Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Indonesia because....?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...sulate-closed_n_1896591.html?utm_hp_ref=world
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...sulate-closed_n_1896591.html?utm_hp_ref=world
French magazine publishes controversial cartoons of Prophet Muhammad - many killed in revenge attack
- Thread starter weltweit
- Start date
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Egypt, Lebanon, Sudan, Tunisia, Afghanistan, India......because?
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Your point is? Make it or fuck off.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I think he's made it.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
It's also a reference to a recent French film
dylans
overlord of all acorns
People in the US have the right to stand outside funerals celebrating the death of people's loved ones. That doesn't stop us having utter contempt for those who exercise that right.If one of the mourners walked out of that funeral and gave one of those protesters a bloody nose, would we dismiss his reaction as "unreasonable"" or over sensitive?" No. Even if we reluctantly accept the right of the funeral picketers to freedom of expression, we can still understand why their actions are seen as provocative and why one of them got a bloody nose.
The example of Rushdie is a straw man because Rushdie didn't set out to deliberately provoke and insult people or to incite a riot. That wasn't the purpose of his writing his book. The fact that people decided to take offence is therefore not his responsibility. This is not the same. The difference is the difference between art and propaganda. The sole purpose of the idiots who made this movie and who published the cartoons in this mag was to incite hatred against Muslims. Not only is the comparison between Rushdie and this movie incorrect, I think it is actually insulting to Rushdie. The real comparison should not be between "the innocence of Muslims" and Rushdie, it should be between "innocence and "the triumph of the will" (Except "Triumph" was better made.)
As far as Charlie Hebdo is concerned, it is a bit rich for that mag to claim they stand for secular values and freedom of expression considering that magazine campaigned for and supported the French ban on the Niqab. A direct denial of the freedom of expression of France's Muslim community. Freedom of expression for everyone except Muslims it seems
I am not however suggesting people be prevented from making such movies or publishing such cartoons. I am not calling for censorship or the denial of free speech. However, Just because we have the right to behave like twats doesn't mean we should or that those who do use their free speech to provoke and insult shouldn't bear some moral responsibility for the consequences.
There is the term "add insult to injury" and this is a prime example. This comes on top of decades of injury, my point is simply that we will never understand the reaction of this part of the world without understanding the suffering that the West, particularly the USA, has subjected these people to. Millions, literally millions of people have been killed by western policy in the region. Millions live under brutal dictatorships that enjoy the full support of the West. Entire countries and societies have been destroyed by sanctions, war, regime change invasion and interference. The West stands by in silent complicity while blatant crimes such as the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, the crushing of the Bahrain democracy movement, sanctions and threats of war against Iran, invasion of Iraq, occupation of Afghanistan etc continue.
And then we have the gall to scratch our heads and say we are puzzled by reactions such as this and to call them unreasonable and overly sensitive when they react with violence when, on top of decades of war and interference, the things they hold as sacred are ridiculed and insulted?
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Maybe the kid has a persecution complex because he is being persecuted?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
If that happened, one of the numerous cops on the scene would arrest the assailant for assault. The reason being that people have the right to express unpopular or unpleasant opinions; but others who disagree with them do not have the right to commit violence upon the speaker, as a consequence of that disagreement.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
When one delves into the history of the area, it quickly becomes apparent that the chief bad actor in that area for the longest time, to the greatest detriment, was the British Empire.
Shippou-Sensei
4:1:2.5
it is if it's done right.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I don't see how it possibly can be a straw man, when the bounty put on Rushdie's head, is in essence the template for this sort of intemperance that has followed.
The good news about the Rushdie case is that he is not dead, the book was not suppressed, and is now in print in 48 countries.
The forces of repression don't win all the time, every time.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Yes he would and arguably quite rightly but popular sympathy would be with him. We would understand why he reacted as he did. Few would have much sympathy for the guy with the broken nose
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
There's no doubt that the opinions of the Hillsboro Church are abhorrent, and very unpopular.
But most of us recognize that to beat them up or string them up is to fall under the spell of the very same violent rhetoric that the Hillsboro people spout themselves.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
I think you mean Westboro
But perhaps you are right. Perhaps the grieving parent should be bigger than that but the point is we would understand why he acted like he did. We wouldn't simply dismiss his anger as childish over-sensitivity. This is all I am saying here. That we should understand why the people in this region are acting as they are over this. Not least because the alternative is to fall into a kind of orientalist "they hate us for our freedoms" narrative that explains nothing.
I am not calling for censorship or suggesting that this violent reaction to this movie is appropriate. I am saying that this movie is the symbolic issue around which a much wider anger is being mobilised and manipulated and we should recognise that the causes for this anger are real. I would prefer it if this wasn't spun around an Islamist narrative. I would prefer it if there were riots and demonstrations explicitly against US foreign policy in the region. I would prefer it if embassies were being attacked in protest at US support for Israel or the war drive against Iran or drone strikes in Yemen or at the occupation of Afghanistan or at the US support for the Bahrain's crushing of the democracy movement etc but because these issues are not explicitly expressed, it doesn't mean they are not a part of the collective anger behind all this.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
There are all kinds of instances where emotions run high: your son or daughter is beaten; a contractor screws you out of your life savings, etc etc.
But we don't stand by while people attack those who wronged them. We don't accept vigilante justice, the justice of the mob.
Yetman
Cheesecar Fucksquad #1
Pingu
Credo
one word... bacon
The Ottoman Empire has also got a lot to answer for, and it was the dominant force in the Middle East for a great deal longer than the British Empire.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
True enough; but he was singling out Western interference in the area.
Thats how I just read that post........I was going to say 'alright alright dont brag'
I had to read that twice to get what you meant
Brubricker
--------------------
They hate it that we're free to do things which offend them. To say that explains nothing is to miss everyone's point on all sides.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
free to do things that offend them?
You mean like dropping 500 pound bombs on their weddings, slaughtering farmers in their fields. Invading and occupying their countries. Razing their cities to the ground. Sexually assaulting their prisoners. Pissing on their corpses. Stealing and settling their lands. Financing and supporting their dictators. Assassinating their citizens. Torturing them. Imprisoning them indefinitely without trial. Drowning their calls for democracy in blood. Arming their enemies with the most powerful weapons on Earth. Starving their children with sanctions. Dropping chemical weapons on them. Slaughtering millions of their people. Forcing millions more into poverty and misery.
Things like that?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
That's where, while I support the magazine's right to publish (I actually think their cover is horrible, mind you, really horrible, especially given the anti-Semitism in France - it looks like a right-wing cunt's thing to do), I don't think they are doing anything important at all. If you publish a satirical magazine, there are far more important subjects to be attacking. This magazine comes across as reactionary and apolitical in the worst way - like Private Eye often is.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
This same magazine which now claims to be defending the right to free expression, actively campaigned for the Niqab to be banned and celebrated it when it was.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Doesn't surprise me. Like I say, I will support their right to publish. But that just confirms my suspicion that they're a bunch of cunts.
Brubricker
--------------------
Well yes, but I'm also talking about things which the protesters actually say they're protesting. We can get all indignant imputing additional motives to these people. We could, on the other hand, refer to their stated grievances, or are those to be forgotten. You scoff at the idea they hate us for our freedoms. I see no reason to scoff at it, even as you attribute all else as causative. Should we not take their words and actions at face value? Why not?
Brubricker
--------------------
-------
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It's bullshit though. They don't 'hate us for our freedoms' at all. Never have. They 'hate us' for the things our governments, and armies, have done to them - which includes the systematic denial of the possibility of democracy, btw. Take the example of Iran - although countless others would serve - who was responsible for that utter cunt the last Shah coming to power? The US and the UK. That's who. Those in Iran, and there are plenty, who hate the current regime also rejoiced when the Shah was thrown out. They don't want the US/UK/West's favoured dictator. And they certainly don't want the US/UK/West attacking them now, whatever their attitude towards the current theocracy.
They 'hate us' for the denial of freedom that 'we' have given them. This 'hate us for our freedom' line is a sick joke.
Brubricker
--------------------
They say they hate the existence of media which our freedoms permit us to produce. They say they want us to censor. Why should we ignore their statements? Egypt has issued warrants for the filmmakers. Why should we ignore that act? Say all you will about imperialism, etc, and I won't deny it, but don't tell me to shut up about the other stuff. Are you willing to deal with the substance of the protests or have you decided you know better than they what really matters in their demonstrations?
Similar threads
