in over 200,000 immigrants from the Middle-East a year. I'm not saying it shouldn't but isn't that probably the reason? Even with the rugged Germany economy, it can't really support that kind of immigration in any sustained fashion, can it?

Actually, immigrants tend to stimulate the economy, not cost it money -- especially over their lifetimes. They tend to be younger, have already spent their early years abroad (so don't need to see their non-productive years as children subsidized) and they can (and often want to) start working early. This means they're paying taxes and being productive without the state having to have invested much in their getting to a point where they can do that -- every native-born German has to be subsidized for the first 18-25 years of his life.

The biggest drain on welfare states is very young, and very old people. Not the (potentially) productive prime-of-their-life folks that tend to migrate.